David Weinehall <email@example.com> writes:
> Wasn't the main reason (apart from the seniority argument) for
> preserving the node name for ax25 to prevent remote unmonitored highly
> important systems from failing?
If such systems are highly important, should we accomodate them
Surely if they are unmonitored, then they are not considered
sufficiently important to monitor. So “highly important” ceases to carry
any weight in such cases. No?
\ “The generation of random numbers is too important to be left |
`\ to chance.” —Robert R. Coveyou |