Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751121AbVJXP7O (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:59:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751122AbVJXP7N (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:59:13 -0400 Received: from barad-dur.crans.org ([138.231.141.187]:45775 "EHLO barad-dur.minas-morgul.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbVJXP7M convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:59:12 -0400 From: "Regala" To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , Sergey Panov , Stefan Richter , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , Jeff Garzik , andrew.patterson@hp.com, Christoph Hellwig , "Moore, Eric Dean" , jejb@steeleye.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs) References: <4359440E.2050702@pobox.com> <43595275.1000308@adaptec.com> <435959BE.5040101@pobox.com> <43595CA6.9010802@adaptec.com> <43596070.3090902@pobox.com> <43596859.3020801@adaptec.com> <43596F16.7000606@pobox.com> <435A1793.1050805@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20051022105815.GB3027@infradead.org> <1129994910.6286.21.camel@sipan.sipan.org> <20051022171943.GA7546@infradead.org> <435CE6CA.4070704@adaptec.com> <1130168495.12873.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <435CFA5A.2030104@adaptec.com> X-PGP-KeyID: 0x2E13FCA8 X-PGP-Fingerprint: D41C FC4F 7374 D3FA A121 9182 90AC 62B0 2E13 FCA8 Date: lun, 24 oct 2005 17:59:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <435CFA5A.2030104@adaptec.com> (Luben Tuikov's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:14:34 -0400") Message-ID: <87vezm7vox.fsf@barad-dur.minas-morgul.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1514 Lines: 38 Luben Tuikov disait derni?rement 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/