Comment by lazide 3 days ago Cite? By definition it appears to not meet the definition of ‘functional’. 5 comments lazide Reply coldtea 2 days ago The definition of functional in the context of the discussion is that in works in the way the manufacture explicitly designed it work, in a standard industry practice fashion, not as an unforeseen bug or malfunction.Not some abstract notion. lazide 2 days ago So not enumerating as a drive, and not allowing you to read even valid blocks is ‘working’? coldtea 2 days ago Yes, same as a facility self-destructing, if it was programmed to do so, is working as per its spec. 2 replies →
coldtea 2 days ago The definition of functional in the context of the discussion is that in works in the way the manufacture explicitly designed it work, in a standard industry practice fashion, not as an unforeseen bug or malfunction.Not some abstract notion. lazide 2 days ago So not enumerating as a drive, and not allowing you to read even valid blocks is ‘working’? coldtea 2 days ago Yes, same as a facility self-destructing, if it was programmed to do so, is working as per its spec. 2 replies →
lazide 2 days ago So not enumerating as a drive, and not allowing you to read even valid blocks is ‘working’? coldtea 2 days ago Yes, same as a facility self-destructing, if it was programmed to do so, is working as per its spec. 2 replies →
coldtea 2 days ago Yes, same as a facility self-destructing, if it was programmed to do so, is working as per its spec. 2 replies →
The definition of functional in the context of the discussion is that in works in the way the manufacture explicitly designed it work, in a standard industry practice fashion, not as an unforeseen bug or malfunction.
Not some abstract notion.
So not enumerating as a drive, and not allowing you to read even valid blocks is ‘working’?
Yes, same as a facility self-destructing, if it was programmed to do so, is working as per its spec.
2 replies →