| 1 |
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> posted |
| 3 |
> 20081111172450.04e02b38@××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Tue, 11 |
| 4 |
> Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Words |
| 7 |
> > like "production", "critical" and "important" can be applied as easily |
| 8 |
> > to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a single person's. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yes, but it's a relative thing. They obviously do what they can with the |
| 11 |
> resources they have (are willing to dedicate). We do the same. A user's |
| 12 |
> single system will absolutely be important to him, no doubt about it, but |
| 13 |
> if he doesn't believe it worth "superhuman" feats or prioritizing to |
| 14 |
> ensure it's safety, neither should we. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think I understand what you mean here, but it's not what you wrote as |
| 17 |
best as I can tell. As a developer, I believe it is my responsibility |
| 18 |
to work a bit harder just so that the users don't have to resort to |
| 19 |
'"superhuman" feats' to keep their systems running. I do agree that no |
| 20 |
matter what we provide, all users (including ourselves) will have to |
| 21 |
expend some effort to take advantage of it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> No, we don't go around |
| 24 |
> purposefully breaking things, but both he and we have limits to our |
| 25 |
> resources and certain priorities in their allocation, and if he's not |
| 26 |
> placing undue priority on the safety of his machine, why is it even a |
| 27 |
> question if we will? The presumption should be actions within the bounds |
| 28 |
> of rational reality and prioritization of resources for both users and |
| 29 |
> their distribution, us. No more, no less. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> IOW, I'd have agreed if the point was that it's a machine that's useful |
| 32 |
> to the user and that he doesn't want broken, and we should behave |
| 33 |
> accordingly, but the triple emphasis of important, production, critical, |
| 34 |
> seemed a bit undue for the lengths to which an ordinary user goes or the |
| 35 |
> priority he reveals by his own actions. And if his actions reveal a |
| 36 |
> SERIOUS priority in the area, than he's already covered by definition. |
| 37 |
> That's all I was saying. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
Ferris |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 44 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |
Archives