Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on  Tue, 11
Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100:

> Words
> like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily
> to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's.

Yes, but it's a relative thing.  They obviously do what they can with the 
resources they have (are willing to dedicate).  We do the same.  A user's 
single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but 
if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to 
ensure it's safety, neither should we.  No, we don't go around 
purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our 
resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not 
placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a 
question if we will?  The presumption should be actions within the bounds 
of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and 
their distribution, us.  No more, no less.

IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful 
to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave 
accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical, 
seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the 
priority he reveals by his own actions.  And if his actions reveal a 
SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition.  
That's all I was saying.

Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Reply via email to