Bill Bogstad <[email protected]> writes: > I tend to think that way as well, but I have been noticing what I > think is a trend > away from debugging problems and towards just doing reinstalls/restarts. I ... > Unfortunately, I think the skills to do this are no longer being developed > among > new people. Hopefully, I'll be wrong and it won't matter when all > the old timers are gone.
I don't know. I do know of a memory leak and a deadlock problem that have existed for years in a program at work that I won't get allotted time to fix until a customer decides they are critical problems. My feeling is that as long as they're comfortable zapping things automatically and carrying on, they're not going to push to get these type of things fixed (or even report them in other cases I bet), and without a cranky customer my managers won't target the bugs. Maybe most of what people do individually makes sense in their context, but globally this way of operating must help lead to further declines in software quality. Not that their processing should grind to a halt til I fix a bug, but the lack of pain they feel may indirectly lead to no fixes ever, so it's a catch 22. If this were free software I might do it in my spare time, so maybe GNU/Linux/BSD based systems will not suffer quite as badly from this mindset. Some eyeball will eventually go after the problems causing the restarts one would hope. Hmmm, it seems that at least two features of systemd have as motivation, partially at least, handling badly written daemons (starting up as daemon something that doesn't do it right, and restarts). So will more systemd usage bring to life more badly written daemons: systemd as nanny state breeding a weak, coddled populace of daemons? (These aren't my politics I just like the pun.) -- Mike Small [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
