Linux is not reliable enough?

[Oliver Korpilla]

Mészáros Lajos wrote:
>
>Yes, 'C' is unreliable because writing beyond the "maxindex" lets
>you overwrite other's data, other's code and DOES make backdoor for
>viruses.
>
>On the other hand testing every index every time for min and max slowes
>the executing.

QNX does not, and Linux does not, and with both C is as unreliable as ever.

However, a failure in a QNX in the driver level is not as potentially
malicious as in Linux. While this does not exclude failure, and does not
say a thing about the actual quality of QNX or Linux code, it's a nice
_additional_ feature related towards stability.

I guess Linux lacking proper certification for some applications is a
much bigger obstacle in the minds of managers, anyway.

But somehow this is getting offtopic, quickly, isn't it?

With kind regards,
Oliver Korpilla

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/