lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: disk-destroyer.c
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:55:17AM -0500, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
>
>
> The fact of the matter is, that it is wrong for a program to
> destroy hardware. It is the kernel's job to ensure that it
> can't. It is pure laziness to ignore the issue.
>
> My feeling is that we should try to avoid all possible ways of
> accidentally or maliciously breaking parts. We can start out
> by fixing the IDE subsystem, and then go on to others. Just
> because other stuff is broken, too, doesn't mean that we should
> give up.
>
---end quoted text---

Well, having worked in hardware design groups for many years, I can tell
you that hardware is not supposed to be damageable by software. The
definitive API is that which the HW *chooses* to export to the software
community. Ultimately this issue is for HW manufacturers to come to
terms with. If consumer HW can be permanently damaged by software in the
field, then the HW is defective. Period. And just because there are bad
designs in the market--does not justify the notion that software
developers are responsible for the problem.

That said, if the kernel can cover for bad hardware without extracting a
performance penalty, then I think it is a viable issue to consider.
Otherwise inform all interested parties of the facts and let the market
forces decide the solution.

c,
--
Karen Shaeffer
Neuralscape; Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
shaeffer@neuralscape.com http://www.neuralscape.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.086 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site