On Thu, 16 May 2019 01:22:14 +0200
Oliver Schad <oliver.schad_at_automatic-server.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 13:22:48 -0400
> Steve Litt <slitt_at_troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>
> > The preceding's true for you, but not for everyone. Some
> > people, like myself, are perfectly happy with a 95% reliable
> > system. I reboot once every 2 to 4 weeks to get rid of accumulated
> > state, or as a troubleshooting diagnostic test. I don't think I'm
> > alone. Some people need 100% reliable, some don't.
>
> That is a strange point of view:
Not strange at all. In a tradeoff between reliability and simplicity,
some people will sacrifice some off the former to get some of the
latter.
> there might be people who doesn't
> need computers at all. So we shouldn't program anything?
The preceding analogy makes no sense in the current context.
> So if there
> are people outside who needs a higher quality and Laurant wants to
> target them, then he needs to deliver that and it makes sense
for Laurant to program to their higher standards because that's what he
wants to do. It would also make sense for somebody to make something
simpler, but with lower reliability.
> argument with that requirement.
I don't understand the preceding phrase in the current context.
There's a tradeoff between the product A, which has the utmost in
reliability and a fairly simple architecture, and product B, which is
fairly reliable and has the utmost in simplicity. In contrast to A and
B, there's product C whose reliability is between A and B, but which is
much less simple than A and B. Then there's productD, which is
unreliable and whose architecture is an unholy mess. When viewed over
the entire spectrum, the differences in A and B could reasonably be
termed a "family quarrel". Absent from the entire discussion are people
who don't need A, B, C or D.
SteveT
Received on Thu May 16 2019 - 01:07:17 UTC