Re: Mail reader
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 02:42:55PM -0600, Gary Hennigan wrote:
> "Joey Hess" <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
> > Gary Hennigan wrote:
> > > I could ask the same question only turned around -- Why use 4 or 5
> > > utilities, with each being a possible point of failure in what these
> > > days has become an important communication medium to most folks, when
> > > one will suffice?
> >
[...]
> You might want to learn a bit about the art of debate or at least read
> more carefully. I didn't say *I* used an "all in one tool" because of
> the possibility of failure at multiple points. It was simply an
> argument in favor of doing so, and a valid one at that, despite your
> use of term "FUD".
You should learn to write more carefully. Your argument implicitly
assumes at most one failure point per utility. Nonsense.
In theory, 5000 lines of code separated into small highly-cohesive modules
(i.e. utilities) communicating through well-defined interfaces (i.e. the
shell environment) should not present a greater probability for failure
at multiple points than 5000 LOC in a single large executable. Indeed,
skillful modularization and interfacing should reduce the number of
failure points as well as isolate their impact on the overall
application. This is basic CS theory.
In practice, we have only to compare all-in-one tools like sendmail and
bind to many-small tools like qmail and djbdns. And don't bother to
debate me on those examples: I manage all four of them on over 500
boxes -- I know which ones yield fewer failure points.
---Michael J. Forster, B.Sc., Software Engineer, Shared Logic Inc.
mike @ sharedlogic.ca, www.sharedlogic.ca/mjf
Reply to: