Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:54:19 -0600 (CST)
From:      Duo <duo@digitalarcadia.net>
To:        Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay
Message-ID:  <Pine.OSX.4.61.0503221106150.23402@valkyrie.local>
In-Reply-To: <a44e8b1d23bc412823c0f654ac384afa@chrononomicon.com>
References:  <423E116D.50805@usmstudent.com> <423EEE60.2050205@dial.pipex.com> <eeef1a4c0503211224572d64e4@mail.gmail.com> <eeef1a4c050322010021fd8eb4@mail.gmail.com> <eeef1a4c050322014420d89861@mail.gmail.com> <c112a9a423c9f4a9702d0e1f959e7b59@chrononomicon.com> <a44e8b1d23bc412823c0f654ac384afa@chrononomicon.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:

>>> ... you simply refuse to believe the possibility that something could
>>> have been wrong but NT didn't *TELL* you about it, and then want to
>>> launch into an attack on the OS in a list where people are running
>>> FreeBSD quite happily on a wide range of hardware.
>> 
>> If no data corruption occurred, there was nothing wrong.  If NT doesn't
>> have to tell me about it, neither does FreeBSD.
>
> That's an interesting philosophy.  I already posted about Linux messaging 
> that the controller was in need of constant resets.  The drive was *FAILING*. 
> NT didn't say anything.  If you like sticking your head in a hole then go 
> ahead and comment out the code that give the error and all will be well. 
> Most UNIX people like having diagnostic errors in the logs to troubleshoot 
> things.

And, herein lies the main and core behavioral issue at play: He is upset, 
because he is used to a system, which is more apt to fail "open", than 
fail "closed".

And, this POV, is sadly all too common in the FUD Farms that grow windows 
zealots. Unfortunately, this behavior is also close minded, and very prone 
to unprofessional behavior.

The mere fact that NT is failing "open", if it were me, would be reason 
enough to question the hardware. I would trust the BSD team, more than 
Microsoft, on this, because, Microsoft has a *fact verifyable* history of 
allowing things, both though ignorance, and by design, to fail "open" 
rather than closed. Their goal is to maximize the number of people paying 
them money. To make things "easy". And, in doing so, sometimes forget that 
"easy" does not equate with "right" or "correct".  The open source people 
are more concerned with quality. *ESPECIALLY* in the area of kernel and 
driver level code.

You dont just wake up one day and decide to write device drivers for an 
open source project. You have to be a special kind of nutcase, a special 
kind of crazy. =)

But, in the end, the mere fact that NT, and indeed, I have seen similar 
behavior in Server 2003 and XP. Any system that fails "open" is far more 
suspect to me, than one that fails closed.

> *sigh*  they were offering assistance in the form of "when I had a similar 
> problem, I tried X, and it worked...try X."  You tell them they're idiots. 
> Now, I can't imagine WHY people would get a bad impression of you.  This is a 
> free list for trying to help people.

Precisely. He has champaign tastes, and beer money. But, nonetheless, 
people are *still* trying to help him. I too, am a sucker for strays. =)

>>> Something just intuitively tells me that at this point you're more
>>> concerned with pissing people off to make a point.
>> 
>> No, although I do get tired of talking to people who sound like they're
>> still in grade school.  I'm accustomed to working with professionals,
>> and professionals address the problem, they don't shoot the messenger.
>
> Really?  I'd didn't get that impression after a few ad hominem attacks on 
> people in the list.

His "professional" status, to me, is tantamount to a high school boy 
bragging about sex. And, you know what they say about that:

The ones who talk about it the most, get it the least.

All in all, Bart, I have to say, every time I think he might be starting 
to "get the picture", he reverts, and says something that makes me just 
*boggle*. I have no problem with intelligent debate. I just dont care for 
condecending attitudes.

My main point in this message is to simply point out, that, this is a 
point of view argument. Of almost religious proportions. But, sad to say, 
Anthony has it wrong. The religion here is not Windows vs. FreeBSD. It is 
not Open Source, vs. Proprietary.

The religious argument going on is: who is to be trusted, a system that 
fails "open"? And indeed, while failing open, neglects to tell you 
something that could turn out to be critical? Or a system that fails 
"closed"?

My experience, my training, and my cluepon of the day tells me to distrust 
a system that fails open. I wish alot more people understood this concept. 
=)

--
Duo

Although the Buddhists will tell you that desire is the root of 
suffering, my personal experience leads me to point the finger at system 
administration.
 	--Philip Greenspun



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSX.4.61.0503221106150.23402>