Roo wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:29:33 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
It's futile to suggest actually to collect any data on Linux behavior if
there is any threat it might reveal a wart on its nose, because the
suggestion will be rejected out of hand.
You are an idiot. These people have tried to be reasonable with you and
discuss what is wrong with your system. All you've done is make a colossal
arse of yourself. Congratulations... especially on using your real name.
It'll make for interesting googling by your workmates in a few years.
There is nothing wrong with my system. You are addressing the wrong
person on that point. I am not the OP.
One (1) guy has had a problem with his machine overheating when
running Linux, but seemingly not when running Windows.
I suggested that rather than brush this aside, we collect information
which might, just might, albeit with low probability, reveal an as
yet unknown defect in Linux.
Rather than anyone else saying "Well, it *is* highly unlikely, but
it's worth a shot just to try it when we can." all here have pooh-poohed
this idea. It would take 5 minutes to verify that Linux isn't doing
something weird. Then the idea could be discarded. It is interesting,
however, that no one seems to think that even finding out is
worth the effort when it is essentially without cost.
Where I come from (telecomm industry), we always try to garner all
information when we have a chance, if we can do so safely and with
little cost.
One could argue that only one machine is having a problem, so
it is extremely unlikely that Linux is the problem, but rather
the machine. That argument is correct. One could also argue that
this unique case is important because is may be the result of
a defect in Linux which occurs only very infrequently, so it is
important to find out its cause if so. That argument is also
correct. They are not opposed to each other. The deciding factor
is, IMO, the cost of collecting the information.
The absolute most probable thing we would find out is that nothing
unusual is going on. But no one even wants to find out, even when
it costs essentially nothing to do so.
If thinking we should take every opportunity to investigate
unusual behavior for possible defects is being an "idiot", then
every industry in the world which considers availability and
reliability in software to be important is full of idiots.
This includes telecomm, aviation, and power systems at
least. And these idiots are the ones who guarantee that
your telephone provides you with dialtone when you pick it
up, and airplanes don't crash when you fly on them, and
your lights come on when you flip the switch.
I'll side with the idiots on this one.
I'd like to take every possible opportunity to improve Linux
when it comes. Even if the likelihood is very low, if the
cost is nothing, then why not collect the information and
know that everything is fine?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
