Re: [9fans] compare-by-hash

[northern snowfall <dbailey27@ameritech.net>]

>
>
>It isn't a rant.
>
It's a rant when you assume things that are not proven.

>I'm just amused that people in general
>are often so worried about hash collisions but willing to
>tolerate common software systems which it is painfully
>obvious are far less reliable.
>
Maybe you should be less amused and more realistic, understanding
that most people are secure in what techniques are proven over
time. File systems bound by hashing isn't well known or used by
the majority of people. I think people are just being safe
with their data. When you put people in a situation where their
critical data is placed in an unproved containment facility,
they tend to have questions and doubts. That's nothing more
than survival.

Imagine if the CDC was introduced to a new technique for solidifying
critical germs in vacuum facilities. Don't you think they would
have a lot of questions, doubts and theories as to why the introduced
technique may not work?

>For instance, where I have
>been working recently, people will trust important data to
>file systems that are easily crashed and corrupted, but they
>worry more about sha1 hash collisions.  I find fsck and
>failed disks much scarier since they can and do burn me
>with some regularity :-)
>
Instead of condemning them for their 'worries', maybe you should
sit down with them and discuss in detail the pros and cons of
a hash based system. Allowing for open commentary and assertion
of facts will help you win over most people. They're just looking
for a sense of security and reliability. There isn't anything
wrong with that.

Work with people, not against them :)

Don

>