Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:03:34 -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: <199701222003.NAA22069@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970121232443.22102E-100000@maryann.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Jan 21, 97 11:27:22 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. It is ridiculous and ineffective to try to "spin doctor" this way. "Never substitute activity for action" -- Seneca, Stoic Philospher, 1st century B.C. 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?199701222003.NAA22069>