On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:41:40PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> writes: > > > Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for > > preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly > > important systems from failing? > > If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them > remaining unmonitored? > > Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered > sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important” ceases to carry > any weight in such cases. No? >
The systems are not "unmonitored" they are physically difficult to access. One of the tools used to monitor them is connecting to them with the node application. Pat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120508160953.gb28...@flying-gecko.net
