Re: Proving or Debunking the need for rebuilding

hpuxrac wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > We are using rule.
> >
> > WTF? Are you sure? Why?
> >
>
> This guy was very honest about volunteering the information that he
> shared.

That's a good thing, I agree. I suspect you may be overestimating the bravery involved, if the person hasn't been through the various catfights the subject has engendered.

>
> There are still a ton of shops out there running rule. My shop isn't
> one of those fortunately but really don't be surprised about how many
> are still out there.

I'm not, I've forced a couple of places off it by sheer power of personality, or more honestly, mulishness :-)

>
> The are you sure and why comments make sense. The first one is perhaps
> a little strong.

I didn't really intend it any stronger than my actual reaction. You should see what I deleted before posting :-)

I'm not the only one who saw 9205 and maybe the bit about validate and just assumed not-rule. Of course, it may yet not be rule. Hopefully the OP understands when cbo overrides rule. Even knowing it for a long time, I still managed to shoot myself in the foot with it at times. We still haven't seen any plans in this thread.

Personally, I think the OP has demonstrated that rebuilding works for his situation, the "why" is just gravy. Very interesting gravy, granted, well worth straining.

>
> If you are going to nominate all the sites that are still running rule
> to the oracle wtf then you better get busy.

OK, I hereby nominate all sites that are still running rule and all vendors saying they require it to the oracle wtf.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.humor.funny/msg/91e98ee0002586a6?dmode=source&hl=en