C bug causes double panic

[David Schachter]

In article <13866 at rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh at rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>The 80286 does have problems.  I doubt that a fully functional and
>robust operating system for an 80286 can ever be had.  The chip
>is brain dead and a waste of good silicon.  Various modes of failure
>cause the program to be completely aborted, and if that program
>happens to be your operating system, tough luck.
>...
>Others of us are disgusted with bogus hardware.
>The 80286 is such an example of a total loser implemented on silicon.
>...
>Intel created the 286 to keep programmers humble, not to be used
>for anything productive.

Um, you are incorrect.  Daisy Systems has been shipping DNIX, a somewhat-Unix-like
operating system since 1985.  DNIX is robust, very fast, and has had support since
Day 1 for multiple windows, networking a la NFS with automount, loadable/sharable
libraries and device drivers, and bitmap graphics.  It runs on PC-AT class machines
quite nicely.  Oh, and it supports virtual memory with demand swapping.

User program faults cause the program to be killed and an error message printed
in the window where the program was started.  Your claim that the 286 isn't to
be used for productive work will come as a surprise to the 10,000 or so users of
DNIX.

The 80286 doesn't implemenent as nice an architecture as a 68000 or NS32016.  But
is is a lot better than the PDP-11, which is what the chip was modelled after (as
well as upwardly compatible with the 8086/8.)  The chip was NOT designed with
UNIX in mind.  At the time it was designed, UNIX was not a clear winner.  Nor was
PC-DOS.  The design was well underway in 1982.  What CPU were you using in 1982?
How much did it cost?  I am willing to bet a very small amount of money your CPU
was either a lot more expensive than an 80286-based computer or a lot less power-
full.

I should know better than to reply to articles when I'm furious.

					-- David Schachter

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in Intel or its competitors.  The
success or failure of the 286 is not related to my success or failure.  Un-
warranted attacks on computer architectures offends me.