On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:38:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly > > > written. Or am I misreading the story? > > > > Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge > > should have been clearer that the issue is the specific data, as opposed > > to generic RAM contents. > > Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consiquences outside of the > original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server > access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that RAM albeit > working memory is no different then other storage and must be kept for > discovery. This is generalized because (as I understand) the defense was > arguing "logs are not turned on -- they do not exist" and that was met > with "of course the running program has this information in RAM and you are > disposing of it" ad nauseam. The only saving grace for the ruling is that > it is not a higher court.
Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that "but it exists only in RAM" is not a defense, and rightly so. Further, the implication for computer and software engineers is that operating systems and applications must allow for persisting discoverable data. That is generally the case, by the way. I don't see the implication that every write to a location in RAM must result in persistent logging, say, nor would all the lawyering in the world make that economically feasible. At the end of the day this order cannot have any significant impact on the industry. Of course, IANAL. Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
