From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 26 16:13:32 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A997216A4CE for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.blarg.net (floyd.blarg.net [206.124.128.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6E743F85 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:13:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abowhill@blarg.net) Received: from kosmos.my.net (12-230-212-176.client.attbi.com [12.230.212.176]) by mail.blarg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC666383DB for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from kosmos.my.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kosmos.my.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAQCD5j1057010 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:13:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kosmos@kosmos.my.net) Received: (from kosmos@localhost) by kosmos.my.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAQCD5Ou057009 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:13:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kosmos) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:12:59 -0800 From: Allan Bowhill To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031126121259.GA56415@kosmos.my.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <20031028004319.GF1004@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20031125072702.GG340@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20031125064404.GA38625@kosmos.my.net> <20031125193010.GB67289@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20031125094426.GA39119@kosmos.my.net> <20031125222426.GA3585@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20031125152800.GA40176@kosmos.my.net> <3FC4B45F.4080409@potentialtech.com> <20031126065109.GD55245@kosmos.my.net> <3FC522BB.6040703@potentialtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FC522BB.6040703@potentialtech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-URL: http://www.blarg.net/~abowhill/ Subject: Re: Bug in ports howto question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:13:32 -0000 On 0, Bill Moran wrote: :>My point was the skills themselves technically are exclusive to :>one another. Not that someone couldn't have both. :... however, if you aren't aware of the fact that you contracted yourself :there, :then you don't understand what "exclusive" means. If the skills are :exclusive, :then someone can _not_ have both. If someone can have both, then the :skills are :not exclusive. Perhaps I should have used the term "exclusive of" one another. In the purest sense, one does not take into account the other. If there are exceptions, this is not a problem with "exclusion". It is a problem with the definition of system administration or the definition of programming. :>:Does this make sense? :> :>Sure. A terrorist philosophy is in opposition to a pacifist philosophy. :>I agree. But I am not saying systems administration is in opposition to :>programming. : :Opposition is not the same word or concept as exclusion. OK, point taken. I used the wrong word. :>Unlike terrorists and pacifists, they can certainly complement one :>another. : :Then they are not exclusive. For goodness sake, please check out m-w.com :or any dictionary you have to hand and correct your understanding of this :word. Definition 1: (hyperstat online) Two events are mutually exclusive if it is not possible for both of them to occur. For example, if a die is rolled, the event "getting a 1" and the event "getting a 2" are mutually exclusive since it is not possible for the die to be both a one and a two on the same roll. The occurrence of one event "excludes" the possibility of the other event. Definition 2: (Webster's online) Main Entry: mutually exclusive Function: adjective Date: 1874 being related such that each excludes or precludes the other ; also : INCOMPATIBLE If I am engaged in programming during any instant in time, it precludes me from doing system administration for that instant. I cannot do both at the same time. It is not possible. One displaces the other. Therefore, they are mutually exclusive activities, as performing one excludes performing the other at any given instant of time. However, it does not mean they are incompatible in the overall sense. Just that they have exclusion at the time that one or the other is being performed. Programming and system administration are complementary areas of knowledge. One enhances the other. So, they are not incompatible. I disagree with Webster's synonym for "mutual exclusion". I think "incompatibility" does not carry the meaning of "mutual exclusion" Incompatibility implies mutually exclusive events cannot work together harmoniously. For example, if I have two dice, and need to roll a 5, there are four complementary possibilities for this to occur: 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 1 Each dice rolled, represents a mutually exclusive event. Yet these events can coexist harmoniously, yielding a 5. Likewise, if I am writing a document, I can draw from programming knowledge, system administration knowledge etc, while I am writing. However, documentation is exclusive of programming which is exclusive of system administration. When I document, I can enhance my writing by drawing from programming knowledge, but I am not doing programming. Yet, the areas of documentation, programming and system administration are all compatible and complementary. -- Allan Bowhill abowhill@blarg.net November, n.: The eleventh twelfth of a weariness. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"