10 years and change/use it or lose it

From: HOTZE <photze_at_batelco.com.bh>
Date: Wed Nov 19 13:22:19 1997

Okay... I started all this stuff... and I'll end it... it *was* a mistake....
but now, at least we know that until something BIG happens, the 10 yr. definition
is safe... but I don't think that anyone (At least I wouldn't) would get really
mad at someone who makes a reference to something new (IE Yeah, the OS A was kind
of like Windows 95), or if they bend the 10 years to 9 1/2, or 9 3/4, or even
call something 10 years old when the technology (Not actual system design) Is 10
yrs old, so forth... or if anyone asks about emulation software for a computer a
made in 1984 for a Pentium PC...

Tony Duell wrote:

> > 1) I vote strongly in favor of keeping the 10-year rule. It's simple, it's
> > hard to start an argument over, and it has worked wonderfully so far. It is
> > a "moving window", but that's appropriate. Time is moving on...
>
> I think the 10 year rule is working well, but that it should continue to
> be treated flexibly. No, I don't want a flood of posts on Pentium PC's
> here, but lets face it - the AMT DAP (Distributed Array Processor) is
> only 9 years old, but it's such a strange machine (NO WAY could you call
> it a PC clone, or an _anything_ clone :-)) that I don't think people
> would mind if they were discussed here.
>
> > it!*") Worse, 5 years from now Tony may have been hit by a truck (er...
> > lorry. and no offense intended, Tony!) and no one will be able to help you
>
> No offence taken - You're correct. I spend a lot of my time working on
> high-voltage systems (both at work and at home - I'm not afraid to dive
> into a monitor or an SMPS). Yes, I'm careful. Yes, I check everything as
> I go. But accidents do happen.
>
> That's one reason why I try to ensure that like-minded people learn how
> to repair/test things without me. If you ask me to fix your PSU, you'll
> get a (probably) polite refusal. If you want help in sorting it out
> yourself, you'll get me digging out printsets (if I have them), going
> through it, suggesting tests, etc. Yes, it does take a lot more time that
> way, but IMHO it's worth it.
>
> > - Mark
>
> -tony
Received on Wed Nov 19 1997 - 13:22:19 GMT