1 |
On 2010.06.28 14:43, Thomas Anderson wrote: |
2 |
[snip] |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Not taking technical sides in this thread simply because I have no |
5 |
> time to |
6 |
> argue it at length, BUT: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Simply because a topic has been discussed to *death* does not |
9 |
> mean |
10 |
> the |
11 |
> correct answer was obtained, only that a majority agree it is |
12 |
> what |
13 |
> they |
14 |
> want. And while consensus may be enough to be considered 'right' |
15 |
> in social |
16 |
> situations(politics, etc.), the second the discussion becomes |
17 |
> technical the |
18 |
> opinion of the masses becomes irrelevant. All that then matters |
19 |
> is |
20 |
> getting |
21 |
> the technical part objectively right, which IS possible, despite |
22 |
> what some |
23 |
> may say. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Regards, |
26 |
> Thomas |
27 |
> -- |
28 |
> --------- |
29 |
> ~Thomas Anderson~ |
30 |
> --------- |
31 |
> |
32 |
All of engineering involves compromise. |
33 |
|
34 |
There is no point in waiting for a perfect solution to an engineering |
35 |
issue if that solution is so far away nobody wants to wait. |
36 |
|
37 |
The compromises become political discussions and we have seen plenty of |
38 |
them already. As its 'the masses' that will implement the solution, not |
39 |
the idealists, its time to go with the compromise that has been |
40 |
hammered out elsewhere ... unless of course the idealists have a patch |
41 |
already. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Regards, |
45 |
|
46 |
Roy Bamford |
47 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
48 |
gentoo-ops |
49 |
forum-mods |
50 |
trustees |