On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:42:07PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ben Calvert <b...@flyingwalrus.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does? > >>> Reliaibility-wise? > >>> > >>> "qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on > >>> the BSD FFS and most of its variants. " > >> > >> Nothing is crash prof. Can you please stop making these retarded > >> statements? You are making a fool of yourself. > >> > >> If software people weren't so dangerous they'd be adorable. > > > > I don't think this is an original sentiment. > > > > I think he's quoting DJB's faq. > > Yes. Sorry if that was confusing, I thought quotes were enough. > > > > it's still an idiotic sentiment, but it does serve as a warning that his > (DJB's) software should be treated with great care. > > Hmm. Not sure I agree. All he's saying is that qmail is designed to > use FFS's atomic update stuff, and aims not to lose messages. Doesn't > mean it's bug-free.
And how does it ensure the hardware does what is says? In a timely manner? Hoe does it know? Oh wait, it doesn't. I design all my code to not lose data too. Someone call the press apparently I am on to something ground breaking.
