> I wasn't clear, I don't mean you'll do each one as a special snowflake > in-place. I mean, 20,000 machines is simply a lot of machines to > manage. No matter what, upgrading or replacing the OS all within a 1 > year schedule that you do not control and cannot fully predict, is a > big hassle.
Well Unix caters well to changes of hardware so I disagree completely. You can easily workout what data on those 20,000 machines can be done once and copied over and sort out the rest. There are even systems like puppet that will handle imaging and scripting etc. automatically. OTOH reducing staff for 4 years rather than two in a highly competitive hosting market to reduce costs may be important but if they are installing the way suggested then they are far far from that and frankly I wouldn't use them if they are installing like users do for a few machines as that doesn't reflect competence and bad practice shouldn't affect debian's processes so perhaps some more details are required as to why they do things in a way that makes the 5 year cycle matter. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/451.78153...@smtp115.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
