| 1 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
20081111172450.04e02b38@××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 11 |
| 3 |
Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Words |
| 6 |
> like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily |
| 7 |
> to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Yes, but it's a relative thing. They obviously do what they can with the |
| 10 |
resources they have (are willing to dedicate). We do the same. A user's |
| 11 |
single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but |
| 12 |
if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to |
| 13 |
ensure it's safety, neither should we. No, we don't go around |
| 14 |
purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our |
| 15 |
resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not |
| 16 |
placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a |
| 17 |
question if we will? The presumption should be actions within the bounds |
| 18 |
of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and |
| 19 |
their distribution, us. No more, no less. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful |
| 22 |
to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave |
| 23 |
accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical, |
| 24 |
seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the |
| 25 |
priority he reveals by his own actions. And if his actions reveal a |
| 26 |
SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition. |
| 27 |
That's all I was saying. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives