1 |
Le Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:59:25 +0200, |
2 |
Alexandre Buisse <nattfodd@g.o> a écrit : |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 11:25:01 +0200, Duncan wrote: |
5 |
> > > It's a very good question, it was posed at the time, it was never |
6 |
> > > answered and at last we can now say it was almost completely ignored. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > I (and I expect others who know) didn't answer this before, as it would |
9 |
> > have been too easy to start an OT subthread I didn't want to start, but I |
10 |
> > trust everyone minding the CoC will prevent that from occurring now. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Briefly (and intended to be neutrally), the Latter Day Saints, commonly |
13 |
> > known as the Mormons (maybe other groups as well??), have a religious |
14 |
> > interest in genealogy, so having it in the religion/theology herd would |
15 |
> > make sense to them. That should answer the question, and give a place to |
16 |
> > start for those interested in looking it up. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> And a sect from the remote regions of Lapland believes that haskell is |
19 |
> a godsend and adore the ghc source code as their Holy Scripture, should |
20 |
> we move the haskell herd to theology as well? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> > However, I agree the sciences or a general humanities herd will make more |
24 |
> > sense to most folks. I don't feel strongly enough about it to be worth |
25 |
> > arguing a maintainer's choice of herd for their packages, however. After |
26 |
> > all, they're the ones taking responsibility for it in the tree, |
27 |
> > regardless of the herd it's in, and if it's more convenient for them in a |
28 |
> > theology herd, why should it be a problem for those not interested in the |
29 |
> > package? It might raise a few eyebrows here or there, but if it's being |
30 |
> > well maintained, there are more critical things to argue about. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Sure, there are more critical things out there, but why should people, |
33 |
> on such a critical subject, chose to label packages that have nothing to |
34 |
> do with religion with a "theology" stamp? |
35 |
|
36 |
I fully agree, theology is the worst possible name if the herd will include |
37 |
both religious and scientific softwares. |
38 |
|
39 |
Human beings have the unique possibility to use their critical mind (at least |
40 |
if they understand at we have this unique feature in the creation), and |
41 |
all the theology are based on the assumption at they are true only if we give |
42 |
away our critical mind (Introduction of all the religious book, they said at it |
43 |
is true because it is true...). And they cannot be true otherwise. |
44 |
|
45 |
Religion: the prophet prove the religion and the religion prove the prophet. |
46 |
Science: the theory is true only if it is proved by practical and reproductible |
47 |
experimentation. |
48 |
|
49 |
Words have a meaning. The fact is at genealogy is a science as it is possible |
50 |
to prove it by practical experimentation, and it doesn't matter if the father |
51 |
is a Mormon or the currier, an ADN prove will tell us. And for that it have |
52 |
nothing to do with religious ideology. Theology is about religious study and |
53 |
cannot be proved by practical and reproductible experimentation. For that, it |
54 |
have nothing to do with science. |
55 |
|
56 |
Otherwise: I think at it is a good idea to have that kind of softwares, but I |
57 |
also think at the name of the herd is one of the worst the worst possible. |
58 |
Please, don't call it with a name that is a direct reference to religious |
59 |
ideology if you want to mix those different kind of softwares. I think at |
60 |
at the best solution will be to make 2 herds, one for the religious ideology, |
61 |
one for human-sciences, so at we can know what we are talking about. |
62 |
|
63 |
It was my 2c. contribution on that matter. |
64 |
|
65 |
Ciao, |
66 |
Dominique |
67 |
> |
68 |
> /Alexandre |
69 |
-- |
70 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |