| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully |
| 6 |
>> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and (initially) |
| 7 |
>> implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the bugs in the |
| 8 |
>> spec fixed. That said... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I highly doubt the person implementing the code for Paludis was doing it |
| 11 |
> in a contrarian way. As far as I can see, he simply implemented what the |
| 12 |
> spec says. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Not saying it has to be deliberate. There's some people who seem to just |
| 15 |
seem to have the gift. The way they think just naturally finds the bugs |
| 16 |
in the spec, the loophole in the law, whatever. They're terribly |
| 17 |
frustrating to people who equally naturally seem to find the most |
| 18 |
tolerant read of things, but if it was deliberate at some point years |
| 19 |
ago, it's no longer so; it just comes naturally. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And what I'm saying is that as terribly frustrating as it can be, there's |
| 22 |
some value in that, because they /do/ end up finding the bugs/loopholes/ |
| 23 |
whatever, which is good as then they can be fixed. And there's some |
| 24 |
value in recognizing that good for what it is. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Another analogy would be that these people are human versions of the |
| 27 |
kernel's trinity fuzz tester... |
| 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