<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Technology Faith</title>
	<atom:link href="http://citrixblogger.org/2008/07/28/technology-faith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://citrixblogger.org/2008/07/28/technology-faith/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 11:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: http://jonathanc.myopenid.com/</title>
		<link>http://citrixblogger.org/2008/07/28/technology-faith/#comment-1347</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[http://jonathanc.myopenid.com/]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://citrixblogger.wordpress.com/?p=285#comment-1347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome back Jeff!

The problem with faster computers is that they crash faster ;-)

Most of time the ability to recover or continue depends on the actual breakage.  For example, if the handle of your coffee mug is broken, you (the human brain that all machines need to mimic) can still continue to use the mug if you don&#039;t mind lukewarm coffee.  However, if the coffee mug is shattered, then your option is pretty much limited.

There has been quite a few discussions around whether crashing is a better option than to try and recover and continue, and particularly interesting from the security perspective.  A couple of links below, but there are plenty more I am sure.

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2008/05/01/resilience-is-not-necessarily-a-good-thing.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/07/26/there-are-things-worse-than-crashing.aspx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome back Jeff!</p>
<p>The problem with faster computers is that they crash faster <img src='http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Most of time the ability to recover or continue depends on the actual breakage.  For example, if the handle of your coffee mug is broken, you (the human brain that all machines need to mimic) can still continue to use the mug if you don&#8217;t mind lukewarm coffee.  However, if the coffee mug is shattered, then your option is pretty much limited.</p>
<p>There has been quite a few discussions around whether crashing is a better option than to try and recover and continue, and particularly interesting from the security perspective.  A couple of links below, but there are plenty more I am sure.</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2008/05/01/resilience-is-not-necessarily-a-good-thing.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2008/05/01/resilience-is-not-necessarily-a-good-thing.aspx</a></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/07/26/there-are-things-worse-than-crashing.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/jmstall/archive/2007/07/26/there-are-things-worse-than-crashing.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

