xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) writes:
> I don't understand why people are not happy with just saying "it is
> the work of hundreds of developers" or some such paraphrase? Why do
> we need to be more specific about the structure of the postgresql
> development community?
In the "long form" version, it provides some reassurance that:
a) It's not some tiny clique vulnerable to the vagaries of one
organization's business risks;
b) It's not _controlled_ by one organization, either;
c) It is also not some sort of anarchy that lets just anyone check in
their favorite security holes.
For the pointy-haired types to whom "risk assessment" is everything,
these _are_ points of some importance.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html
For example, if errors are detected in one of the disk drives, the
system will allow read-only access to memory until the problem is
resolved. This, PE claimed, prohibits a damaged disk drive from
entering errors into the system. -- Computerworld 8 Nov 82 page 4.
