THE most STABLE OS in the World?

[gore]

So I was watching a DVD. It's called "20 Years of Berkeley UNIX".

http://bsdmall.com/historyofunix.html

Something he mentioned which made me think was "In Europe they were running a dialysis machine on Unix and I could only flinch picturing it doing a Kernel dump while some vital task was being done"..... And someone in the crowd asks him if he would trust an open source Unix for this task rather than Unix... He said if his other option was NT then yes.

This made me think about something. All OS wars aside, if YOUR LIFE depended on a computer running an OS, what OS would YOU want it running?

Obviously anyone answering wants to think this over for a while. Now, pretend all of this depends on the OS because the application itself was written VERY well. So the only thing to worry about is OS stability.

So here is the question:

What OS do YOU trust your life on? Any OS at all. From DOS - Windows Server 2003. BeOS, MacOS, MacOS X, BSD/OS, 386/BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux (Which version + why)....

I'm wondering what people are going to say here really, but also, I'm wondering who can answer what the most stable OS in the World is. I'd really like to know. Even if it's not Linux.

Just remember this, if the OS crashes, you put your life on the line. So what is it? I'm sure waiting for the Windows Zealots of AO to reply, I REALLY want to see what you'd pick.

Now I just got home form the bar, and a show on TV about Haunted places is on so I'm going to watch that. When I get back I want some replys by people who are willing to discuss why they picked an OS they would trust their own life on.



If this was me and I had to pick a few OSs I KNEW wouldn't crash, here is what I pick:


SUSE Linux Enterprise (Even when I TRIED to make it crash, it wouldn't)

Slackware Linux (Same thing I can't get it to actually crash)

FreeBSD (The only time I've ever seen BSD crash was on my screen saver)

BSD/OS (See above)

Trusted Solaris and or Solaris 10 (Yea no one saw that one coming huh?) (I don't think Solaris HAS crashed, and come on, Solaris is BSD made proprietery anyway)



OS I would NOT let run this:

Windows 3.X

Windows 9X

Windows NT

Windows 2000

Windows XP (There are un-used icons on your deskt----------- BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP-----------)

DOS anything

Mandrake Linux (Linux may be just a Kernel and Mandrake is just as much Linux as what I wanted picked, however Mandrake is NOT as stable as my two picks)

Fedora Core (I wouldn't let this thing run my email)

Gentoo Linux (I don't need to die because Open Office, KDE and Gnome are compiling in the background)

RedHat Linux (I don't want up2date warning me of an update when the processor needs to be used for ME)

Linspire

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what's the most stable OS on Earth?

[morganlefay]

FreeBSD was my intro to unix.........and vi...........aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

Once you got it going......yeah it was stable

It is a very basic os.....then you configuer it....and you better know how to do it...or it becomes...unstable :cool:

Windows XP (There are un-used icons on your deskt----------- BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP-----------)

I hate that thing!!!!

Its the friggn pager clip come back to haunt us

My point.......depends on the admin.....and apps\hardware...monitoring to make and keep an OS stable

Trust my life on an OS........guess it depends on the admin ;)

MLF

[Tiger Shark]

I will _always_ maintain that the _most_ stable OS ever is a mans mind....

_Prove_ me wrong.... :)

[The Grunt]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=274278#post892198) by Tiger Shark
I will _always_ maintain that the _most_ stable OS ever is a mans mind....

_Prove_ me wrong.... :)

Give it 20 years and I will :P

[gore]

Two things:


What admin would you hire when your life depends on a machine running Windows ME? Hmm? Yea, not all in the admin now is it ;)


Tiger I'm going to kick your ass. If you want to reply stay on topic for once. A mind isn't a computer OS.

[gore]

Need to add to something:

For this discussion, before it's killed off by one of the zealots of whatever camp they come from saying "That's bullshit and the whole thread is a ploy to say one OS is better than another"....

I want people to list an OS in a hospital running ONE app, the whole server was never configured, the app is running on it's own. There is no admin. So the OS must be stable out of the box for THIS. If you'd like to list stable OSs that are stable after configuration OK too, but for right now, out of the box.

Not sure of configuration is really an option though, Windows doesn't let you play with the Kernel. The Kernel is where stability is really at sort of.... Ah hell, play along.

[HTRegz]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=274278#post892202) by gore
Need to add to something:

For this discussion, before it's killed off by one of the zealots of whatever camp they come from saying "That's bullshit and the whole thread is a ploy to say one OS is better than another"....

I want people to list an OS in a hospital running ONE app, the whole server was never configured, the app is running on it's own. There is no admin. So the OS must be stable out of the box for THIS. If you'd like to list stable OSs that are stable after configuration OK too, but for right now, out of the box.

Not sure of configuration is really an option though, Windows doesn't let you play with the Kernel. The Kernel is where stability is really at sort of.... Ah hell, play along.

Sorry Gore,

But this time I just can't agree with you... you can't have a discussion like this because it would never take place... this is beyond hypothetical..

Hospitals don't just run an OS... Sure their desktops may have Windows... (I've seen plenty that still have DOS)... Anyways.. they don't take an OS out of the box and run it... no one would be stupid enough to do that..

Take your pick of OS..

SuSE (which I ran for two years straight without another OS), Ubuntu, Gentoo, Slackware, RedHat... what are they really... they're apps.. driven by the Linux Kernel (which is the OS)... That kernel may be driving a medical device with software on top, but you can be damn sure it's tested and configured properly..

The topic is just wrong.. "The most stable OS in the world".. it doesn't exist... the stability of an OS is put into question based on the hardware you install it on.. As I've said before, many times, Windows ME is a hated piece of software... I ran it for 8 months 24/7 without any problems.. I crashed XP more in my first month than I ever had with ME... You can claim stability in an OS... you can claim proper architecture... but that's it.. too many other factors come into play... Environment (You could give me an OS you claim is completely stable... a couple hours in a sauna and it'll crash... it may not be the fault of the OS.. but who says every crash is the OS's fault)... Hardware... A crappy power supply will cause crashes... OS stability cannot be questioned independantly and definately not in the manner that you're presenting.

Most hospital record programs that I've seen are still DOS... it's all they need.. the software was developed back then and still works reliably for them... updated hospitals are moving to Windows... For mission critical devices.. you can be damn sure they're customized out the wazoo and are usually embeded systems... Small pieces of custom code sitting in the firmware...

I think that this question is nothing more than the usual which OS is better debate... it definately wasn't the best way to approach this..

Peace,
HT

[rcgreen]

What's wrong with Dos? Dos 5.0 is perfectly good with a stable app.
Dos never crashed. It was the apps that crashed.
:cool:

[HTRegz]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=274278#post892209) by rcgreen
What's wrong with Dos? Dos 5.0 is perfectly good with a stable app.
Dos never crashed. It was the apps that crashed.
:cool:

There's nothing at all wrong with DOS... I wasn't implying a change should occur.. just that they work well.

[gore]

Lol HT if you had to agree withme every time we had a discussion you'd get pissed quick lol. Remember our swap VS Virtual memory of Windows chat?

Anyway, I'll try to find a way to get this DVD to you so you can watch it. The thing he said was what really made me wonder if someone's life was on the line what they'd use. That was all. I really wasn't trying to make anyone say an OS is better.

[MS_Security]

in the very unlikely event that a general purpose operating system separated me from death i suppose i would want qnx neutrino. ideally i could have someone like lockheed-martin or boeing develop an operating system specifically for whatever life enabling role much like the operating systems they use for their airplanes and air traffic control systems.

eros or coyotos might be good also but i think i would stay away from research projects.

at any rate i would completely avoid monolithic operating systems because i would hate for solar flares or cosmic rays or god knows to cause corruption on the system that results in a driver crash.

[nihil]

Well,

I would say VMS still has its supporters:

http://www.techweb.com/wire/26803586

Although I don't recall having problems with Solaris, on a smaller scale.

:)

EDIT: RISC still has a lot of usage with embedded systems as well.

[.:front2back:.]

howdy.

Just to be different, i'd say Alinux would be my 0s of choice to keep me alive. I've got a box that's running it, and it was up for 5 1/2 months before it went retarded.
And that was only because the power went out, and the UPS didn't kick in. :(

front2back

[Nokia]

Windows ME to keep me alive i thinks!

Then when it crashes and kills me, my family get to sue good ol' Billy G for millions!! ..........................And I get a really expensive coffin I suppose!

[Tiger Shark]

A mind isn't a computer OS

Hmmm... Now lemme see...

A computer works because of a series of elecrical impulses....
A brain works because of a series of electrical impulses....

A computer boots and sets it's systems through BIOS that manage the hardware
A brain's BIOS is the subconcious automatic management of the body, (heart, breathing etc.)

A computer can manipulate data
A brain can manipulate data

A computer can store information for future reference
A brain can store information for future reference

I'm beginning to see a pattern... brains and computers are very similar...

But brains are more powerful when it comes to processing huge amounts of varied information and solving a problem... In order to manage all that information there must be an OS of sorts even if it is not in your "traditional" sense...

In short... You don't trust your life to a traditional computer that is unmanaged... You trust it to one that is managed... By a brain... because the brain's OS is superior...

[morganlefay]

I happen to agree with Tiger .....

The mind is the ultimate computer.....

I have never run ME....I have worked on them..

I would never run it....I have a 98 machine my kids use...pre -owned IBM hardware....

the hardware is about 5 years old...

:Original install...the thing has run solidly..and continues to.

I had a 14 year old IBM monitor I lost in a flood..it still worked....I think it was 13" or something....I couldnt see anything though so I had to stop using it :rolleyes:

My point is...............I think the most stable OS would require solid hardware

and a great admin :D

MLF

[Nokia]

And - a person with a brain.....well...designed and compiled the OS in the first place! Take the human brain away - there is nothing to dream up the OS, hence No OS!

[Tiger Shark]

Nokia:

You think too traditionally... There isn't a box - therefore there is no need to try to think outside it... ;)

[Nokia]

Ive just been killed by Windows Me remember.

[Tiger Shark]

That's quite understandable....

Now you have a box... a nice pine one... :)

[Nokia]

LOL, yeah courtesy of Bill!

[gore]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=274278#post892232) by MS_Security
in the very unlikely event that a general purpose operating system separated me from death i suppose i would want qnx neutrino. ideally i could have someone like lockheed-martin or boeing develop an operating system specifically for whatever life enabling role much like the operating systems they use for their airplanes and air traffic control systems.

eros or coyotos might be good also but i think i would stay away from research projects.

at any rate i would completely avoid monolithic operating systems because i would hate for solar flares or cosmic rays or god knows to cause corruption on the system that results in a driver crash.

It's like catch came back for a visit lol. Are you by chance related to him or him?

Nokia your box doesn't have to be oblong ;)

[sec_ware]

Hi

I think that MS_Security made a very valid point.


All OS wars aside, if YOUR LIFE depended on a computer running an OS, what OS would YOU want it running?



If the asset to protect is a human life, money is
a vague issue. I ask myself: where I am confronted
with systems which have to be designed to protect
my life. Three examples: traffic lights, elevators and
airplanes.

None of these run on a windows or *nix-kernel, I
guess, except maybe on products of a few small niche
players. Anyway, there was once a rumor about Schindler
elevators running on a Windows 98 kernel ... :)


Boeing, as well as Airbus use INTEGRITY-178B[1], which
is designed to reach a high assurance level (EAL 6+).
I am not an expert, but experts say that it is
impossible to evaluate such a high level if more than
a few thousand lines of code are involved. Certainly,
there must be some design element in INTEGRITY-178B
(e.g. secure partitions). Since I am a frequent flyer,
I seem to trust this OS :)

In Schindler elevators the control system is Miconic.
Other than in airplanes, where the weight (and thus a
hydraulic redundance system) is a factor, elevators
can implement at "no cost" an hydraulic failsafe system,
thus, the assurance of the control system is not that
relevant (a high-assurance watchdog seems sufficient).
As a comparison, the Boeing 777 still has a few hydraulic
backup subsystems, while the Airbus products are plain
fly-by-wire (if I recall correctly).


I would not trust my life to any Windows or *nix-based
system. However, I feel that is is possible to strip-down
an open-source *nix-based system such that it will run
on one particular set of hardware with a well-defined
functionality ...but, can this still be called a "*nix-based
system"?


Cheers


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B (and references therein)

[RoadClosed]

I was going to mention airline OS systems and software considering I was listening to a speaker last week talk about an unintentional hack at boeing and them having to spend 70k to inspect the code, even though the hacker never touched it, he used their system to hack some court records. Completely closed and simplified. One of the most stable and simplified OS I know of is the flight computers on board the space shuttles. The older ones especially. The didn't even use magnetic memory. It was an etched metallalic drum. :D

[Lv4]

chaOS

My friend wrote that a few years back and the boxes that it has been running on have never crashed (once development/testing stages were over).

For readily available, or previously readily available, OS I would go with something like OS/2 Warp... USPS still has some of them running and they have been running for years (6+) with no down time. Perhaps VMS, or AIX. Sinux is also a choice.

Nothing that MS makes though.

[RoadClosed]

I have an OS/2 box that works fine. As long as you never turn the modem it needs off. ;) It can't figure out it's there without a reboot.

[SirDice]

One OS I've always loved and still use every now and then for ol' time sake... AmigaOS... Small footprint and rock solid..

32 bit pre-emptive multitasking when PCs were still at the 16bit cooperative multitasking windows 3.x.. 20 years later and it's still actively being developed.. AmigaOS 4.0 was released not too long ago :) Unfortunately none of my Amigas can run it :( Does anybody want to give me a PPC board for a 1200 or 4000? :D

[cacosapo]

What OS do YOU trust your life on? Any OS at all

So what's the most stable OS on Earth?

Talking about General Purpose Operating Systems (not medical, air plane, rocket control, etc), i still believe in Big Blue : Z/OS 1.4 running on a Z/Series Mainframe :)

http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/integtst/mission.html

[RoadClosed]

AmigaOS 4.0 was released not too long ago Unfortunately none of my Amigas can run it Does anybody want to give me a PPC board for a 1200 or 4000?

HAD NO IDEA the Amiga was still in dev. Sweet. The Amiga blew the shit out of any PC back then. So why did it die? Lack of open connectivity etc. Like Apple. It was a tough switch when i bought my first VGA capable PC clone.

[gore]

I found something today that I'm adding here. Why? Well read it and find out:


http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6246/1/

Seems Linux IS in fact used on heart machines where someone's life IS at stake.

ZING.

[sec_ware]

Hi

This is a nice example, however I have to emphasize that
the device in question is used to retrieve and analyse
data from ICD's and pacemakers, and to make programmatic
changes to them. Linux is not running on ICD's and pacemakers
themselves.

The choice for linux does, however, show other advantages
of linux[1]:

According to an IBM spokesperson, IBM selected Linux
"because of its availability of rich open source applications,
and its ability to meet certain real-time response requirements.
Cost also played a large factor, as well as access to the open
source community for support (versus depending on a single company
for support)."

The IBM spokesperson added, "Linux provides complete flexibility
to modify the way we want to run the OS."


If cost is so much of an issue, I am wondering how critical this
device actually is (see above) :)


Cheers


[1] http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2024685245.html

[gore]

Lol, the idea is the same though. Stream lining has always been a strength of *NIX based stuff

[Negative]

If being used on devices where someone's life is at stake is a characteristic of a stable OS... doesn't the Navy have a bunch of carriers running Windows? :)

[gore]

Yea, that's why their Blue Screen of Death generally means the ship itself is sinking ;)

Wollt Ihr das Bett in Flammen Sehen? :)

[preacherman481]

Do you want to see the bed in flames?

[MsMittens]

Gore, when you started this thread were you just considered desktop, general usage; secure server usage or general server usage (whether enterprise or smaller)? I ask because I've recently come to really be impressed with ESX 2.5.x (although 3 will come out and life will change all over again). I know of one client who has had his ESX server up for over 800 days (rather impressive for a system connected to SAN and running other OSes on it).

[gore]

MsMittens:

I'll say anything goes on the fact that there are, as it seems anyway, a lot of OSs I've never heard of being mentioned.

And you know me, heh, Show me an OS I haven't used once and find me a copy to play with.

ESX for example I just heard about today from you. Another one is from HP which I had never even heard of. I was looking over some stuff and saw HP talking about their High availability systems and servers and they run a Custom Kernel I'd never heard of before.

Obviously I can't use it here, I have PCs only, and don't have the cash to spend on a box like that. Not only do I not run anything that would need that but the money issue is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28operating_system%29

I've heard of this before, but again, I haven't been playing with it.

Something not on Wiki, is the DOS from the 1960's. I've yet to find much info on it. I only know it existed. Microsoft took the name for MS-DOS and PC-DOS.

[nihil]

Hey, gore what about the RISC OS?

Gets used (even today) for embedded stuff? which is what I expect that life support is mostly about?

I do like VMS.................. but I am an old fart :D

[roswell1329]

I have absolutely no experience with it, but I hear good things about MacOSX. Not advocating...just mentioning.

[Trevoke]

Inferno, eh? Sounds neat. I'll play with that when I have some time.

[Vorlin]

I would have to say, if my life depended on the OS staying up without fail, to the degree of 99.99999% of the time, I'd go with the following:

Slackware: similar to gore, can't get it to actually crash.

As far as corporate OS', there's only one real answer I think I'd go with.

Solaris 10: with zones and containers and the 128-bit zfs filesystem (no, the z no longer stands for zettabyte, per Sun at the bootcamp I was at), virtualization is at a whole new level not to mention in cooperation with SPARC hardware, the 4 threads per core makes for great performance.

What I wouldn't run it on:

Redhat anything...
Microsoft anything...
Gentoo...dumbed down linux IMHO.
Mandrake...RH clone IMHO.

[zodiac]

What? No mention of OS/2?

When I worked at IBM supporting it (OS/2.1 thru OS/2 Warp Server) the OS was very stable. There were no virus' that I can recall.

Its downfall was lack of sufficient marketing, lack of support by IBM, and MS' marketshare.

We had a lot of big companies using it, including the FBI.

Not to mention, a lot of banks ran some flavor of OS/2 on their ATMs.

Now, most (all?) run some flavor of Windows. Not too stable. I've had a couple crash on me and reboot when trying to get money or deposit.

Fortunately, when that happens the ATM kicks the card back out!

[roswell1329]

Another OS to mention when it comes to stability and security is MPE/ix. Most financial institutions STILL run much of their mission-critical applications on MPE. Personally, I can't STAND it. The interface blows goats, and you need to know COBOL to get anything done in it. However, if it just had to RUN, I might bet my life on a properly configured MPE machine.

[MsMittens]

However, if it just had to RUN, I might bet my life on a properly configured MPE machine. (emphasis mine)

This, I believe, is the punch line for any stable OS: is it properly configured on approved hardware? When the mix is high, makes it hard to stabilize. An OS by itself isn't a true indication of its stability when you have to consider other factors like various hardware, etc.

[gore]

For hardware? Now, this is of course because I only have PCs, but... Why would hardware matter at all? Obviously you don't want cheap hardware that fails, but a properly cooled system running Free BSD and another running Linux, and another running Windows NT, I can be pretty sure in that the first two won't go down until the hardware dies.

Remember, Microsoft back in the day said Windows NT should be rebooted for leaks to be fixed every 30 or 60 days.

That is one reason why I don't count on Windows for stability. XP might be somewhat btter as is 2003, but still, these are all based on NT and so is Vista. I just can't put my life on the line on something when 30 - 60 days after it came up it needs a reboot coming from the company who made it.

When I think stability, I think *NIX.

As has been pointed out, I've never once seen Slackware or BSD crash, and I've never seen SUSE crash and actually need a reboot. I've had core dumps, and I didn't need to reboot even for that. Actually MsMittens I think you were in the thread, I had a core dump from a floppy drive. I didn't even need to reboot and the box kept going.

Core dump = in Windows, Blue Screen. Blue Screen in Windows = Reboot.

Just to keep this going good:

I want to add some twists for people who've replied already and anyone who hasn't:

Say for a minute that the OS in question must run on PC hardware. What's it going to be?

For another one, say it can run on a Server... Now what's it going to be?

Now pick one that has to run on Sparc hardware.

And now pick one no matter what. You pick Hardware and software.

The OSs I chose all run on each of these, so I don't need to count another answer.

I can't say who or where, but I know someone who's runnign SUSE 9.3 Professional on a Mainframe right now. They say it's stable as crap too. RedHat runs on the same machine and uses twice as many resources, and the system load almost doubles.

That's why I said no RedHat with MY life on the line.

SUSE, Slackware, FreeBSD, Solaris. :)

[Trevoke]

Because I know it best, I would use Gentoo.
It runs on many, many platforms, and it is truly stable. It just provides you with a lot of freedom to break things (like giving you GCC-4.1 on an ALPHA box), but that doesn't mean you have to use it. Likewise, because I can compile things and update portage doesn't mean I will.

The only issue is that there is no real 'out of the box' Gentoo... As it requires some configuration. Still, once it runs, it doesn't crash unless I force it to (which usually requires some acrobatics).

[gore]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=274278#post904817) by Trevoke
Because I know it best, I would use Gentoo.

Lol, now this is just a guess, but when you go under the knife, I REALLY doubt they are going to wake you up like "Hey man, don't move your chest is open, but how do you restart an app on this thing?". lol.

[Trevoke]

*chuckle*
But it really doesn't crash once it's installed.. :-)