From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 20 21:11:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA27288 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA27244 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA19124; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:08:11 -0800 (PST) To: Terry Lambert cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:34:50 MST." <199701201834.LAA15733@phaeton.artisoft.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:08:10 -0800 Message-ID: <19120.853823290@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Articles of more than five pages should be required to come with an > > abstract... > > Abstract This has to be one of the more blatant subject hijackings I've ever seen. I think Joerg was talking about abstracts for magazine publication, not more pulpit pounding over our organizational structure. Since you seem to be so motivated to change things, however, rather than just advancing these byzantine and ultimately useless statements of the obvious (Readers Digest version for those who have fallen asleep at this point: "I think you're doing something wrong, my ``evidence'' clearly shows it, stop doing that") why don't you instead try and suggest practical solutions? You say we're too ossified yet you also agree (I hope) that quality control and not letting just any CS undergrad who only learned to spell "C" last month hack the kernel code is a good thing. What system would you propose in its place? If this system also involves that additional tools be implemented, an indication of your willingness to write those tools should the proposal be accepted would also be apropos. Otherwise, enough about the social organisms already. We don't need Darwin standing around arguing the evolution of our structure or its inevitable decline should it not adapt (the nature of those adaptations being, unfortunately, left undescribed). If you want to help, try to be more the practical engineering type who says "Well, I don't really know how long this thing will last, but if you put a little glue over there and erect a supporting column here, it will stand up for at least another 5 years." He may not have a set of clever predictions for where we'll be in 10, 25 and 100 years like the Darwin guy, but he can help us stay alive another 5 and that's all that really matters right now. Sometimes you really do just have to take care of the present first. Jordan