Re: [MI400] How does this software work??

[Gary Guthrie <garyguthrie@xxxxxxxx>]

The bottom line is this...

There are circumstances where I think it's justifiable to use unstable
(i.e., undocumented, unsupported, ...) practices to achieve a goal. That
having been said, it's far MORE important to understand that there are
circumstances where it is strictly unjustifiable.

It comes down to risk analysis. If it's a reasonably meaningless event
should the solution no longer work, then you might be safe. With respect
to the type of things we're talking about here, I think it's quite a
different story.

In a production environment, performance is critical to operations. If
it wasn't, why would anybody even be talking about, much less
considering, the product of discussion? Because of this critical nature,
businesses find it imperative to have predictable performance. Indeed,
many businesses expend considerable resources in both the financial and
manpower arenas to maximize in an ensurable way their performance
characteristics.

This long-term predictability is far more important to the business
concern than is merely enhancing performance characteristics. A STABLE
business far outweighs a fast business!

On a side note ... Regarding the discussion of "watching out for PTFs
that might render the product useless"...
I've worked very closely with PTFs for a couple of decades. Indeed, I've
made them a large part of my career. I think I speak with authority when
I say that the type of scrutiny necessary to avoid this eventuality
would be extremely burdensome, if even possible. The manhours required
to micro-manage PTFs in such a fashion would likely be a big number.

Anyhow, I gotta go. I just wanted to see how the business concern
stacked up against the technical concern and legal concern.

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Baby...