On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 PM, J.C. Roberts <list-...@designtools.org> wrote: > My anonymous friend, you need to accept *PEOPLE* write software. Those > little things like experience, skills, and even personality are present > in the output of programmers.
Of course, but this was about his software, not him, and let's keep it this way. Label me heartless, but in the software world, and the arts BTW, often when a significant work or a body of work is widely used/known the author is not that important in discussions about the work. > Ben Calvert stated "infallibility," so I should have put it in quotes, > or you should read more carefully. I refuted Ben's statement, since as > far as I know, Dan has never claimed infallibility. Unfortunately, by > using "crash-proof" as your description, you are in essence stating > infallibility once again (sigh)... *THAT* is the trouble with Dan's > writing; he expects you to understand that his code should be correct > (and efficient) *WITHIN* certain bounds/limitations, albeit without > stating the limitations. No, not my description. Right from his page: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems "Answer: qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on the BSD FFS and most of its variants." > Dan regularly does great work, and he explains his code operation far > more elaborately than the vast majority of software developers, but if > you keep repeatedly spouting nonsense like "crash-proof" on this list, > then you're just repeatedly asking for an argument that you'll never > win. Please stop. > > -jon
