Bill Hacker wrote:
> Dan Melomedman wrote:
>
> >You don't see the point. It takes a long time to fix the fault. BSD has
> >nothing to do with this. The real world does. You don't want a nuclear
> >reactor to explode because it took an admin five minutes to notice the
> >fault, and restart the service.
I've never attempted to lecture anyone, just show a point. I apologize
if it ruffles your feathers.
> It could be considered rash to presume to lecture the former Deputy
> Battle Staff Commander, New York NORAD Air Defense Sector, on managing
> nukes safely. I never lost a one.
>
> Stop there, or go and google the warshot yields of GENIE, Nike-Hercules
> (improved) and BOMARC.
>
This is completely out of context. I only mentioned nuclear plants and
telcos to show why supervising a service is important. This wasn't a
discussion about what NORAD, military, or you personally did to run
such systems. I don't have any personal experience with those systems,
but I do want to supervise software under Unix, and just wanted to show
why. You could easily replace 'Nuclear Reactor' with 'Website' in my
former message, and the point is the same, really. A website, for some
people is mission critical too. The point about Erlang is
it's nice to see a language that attempts to give a programmer fault
tolerance, and from all I know that particular switch is a very
successful product, but that's beyond the point.. If a Unix tool can
do something simple, like restart a service when it goes down, why not?
No need for the 'I've been there done, that, you are an idiot' type of
remarks.