winscape 2370
Yes. If it doesn't happen, the open source isn't working. Aw, hell, TOPS-10 bias alert! I think both are needed. I'm not sure this top...
Of course it's a "should" :-). But TOPS-10 was seriously way ahead making that "should" a reality.
That is one of the things that SMP did--provide more than one data path from each CPU to all devices; we had severe limitations like only two ports to each disk drive. Hard-software is never going to be perfect nor failure-proof.
This may be the next big thing in open source. Although it may be easier to address it at a...
TOPS-10 allowed FS to take pieces of gear off-line, including a whole CPU with various pieces of disks, comm, and magtape devices without crashing the OS. After the gear was physical taken off line, the OS would then resume timesharing. A great part of the suspend process was "moving" users off the gear you wanted to take stand alone without their knowledge. Most of the usage didn't give a poo about where the computing was done, just that it wasn't interrupted. One thing they did care about is if they had a private disk structure mounted on a drive that had to go off-line. We hadn't designed a way to move the physical disk without the user having to do something.
Then they certainly don't want to pay for the software to make glitches completely invisible to the computing usage.
BAH
Alt Folklore Computers from Newsgroups