Response sent offlist.
On Monday 26 April 2010 12:24:02 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > 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
