On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My main point is that this is not proprietary Unix where cost
>virtually ensures only relatively big organizations (the needs of
>smalleer ones could be handled by cheaper systems) use it and thus you
>can design basing on the paradigm the system adminstrator is a
>dedicated one.
>
>Since Linux is cheaper it can go where Unix can't go and constraints
>in smaller organizations are different.
>
>About the hiring of a consultant:
>
>1) What if the nearest one is at 60 miles in bad roads?
>2) What if the user's job could require intervention at 9 pm? This is
>charged extras.
>3) Why the user should pay for what is objectively a design blunder (ie
>designing without paying attention to his constraints)?
>4) Which car would you buy? The one where replacing a punctured tire or
>filling the gas tank requires you pay a trained garagist with special tools
>or the one you can do these things yourself?
You just don't get it. There is _NO_ 100% solution that will
stop every single user from ever experiencing disk corruption,
and hence fsck from needing to be ran. It is impossible for fsck
to automatically repair filesystems 100% of the time in an
acceptable way without manual intervention. Therefore, if
someone can't use fsck, doesn't want to reinstall, and can't pay
someone to fix it for them, then they shouldn't use a computer.
Computers do not just fix themselves. This problem is a very
technical one, and _no_ non technical solution is likely to show
up _ever_. The best possible work around is to avoid
circumstances that result in filesystems becoming corrupt and
requiring fsck. If someone isn't willing or able to do that, or
can't fork out cash to have higher reliability, then they will
have problems period if disk corruption occurs, and they can
complain about it all they like, but _NOBODY_ can _DO_ anything
about it for them. Solving the problem would be more difficult
than curing all known diseases, finding a solution for world
peace, and making sure every human being has three square
nutritious meals a day. The sooner every user realizes this, the
better, because then they can learn to fix things themselves, or
they can reinstall, or pay someone to fix it for them. There is
no other way period.
This is the reality of computing, and is not limited to Linux at
all, nor the discussion at hand. It isn't a programming issue
either. It is a "this is the real world of computing" issue,
where some problems are beyond the range of what automated
computer software can handle. If the software _can_ minimize
trouble, then by all means, it should do so, but if it can't,
then it can't - no matter what we'd like to see. AI can't solve
all computing problems.
--
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate
Copyright 2000 all rights reserved
----------
"If it isn't source, it isn't software." -- NASA
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
