> On Monday 26 April 2010 06:06:11 erik quanstrom wrote: > > > I'd prefer not to narrowly frame things in terms of my own personal > > > needs. > > > > that kind of thinking made linux what it is today. > > > > You can quit being obstinate now, the threat has been eliminated - sleep > soundly, knowing that Plan 9 is once again safe... from being turned into... > linux? > > The. mind. reels.
interestingly, you cut out of your quote the three arguments i had for programming for one's own needs. i'd like to add that unix was written this way at bell labs. a lot of good can come of solving one's own problem well. multics (hopefully no one is personally vested in it) by contrast tried to solve problems more in the abstract. perhaps you're talking my comments personally? i don't see why you would, since there is no person that can claim responsibility for what linux is. > The problem is that in this case there's a massive bug in your program logic - > your knee_jerk_reaction(), tunnel_vision() and dogma() methods appear > hardcoded somewhere to intercept and override all messages that would be > better handled by your benefit_of_the_doubt() or think_rationally() methods. do you have any evidence for this assertion? the topic here is if one should program for one's own needs or not. neither i nor the list deserve this ad hominem. > but I'm done with this thread, and the subject in general you said that already. - erik
