On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:20 -0400, Chris Mauritz wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:00 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > > > >> <snip my blather> > Well, technology marches on. These days, it's extremely cheap to throw > hardware at the problem. It really wasn't that long ago that a gig of > RAM would have cost a month or two (or more) of a typical admin's > salary. :-) I can't tell you how many times I've marveled at that. And I've had to make decisions using that guideline too many times to suit my "old school" "craftsmanship" mentality. But it does say something (and I'll not get into that as I have nothing original there, I'm sure) when folks with 9ms HDs, DDR RAM in the GB range, CPUs at 3+GHz, GB networking, SANs, NASs, ... etc. still complain about lack of responsiveness, inadequate load capability, etc. Just proves ol' Albert right, "Everything's Relative". Anyway, regardless of cost, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". And the good solutions that allowed a blending of excellent code and human decision-making and use of external factors, is ignored. And so, as I pointed out (apparently to the irritation of Rodrigo), the discussion goes on for more generations. Look at the upside of a *possible* POV that only code is needed. If that is carried to the extremes in all possible areas, lots of admins are unemployed to the benefit of business. So they won't ship jobs to low- wage third world contries anymore because there won't be any need for the jobs. The computer will do it all. > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
