On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 at 11:05 -0600, Lars Rasmussen wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 at 13:22 -0600, Lars Rasmussen wrote: > > > Are you inferring that NICs are as prone to failure as power supplies? > > On 7/23/05, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Facetiously. I know NICs are (or at least should be) more reliable than > > power supplies. > > So we agree?
We agree that power supplies fail statistically more frequently than NICs. You (or someone, I can't remember) think that NICs aren't worth making redundant because they never fail - that's what I don't agree with. > > I don't really care how power supplies compare to NICs, the point is > > that NICs fail. Even more important, switches fail, switches lose power, > > cables between switches and servers and other switches fail, and dumb > > system administrators accidentally unplug cables. I'm quite sure all > > those problems combined are more frequent than failing power supplies. > > This last statement is a good example of the 'Hasty generalization' & > 'Appeal to authority' logical fallacies. I disagree. My original facetious comment was a hasty generalization, that's what made it funny. Ok, so you're not laughing. I don't see anywhere above or in the thread where I appealed to any authority but my own. I admit to not having done a scientific statistical study, but it doesn't take a study to recognize that NIC connectivity loss happens. -- .O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est. ..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach --------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
