4 ms·
The unspoken implication here is that 99% reliability is considered bad. This may not be clear if coming from a different field where 99% sounds pretty good.
by momzer 11y ago
The unspoken implication here is that 99% reliability is considered bad. This may not be clear if coming from a different field where 99% sounds pretty good.
- sageikosa 11y agoRight. 99% is an A+ in school and 3 days of downtime per year.
- marcosdumay 11y agoThat's about the reliability of my home server. A set of commodity mid-to-low quality parts that I assembled and programmed to turn on after a power outage. And I could easily double it (as in half the unavailable time) if any ok ISP become available at my place.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hyperpape 11y agoGood point. I had assumed the parent was complaining about syntax, but that could be confusing.
- dfc 11y agoWhen you say 99% is bad, are you making a normative or positive statement?
- hibbelig 11y agoI don't know what positive and normative statements are, but think of examples of highly available services. Electricity, Water, phone service. What do you think when those are down 3 days (or 72 hours) per year?
- momzer 11y agoI'm saying that the author believes 99% reliability to be “Bad (TM)”. Further evidence in the second paragraph of this post: http://danluu.com/broken-builds/ http://danluu.com/broken-builds/ I didn't say that this is a normative viewpoint in engineering or whether I personally agree with it. As you can see from other commenters, many do hold this view. A sometimes opposing philosophy, however, is “release early, release often” which many open source projects adhere to.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]