I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] IS ONLY FORWARD FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
THANK YOU.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> Well, I honestly didn't intend to just get you and ben pissed. I honestly
> believe that I am making a valid point that reflects the opinion of a
> significant fraction of the Debian community. And you just might someday
> see my name on the NM list. So I'll try this one more time with as much
> dry, boring logic as I can muster. :-)
>
> > I certainly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that
> > this statement of mine is dishonest;
>
> I didn't mean that perjoratively, but I did mean it logically. There are
> two justifications for supporting many architectures on the table:
> (1) We wanna.
> (2) It's for the good of the users.
>
> (1) may well be true, but it's not exactly part of Debian's "marketing
> rhetoric" as embodied in the social contract.
>
> (2) is just not true. It would be, if Debian had sufficient resources to
> support obscure arches without hurting mainstream arch support. But
> experiment has proved that isn't the case.
>
> My original analogy was meant to illustrate, in a simple mathematical
> model, why (2) doesn't work. In this admitedly oversimplified model, your
> (rather expensive) hour spent on a mainstream arch is worth
> 0.98 * (_all_ debian users)
> while your hour spent on an obscure arch is worth
> 0.02 * (_all_ debian users)
> The "irrefutable fact" is that 0.98 > 0.02. Now, if your justification is
> really only (1), then of course this arguement is irrelevent. But remember
> we're talking about justification (2) here. And while I'm happy to grant
> your point that this model fails to capture the fact that portable
> software is usually better-designed software, and that finding bugs in one
> arch can improve the software for all arches, those would have to be
> pretty big effects to overcome just how much larger 0.98 is than 0.02
> (yes, I made up the numbers -- but any reasonable guess at the numbers
> will exhibit the same large ratio).
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
