[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)
    Luben Tuikov <> disait dernièrement que :

    > On 10/24/05 11:41, Alan Cox wrote:
    >> On Llu, 2005-10-24 at 09:51 -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
    >>>controls and how. Understanding how the factory workers use it and what
    >>>they expect. Understanding the code (which may not be as easy). Then it
    >>>is rewritten so that it can be easily supported and maintained.
    >> Very very rarely, because it means down time and supporting two systems
    >> at once. Take a look at the australian customs fiasco or the british
    >> passport office disaster to see why (actually almost any large
    >> government IT project where politics dictated 'write new stuff so I can
    >> announce it in parliament').
    >> The smart factory update would occur piece by piece. Starting with the
    >> most pressing problems (ie fastest ROI) and working to a plan that ends
    >> up with the system modular and clean.
    >> You don't turn a steel plant off for a software upgrade.
    > There was 0 (zero) effective downtime to the factory.

    but refactoring can be done in incremental pieces, can't be ?
    rewriting it from scratch is, in this very case, really for the sake
    of self-pride and brain-masturbation.

    This is not a really convincing example...

    Mathieu Segaud
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-24 18:01    [W:0.064 / U:42.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site