Re: Why i??? NEED YOUR INPUT

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Things could always be worse.
> I prefer that things be made better.

  And indeed things could always be [done] better.  But always 
consider that there is a cost to improvements; i.e. there is 
something commonly referred to as "the law of diminishing returns" 
which applies.  FWiW the "IPL to recover" was only for the SWA of 
object(s) that were under the failing SWA.  Circumventions of saving 
without SWA or to effect delete+restore of the object(s), were both 
available options to postpone an IPL indefinitely.

> I could give lots of
> analogies but we'd really start getting off topic fast.

  "but...", so true.  I would give consideration from the 
perspective of the OS and the associated costs to provide 
alternatives, whereas your perspective would surely represent a 
/user/ of the system, presenting idealistic views of what is 
desirable.  While I consider myself better than many [OS 
programmers] at understanding the view of various types of users of 
the OS, I will likely never sanction any /theory of panacea/ with 
regard to various failure recovery within an OS.

Regards, Chuck