On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 12:03:53AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:47:27PM +0100, Moritz Schulte wrote: > > The point I try to make is that it's imho better to let the user > > decide what should happen in such a situation and give him at least > > the chance to get control over the situation back. > > That is because you use your system interactively. But there might be no > user around to do anything, or the system might be in a state where no > action can be contributed by the user (because everything that could get > user input has just broken down).
Can't we make this a configuration option? > Of course, we really have to look at the specific case, there is probably no > blanket statement for such things. All errors that can be recovered from > should of course not cause instant server death. And for a specific case different things should happen on a server than on an ordinary workstation. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg03124/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
