Re: MONITORING

gOn Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:29:47 -0000, "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>To mis-use the quotation:
> "Publish and be damned"
>
>The oinly way we improve our guesses is
>to hear other people who have differing details
>from different experiments.
>
>I've just spent 3 days lecturing an audience that
>included Steve Adams, James Morle, Anjo Kolk,
>Stephan Haisley, John Beresniewicz and Bjorn Ensig;
>and I learned several very interesting details by saying:
>
> "When you do X, you observe the following anomaly
> appearing on your system. But I can't explain why X
> makes this happen."
>
>Inevitably, someone from the audience would immediately
>say - "That's because .... "
>
>
>This lead to an interesting 'Oak Table' discussion
>(still ongoing) about the concept of building a
>website dedicated to reproducible test cases.
>Basically it would contain a number of SQL scripts -
>each one describing a test designed to measure,
>or investigate, some feature of how Oracle works.
>
>Inevitably the test cases would evolve as more
>people used them, and enhanced them to push
>the boundaries of their understanding - inevitably
>some conclusions from the results of test cases
>will be wrong. But if you don't start somewhere,
>you don't get anywhere.

I know, I know. That actually is my general philosophy. In these two newsgroups, id est c.d.o.misc, and c.d.o.server, I see that while many qurestions gets asked, only some are answered. I would have to assume that most people don't bother reading most questions.

In fact, there must be a filtration of messages based on what the responder wants to answer. I fear that if I start talking like I know, and then I inadvertantly make it obvious that I don't, my erstwhile status will have been lost, and people would be less likely to respond to my questions. So, I feel it somewhat practical to keep quiet and let the "experts" do the talking.

Does that make any sense?

Brian Received on Mon Jan 28 2002 - 08:22:42 CST