Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:54:18 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: dmorrisn <dmorrisn@u.washington.edu>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, James Love <love@cptech.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Device Drivers for Linux and Intel's annoucement Message-ID: <4.1.19981002214258.04211690@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <10999.907385320@time.cdrom.com> References: <Your message of "Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:48:17 MDT." <4.1.19981002204214.0420a940@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:28 PM 10/2/98 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >It's interesting that you should say something like this, because I >myself was just puzzling over the great disparity between your recent >postings on the mailing lists (or your usenet contributions) and your >print advocacy. When you're writing for the likes of Sm@rt Reseller, >for example, you seem to understand just fine where the right balance >between passion and logic lies and you generally make a pretty >convincing argument which manages both to be readable and to convey >the information you're trying to impart to the reader. As a body of >communication, what you've done for print journalism has been just fine >and is to be commended. > >When it's time to go home to your PC, however, you apparently drop >your logic cap into a desk drawer and lock the door, off to give the >more passionate side of your nature a turn in the uninhibited disco >lights of various public mailing lists. Not so. In print, I am doing appropriate explanation and advocacy. On these lists, I am projecting trends. And I am stating, quite bluntly, that my minor and little-read recommendations are nowhere near enough to stop FreeBSD's current slide toward insignificance at the hands of the Linux zealots (who have managed to gain the undivided mindshare of such prominent folk as Nick Petreley, Nader's "Appraising Microsoft" team, etc.) >As a journalist, you also already know full well that it's part of >every communicator's responsibility to communicate *effectively*, not >to immediately blame the audience for their inability to convey an >argument, and for every audience there is also an appropriate style. Sometimes, a negative response is proof that one is communicating effectively. If one evokes cries of "No, it ain't so!" from those who are in denial about the situation, it actually means that one is doing a good job of presenting it. >If you're standing in front of 10,000 brownshirts at a Nurenberg >rally, for example, then it's probably a reasonable thing to shout >passionately and maybe spray a little spittle from time to time. Fweeeeeet!! Godwin's Law. 10 yard penalty and fourth down. >If it's your intention to communicate anything more >substantive than "if you see one of my messages, hit delete to avoid >the heat" then I'd say that you are failing to do so. Again, the only people who may feel compelled to do this are those who are in denial about what's going on. >I am willing to be convinced that we can do better with the resources >currently available, but not by arguments which esteem passion over >logic. Logic is important here, and I'm already stressing some logical things that much be done. But logic dictates that passion is ALSO important. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19981002214258.04211690>