[rescue] ECC [was: Re: WOT: Ebay changes to IBM from Sun E10Kservers?]

[Joshua D. Boyd]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 02:03:22PM -0500, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Joshua D. Boyd wrote:
> 
> > No, I think most home users who do work other than games (say, email,
> > writing reports, databases to manage workflow, etc) still don't care
> > that much.
> 
> Tell that to Ellen Feiss.

True, there is that.  Except, was that really her story, or was it made
up?  
 
> Now, just to show that I'm not biased, if you pay out the ass for a good
> PC, it's going to probably be stable, barring shitty software.  The
> OpenBSD system I have at work has been up for three months without a
> complaint.  My PC at home, which I built on the cheap, crashes every two
> or three hours; this would be why my Mac and my Octane get used for
> actual work, and my PC gets used to play MP3s, render MIDI, and play
> games.

Or if you pay a moderately high amount for an old stack of quality
parts.  The octane certainly is nicer though.
 
> > They walk into a local computer store because they feel more
> > comfterable doing so,
> 
> Which is why I bought my car from a local dealer.

I bought my car from a friend.  I wish I could say it's been trouble
free, but it hasn't been.  But the trouble has been caused by other
sources. 
 
> This is only part of the problem.  The bigger part of the problem is
> that PC users are conditioned to think that computers are unreliable.
> Computers are "supposed" to crash.  That's "just something they do".
> Computers "get slower" as they age.

Well, there is that too.
 
> The industry is scum, and the only people screaming about it loudly
> enough are Steve Jobs, whose computers aren't in Joe Sixpack's budget,
> and Linus Torvalds[0], whose software isn't typically a good fit for
> someone who just wants to play games and watch porn, anyway.

> [0] He has a terrific rant on the perceived unreliability of computers
>     somewhere.  I should see if I can dig up a URL.

That would be interesting.