Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> writes:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:49:04AM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>>
>> > But leaving these two general remarks aside, I don't quite understand
>> > what you wanted to express.
>>
>> That "freedom of choice" is very important - as demonstrated by two
>> posts setting out the reason why (for the poster's situation) the
>> correct option is both one way and the other way. Ie one poster has
>> set out why *for him* not respawning is the only correct way, while
>> the other has set out why *for him* respawning is the correct way.
>>
>> So any system that enforces one or the other, or makes it very
>> difficult to change, is *wrong*.
>
> Exactly. That was exactly my point. I thought it ws more obvious than it turnned
> out to be.

There is no such thing as a 'correct' disaster recovery strategy
('correct' has a very limited meaning when applied to software,
basically "behaves as documented when used as described"), that's
obviously a policy choice and what precisely constitutes a sensible
policy depends on technical and non-technical factors.

But nobody disputed that.