David Weinehall <t...@debian.org> 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 remaining unmonitored? 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 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k40n75sr....@benfinney.id.au
