[distcc] load management

Dan Kegel dank at kegel.com
Mon May 3 04:36:52 GMT 2004

Martin Pool wrote:
>>That sounds like the way Microsoft thought when they were designing
> There's no call for that sort of language. :-)

Yeah, sorry, I knew I was hitting below the belt!

> I think what you have is just timidness, rather than well-founded
> concern.  

Probably.  As long as the user has to affirmatively give
an option or use a special command to get the sticky daemon,
it's probably ok.

> Where is the hole?  Or, in what way is automatically starting the
> daemon when an option is given any different from starting it
> manually?

People don't like it when you do things behind their back,
that's all.  (I especially hate library functions that
silently create threads.  I may be projecting here.)

- Dan

My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change

More information about the distcc mailing list