Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Bravo This is not a really convincing example... -- Mathieu Segaud - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
