Xref: utzoo news.sysadmin:1448 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:5341
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!ucbvax!agate!garnet!weemba
From: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: "Morris did it"--the new excuse?
Message-ID: <16965@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 14 Nov 88 14:31:08 GMT
References: <978@hub.ucsb.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Followup-To: news.sysadmin
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 29
In-reply-to: hbo@sbphy.ucsb.edu (Howard B. Owen)

In article <978@hub.ucsb.edu>, hbo@sbphy (Howard B. Owen) writes:
>   Scientists at my site know that computers and networks go up and
>down.  Nevertheless, they tend to depend on both to get their work
>done. One group here does a lot of montecarlo type work. They use Cray
>time at SDSC. If the internet link is down, their work stops.

So the work stops.  Is this something that happens once every four
years?  No.  So I don't understand why you bring this up.

>							       Without
>supercomputers, and the high speed networks to connect them, a lot of
>physics research simply wouldn't happen. It doesn't matter that
>computers aren't 100% reliable; they are the only tool for the job.

Again, what's your point?

>   While I agree with the idea that tool reliability should be
>carefully considered when undertaking a job, I don't think failure to
>do so contributed greatly to the damage done by the recent
>unpleasantness. The blame for lost computer time and disrupted research
>lies not with unreasonable expectations on the part of users, but with
>the originator of the worm.

Again, what's your point?  From the user's point of view, it's always
one reason or another why the computers/networks are not available a
certain XX% of the time.  Every time they go down, do your users hunt
around for "whom" to blame?

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720