1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:29:12 -0700 |
3 |
> Chip Parker <infowolfe@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> If you were building a house, and the blueprints had been signed off |
7 |
>> on calling for 1 meter high doors, but the builder had built in 2 |
8 |
>> meter high doors, would you then go back to the builder and require |
9 |
>> him to do something that makes those doors unusable for the vast |
10 |
>> majority of people entering the house? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Package managers can implement whatever extra bells and whistles they like, |
14 |
> but they still have to follow the spec. Your metaphor is flawed in that |
15 |
> you're talking about a single house here. If it doesn't match the plan you |
16 |
> do an as-built and file a deviation with the registrar. The situation here |
17 |
> is more like if you build a hundred houses to code, and then one above code, |
18 |
> and then change code to match the one house and bulldoze the rest for not |
19 |
> meeting minimal requirements. You're punishing anyone who implements a |
20 |
> package manager to spec if you keep changing the spec in incompatible ways. |
21 |
> |
22 |
Right, this is called "punishing innovation". It's a hobby of |
23 |
bureaucrats everywhere. |
24 |
It could also be said to be "punishing excellence". We've had a lot of |
25 |
political systems |
26 |
which try to implement a design which weeds out both the mediocre, and |
27 |
the excellent, |
28 |
leaving us with the average all have been failures. The reason why |
29 |
they fail is that it is |
30 |
the above average who do the heaviest lifting. |
31 |
|
32 |
Andrew D Kirch |
33 |
Funtoo.org |