From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 27 00:14:02 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 1126E16A4CE for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD23743F85 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:14:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hAR8DsC9092969; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:13:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031126061611.GC55245@kosmos.my.net> References: <20031027223648.GC1004@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20031028000708.GA52155@kosmos.mynet> <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> <20031126061932.GA9451@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20031126061611.GC55245@kosmos.my.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:34:57 +0100 To: Allan Bowhill From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org 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 08:14:02 -0000 At 10:16 PM -0800 2003/11/25, Allan Bowhill wrote: > You are changing the meaning of my statement and arguing against it, > pretending I said it. You are creating a straw man. No, he's not. You took a definition that based on events and applied it to a completely different situation (skillsets), and then tried to continue to use the same term. Use the right term, the right way. > Now we get to the real reason for your attack. You have an expanded > view of systems administration to include programming. There are some aspects of systems administration that share a great deal with programming. In those cases, whether you're doing "systems administration" or "programming" depends on on the broader context in which you are performing that action. > My position, correct or not, is that systems administration and > programming are two fundamentally distinct and exclusive areas. Wrong. They have a hell of a lot of overlap. There are some areas which are unique to one particular area or the other, but there is more overlap than not. > To tie this back to the original argument, I think the perception that > they are one in the same has led to unrealistic expectations on the Unix > front, that developers should also be expert systems administrators. Or vice-versa, that you all systems administrators should also be expert programmers. I agree with this conclusion, but I disagree with the way you have gotten there. > To have robust 3rd-party development, one should not expect all > contributing programmers to have advanced system administrative skills, > because such an expectation would be self-defeating. Also agreed. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)