> On Mon, 10/19/09, John Williams wrote:
> >> Never underestimate the power of human error. As this
> >> debacle demonstrates.
> > (me, IIRC) Which particular debacle would that be?
> I was referring to the Sidekick debacle:
> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Microsoft-Claims-Side
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Deborah Harrell
wrote:
>> From: John Williams
>
>
>> Never underestimate the power of human error. As this
>> debacle demonstrates.
>
> Which particular debacle would that be?
I was referring to the Sidekick debacle:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireles
> From: John Williams
> Never underestimate the power of human error. As this
> debacle demonstrates.
Which particular debacle would that be? We gotcher health care, Afghanistan,
Eyerak, and balloon boys...
Take yer pik!
Debbi
Whaddya Expect From A Family On "Wife-Swap" Twice? Maru
Julia wrote:
> (Jo Anne -- a RAID is a Redundant Array of Independent Disks, where the data
> is stored on multiple disks and checked for accuracy on some regular basis.
> If one drive goes down, either the data should be duplicated somewhere, or
> there should be enough information stored on anot
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Bruce Bostwick
wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Max Battcher wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2009 0:38, John Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Er. In that sort of a situation, I myself would set up a RAID for
>>
On Oct 18, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Max Battcher wrote:
On 10/18/2009 0:38, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Julia Thompson
wrote:
Er. In that sort of a situation, I myself would set up a RAID for
storing
the data, *much* less chance for losing it.
RAID does not protect
On 10/18/2009 0:38, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Er. In that sort of a situation, I myself would set up a RAID for storing
the data, *much* less chance for losing it.
RAID does not protect from rm -rf / , which (some variant of) is my
guess at w
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
> Er. In that sort of a situation, I myself would set up a RAID for storing
> the data, *much* less chance for losing it.
RAID does not protect from rm -rf / , which (some variant of) is my
guess at what happened. Although now they are sayin
Er. In that sort of a situation, I myself would set up a RAID for storing
the data, *much* less chance for losing it. I'd just do that anyway. In
fact, the computer that's still in a box and is destined to replace the one
I'm using right now has a RAID, because I seem to have a knack for
catastr
Bruce Bostwick wrote:
Part of my concern with the concept in general is the fairly glaring
admin/management deficiency described in this article:
http://dailyqi.com/?p=10576
I've been avoiding most articles on this subject because there is a lot
of FUD out there and very little real truth. S
10 matches
Mail list logo
