Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:01:31 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in ports howto question Message-ID: <3FC522BB.6040703@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20031126065109.GD55245@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> <3FC4B45F.4080409@potentialtech.com> <20031126065109.GD55245@kosmos.my.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Allan Bowhill wrote: > On 0, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote: > :Allan, > : > :I'm not sure if your understanding of the term is wrong, or your > :understaning > :of programming/sysadmin is wrong, but: > : > :The definition you give of "mutually exclusive" is correct. Your contention > :that sysadmin and programming skillsets are mutually exclusive is completely > :unsupportable. They aren't even orthogonal. There are many times a > :sysadmin > :resorts to writing quick scripts (programs) in order to do his job, and a > :programmer with no knowledge of sysadmin is going to write software that is > :impossible to administer. > > Likewise, a systems administrator who writes quick scripts to fix things > is not doing "real" programming. This argument has been made to me on a > number of occasions by programmers. This dodges the point. Whether or not script-writers are "real" programmers or not does not change the fact that you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "exclusive". <snip> > :Even your example of skiing/driving is wrong. These two _are_ orthogonal > :(meaning they require separate skill sets not dependent on each other) but > :they are hardly even close to being mutually exclusive (which would mean > :that > :you get to pick one to learn, because you can never then learn the other) > :I can prove this in the real world because I know people who can both ski > :and drive. > > The analogy was not mine, and neither was that point. I did not say that > a person could not possess both skills. True, I shouldn't have said that ... > My point was the skills themselves technically are exclusive to > one another. Not that someone couldn't have both. ... however, if you aren't aware of the fact that you contracted yourself there, then you don't understand what "exclusive" means. If the skills are exclusive, then someone can _not_ have both. If someone can have both, then the skills are not exclusive. > :Fact is, I don't think it's possible for a skillset to be mutually exclusive > :with any other skillset. > : > :Philosophies could be. A terrorist philosophy is multutally exclusive with > :a pacafist philosophy because you can not believe in killing to achieve your > :means at the same time you believe that violence is always wrong. > : > :Does this make sense? > > Sure. A terrorist philosophy is in opposition to a pacifist philosophy. > I agree. But I am not saying systems administration is in opposition to > programming. Opposition is not the same word or concept as exclusion. > Unlike terrorists and pacifists, they can certainly complement one > another. Then they are not exclusive. For goodness sake, please check out m-w.com or any dictionary you have to hand and correct your understanding of this word. > They just, in the pure sense, share little to nothing in common in and > of themselves. Shared concepts are different than exclusion. My house and the neighbor's house share nothing in common, but they are NOT mutually exclusive. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FC522BB.6040703>