Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Norton Go Home (Revisited)
Message-ID: <26480:Apr1622:26:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 22:26:20 GMT
References: <191@bria.UUCP> <1081@keele.keele.ac.uk> <1991Apr16.182050.2028@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 14

In article <1991Apr16.182050.2028@odin.corp.sgi.com> rhartman@thestepchild.sgi.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
> My main point had to do with the recognition that any persistent
> condition that allows users to lose important data is either an
> implementation bug or a flaw in the design.
  [ ... ]
> IMNSHO, there are a lot of very brilliant
> people out there with blinders on when it comes to this particular
> point.  I honestly don't understand why that is.

Probably because nobody knows how to make the system distinguish between
important data and unimportant data. The only hardware that can satisfy
your requirements---i.e., that does not let users lose data---is a WORM.

---Dan