Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:41:26 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation Message-ID: <199701220141.SAA20620@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970121193435.2287F-100000@professor.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Jan 21, 97 07:37:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > A weighted democracy would be one open-ended growth soloution, as > > long as parametric changes could be made within the system. I have > > suggested this before. A trivial napkin drawing version: > > This would so overcomplicate things that you would virtually guarantee no > new members joining FreeBSD. Word of this would get around, most likely > with appropriate scare stories, and folks would avoid the groups like they > were plagued. It wouldn't matter if this actually was workable or not, > the perception of thought police would be too strong. The "perception of thought police" is what we have now. What percentage "Linux vs. FreeBSD" usenet posts from the Linux side of the fence have claimed "FreeBSD has closed developement"? How can "thought police" have an effect in a machine-arbitrated environment? The point of machine-arbitration is the elimination of the possibility (and as a side effect, the perception) of "thought police". "We have always been at war with Microsoft; USL is our ally." 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?199701220141.SAA20620>