Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:47:35 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation Message-ID: <199701202047.NAA16186@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199701201958.MAA15627@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Jan 20, 97 12:58:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I admit that following pattern-flow logic requires the ability to > > follow patern-flow logic. If you've got it, you've got it; if you > > haven't, it's "tediously unreadable". Like Clifford Algebras or > > Chebyenchev Polynomials. > > Translation: > > Terry: I'm a stud, you're not. Correct translation: Just because the process is convoluted does not invalidate the results. Quit bitching about the process and pay attention to the bottom line, because that's what's truly important. > > 1) Linux has ELF. > > 2) FreeBSD does not. > > 3) ELF is desirable > > 4) Linux is doing something right that FreeBSD isn't. > > Item 4 is *NOT* the inevitable result of 1, 2, and 3. You've forgotten > that ELF was *necessary* in Linux in order for it to get beyond a > certain stage, and it's not (yet) necessary in FreeBSD. ELF was *not* necessary for Linux to obtain BSD-style shared libraries; BSD is proof of that. If you are referring to a different stage than that, then I argue that the same is true of BSD. > Plus, the entire move to ELF was *NOT* done with the users best interest > in mind. If FreeBSD did not move to ELF because it was "protecting" the best interests of its users, then it made an error. A good tactical decision is not necessarily a good strategic decision. FreeBSD's first priority must be protecting FreeBSD's interests; all other goals should be subservient to that. A failed FreeBS can protect no one's interests. User interests must be sublimated to project interests. > - Microsoft has a large number of willing bodies willing to test it's > software for free. > ... > - Microsoft's model must be superior... The model in which testing new features does not interfere with the utilization of old features? In many ways it is. > Hmm, somewhere there is a logic fallacy. The fallacy is that there is not a grand technical design which Microsoft is building toward; if you are looking to advance the state of the art or human knowledge in general, then the Microsoft model does not take that into account. The fallacy is therefore in you ascribing your goals to Microsoft. > Right! > > You want to play stupid word games: > 1) Bill Gates has a couple billion dollars > 2) Terry does not > 3) Having a couple billion dollars is a good thing since Terry > wants to invest in nano-technology > 4) Terry is doing something wrong. > > Terry: But, but having a billion dollars isn't as important to me as > finding good solution to problems, rather than re-using existing > technology. You are ascribing goals to me which I do not hold to be evident. I would be more than happy to reuse SVR4 initd design, for instance, or NT kernel paging, or Windows95 virtual machine technology. It is not I who screams "not invented at Berkeley" at these things. A good soloution often obtains from recognizing that your feet are in fact on a path, and there are in fact footprints for you to follow, if only you will first look for a path once in a while. PS: Bill Gates is investing in nanotechnology. > Judge: Over-ruled, not external stipulations are allowed, you agreed > that having a couple billion dollars was a good thing and *NOTHING* can > stand in the way of you making it your only priority in life. > > So Terry, I want to see you start quitting time posting to the mailing > lists and instead I want to see your name with the likes of Marc A., > Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates in the next year. These people all started from a lucky break; read Robert Cringely's "Accidental Empires" for a history. What "Terry is doing wrong" in your #4 above is not being in the right place at the right time to get hit by lightning. Terry is not a Schnelling point. What "Terry is doing right" is working on modelling lightning so that he can tell where to stand before it hits, and stand there. Eventually, Terry will succeed, because if nothing else, Terry is inhumanly patient; he takes the long view, and this is a long term success strategy. I suggest you read about "The Prisoner's Dilemma" in the book "The Evolution of Cooperation". The optimal success strategy for the game is "modified tit for tat with forgiveness". Provide me with a similar lucky break as the people you mention, without the additional work on my part, and I will be happy to skip the "figure out where to stand" phase, and parley it into billions for investment in nanotechnology and similar transhumanist goals (or send half to whatever other charity you choose). Personally, I believe in a future where the only thing of value is information, and arrangements of matter are only abstract representations of information... my half will probably go toward research in nanotechnology, and fields of study which will result in me staying around to enjoy the fruits of my labor. After all, being human, I have the same wiring for self interest as the rest of the race. I am smart enough that if I could not do it myself, I would get the *hell* out of the way and let someone else do it for me, while I direct the investments and structural boundry transitions, or otherwise contribute however I can. I would not pilot the plane into the ground, even if I had to turn in my pilot hat. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701202047.NAA16186>