Carl: > First, in defense of AltME: it DID NOT crash. The Linux hard disk crashed. > AltME is an extremely stable and trustworthy product, even as a 1.0 product.
That's a bit like saying "it wasn't the car that broke down, it was the engine that failed." I'm not too concerned about which part of the system failed. I'm not even worried that a part of the system failed. Systems are fallible. But it's amazing, in the 21st Century, that a single point of failure led to data loss. It could have been a brilliant marketing exercise in the power of X-internet products: "Within 12 hours of restoring from a 6-week old backup, all users where completely resynchronised and up-to-date. Nothing was lost because the system is not dependant on a centralised server for data recovery". It seems likely that Altme either does not have such a capability, or the way it was deployed on REBOL.net made it impossible to use such a feature. Either way, the important question to ask is: "What needs to happen to ensure there will never need to be a REBOL4 world following a system failure?" Until that question has been answered, using Altme seems a dangerous thing to do for any communication of any value. >From the blog: >. In fact, because AltME messages are copied to your local disk, > nothing important was lost. What about access to those messages for someone discovering REBOL for the first time tomorrow? And I do think it is important when, trying to recall an earlier thread, I now have to search up to three separate Altme worlds. That's fragmentation, not integration. Sunanda. -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
