Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 05:19:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: dhw@whistle.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nfs exported FreeBSD cvs repository, mounted on client, update problems Message-ID: <199805190519.WAA29227@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199805182001.OAA25464@mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at May 18, 98 02:01:54 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> When correctness involves human behavior, you can't optimize for it, Yes, you can. > nor guarantee that it will always work. You can constrain the cases that don't work to procedural pathways that result in your goals being met (at least eventually). > In other words, trying to gain 100% computer correctness is a bad > thing when 5% of the time the incorrectness is due to human error It's precisely the cases where human error is possible where you need to build procedural contraints to forestall the incorrectness. Would you settle for 95% of the CERT advisories handled, with "only" 5% of them falling through the cracks? This is exactly analogous, because in both cases the PR result is that FreeBSD looks bad. > (and unavoidable given the current resources) What resources do you think are needed? Give me your list; you already have mine... 8-). Maybe your list can be satisfied; there seems to be plenty of "new blood" recently; I'm sure they'd let you use them constructively. > then it makes no sense to try to optimize any more past that > point. Ever read "Insanely Great"? Or Demming's "Out of the Crisis"? Or "Total Quality Management"? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805190519.WAA29227>