[clug] Dangerous Dave's talk
bryan at netspeed.com.au
Thu Mar 5 06:19:02 MST 2015
> I think a more engineering approach is to assess the risks (write them
> down), and then attempt to mitigate/cover those risks one by one,
> assessing them for strengths and weaknesses.
This is what a professional is supposed to do.
> Pretty boring, but quite likely to give the best outcomes in the end.
However, I have seen even qualified people behave in an unprofessional
> For each 'solution' element, what are the risks that it covers, and
> how well?
Where requirements are hard--they get circumvented!
> Are there better ways to do the same thing?
Whereas education/training is supposed to bring people up to scratch.
> Are the risks real, or just 'tin foil' material?
Apes are very bad at working with risk/probability!
> Are they practical?
Can the automation do well--what the flesh is distinctly clumsy at?
> At what 'cost' or level of difficulty, etc
Value judgements are vague and changeable.
More information about the linux