From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 21 20:27:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA11481 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:27:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from po1.glue.umd.edu (root@po1.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.44]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA11476 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:27:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from maryann.eng.umd.edu (maryann.eng.umd.edu [129.2.103.22]) by po1.glue.umd.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA05054; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by maryann.eng.umd.edu (8.8.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA22172; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:27:22 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: maryann.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:27:22 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@maryann.eng.umd.edu To: Terry Lambert cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation In-Reply-To: <199701220141.SAA20620@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > 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". Yes, our development is much more controlled than Linux's is, but putting further controls on it is going to magnify the perception of FreeBSD's tighter control. It doesn't matter if the end effect is more or less freedom, the perception is the only thing of importance. We have the "perception of thought police", yes, so we shouldn't move towards making that perception stronger. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------