Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61263
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? |
| Date | 2024-11-23 11:12 +0000 |
| Organization | A little, after lunch |
| Message-ID | <vhsdbi$1m6qu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <lIqcnTlkpf_Jtd36nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> <vhp9hs$12qaa$2@dont-email.me> <v4adnSK1nItcwNz6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <vhrolu$1jata$1@dont-email.me> <Oo6dnZb3z-NT6Nz6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
On 23/11/2024 06:27, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote: > > I know it CAN handle BIG transactions. > > But SHOULD it ? > > This is maybe a "philosophical" matter ... > *Should* is an interesting word, used today in enormous quantities, to justify actions. It is a nasty little fella, because its roots like in the language of debt - both physical and moral - and obligation. And whilst it seems to not overtly contain such elements, implicitly it does. Do if I say 'you *should* do this, there is an implicit quality of (unspecified) goodness and badness and obligation on you in doing it or not doing it. Unless you prefix it with a conditional like 'If you want to get to Rome, you should take this road' there is the implicit conditional of 'if you want to be regarded as a good and holy person' you should take this road. > I'm still of the crap CPU/Mem era ... always look > to minimize/simplify. Well yes, but we have gigabytes of RAM these days. You have to look at what your are doing, what you are trying to do, and what resources are available, to do it with, how long it will take and what it will cost. This is standard professional engineering philosophy. It is also officer class military procedure - a pragmatic approach to achieving well defined tactical and strategic objectives. You cant ask 'should we' in isolation. Only in the context of the above. -- The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-18 01:20 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-18 10:13 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-19 21:57 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-11-20 10:01 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> - 2024-11-18 09:27 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-18 09:54 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-18 10:46 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-18 09:45 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 02:05 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 10:12 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-21 21:55 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 03:12 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 06:09 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 06:37 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 07:02 +0000
Named pipes vs. Unix sockets (was: Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 07:29 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-22 08:38 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 09:37 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-22 10:00 -0500
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:52 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-11-22 17:06 -0500
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 00:42 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2024-12-03 05:23 +0000
Re: Named pipes vs. Unix sockets Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 06:20 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:11 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-23 03:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-23 04:28 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 04:50 +0000
Pipes v. FIFOs (was: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2024-11-26 14:21 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-22 10:04 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 01:44 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-22 06:49 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-22 23:44 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 05:19 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 01:27 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:41 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-23 14:39 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202411.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2024-11-23 22:32 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:11 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 22:04 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 00:11 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-23 11:12 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-23 21:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-23 19:42 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-24 02:03 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-11-24 15:48 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 16:56 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-11-24 19:14 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-24 20:32 +0100
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-24 19:36 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-20 00:22 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-03 01:19 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 06:49 +0000
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-12-04 01:10 -0500
Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-04 06:45 +0000
csiph-web