On 2011-01-09 15:37:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Phil Requirements put forth on 1/9/2011 12:48 PM: > > On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a > >> Green (EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates > >> about 10 times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus, > >> concentrate your power saving efforts elsewhere than the disk > >> drive. Buy a non "green" drive, and save yourself these sector > >> alignment/performance headaches. > > > I just wanted to mention that this is a type of faulty logic that > > FULL STOP. > > My logic is not faulty in the least bit, and your examples below are > a bunch of crap. Here's why: all of the excuses you list below are
<snip> Hi Stan, I was surpised that you reacted so strongly, so I went back and read what was originally written, and how I responded. I can now see why my comments were offensive, and so I want to apologize completely. I'm sorry that I made the off-topic and unfair comments and couched it in terms of faulty logic. I think I was predisposed to see your argument incorrectly, and with the volume of the mailing list I was probably reading too quickly. I can now see your point, that energy savings alone are not reason enough to pursue a certain hard drive, especially if that hard drive has problems under Linux. And that if one needs energy savings, it would be better to look at the processor than a hard drive that might cause problems. I usually try very hard to stick to the topics at hand. On this one I went out on a limb and fell off. I think I didn't have an adequate breakfast. Sorry, Phil :c( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110109235341.gc5...@kasploosh.net
