From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box? Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 18:07:48 GMT
In article <C4Lzz6.6Bz@cck.coventry.ac.uk> news@cck.coventry.ac.uk (news user) writes:
>In article <JRS.93Mar25210217@lepton.world.std.com> jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) writes:
>>On 6 Feb 93 10:24:47 GMT:
>>
>>Charles> Linux is very new. It has networking and NFS, but they are
>>Charles> rushed, incomplete implementations. I find them barely
>>Charles> usable.
>>
>>On 27 Feb 93 04:45:06 GMT:
>>
>>Charles> Linux shared libraries are far inferior; trying to deny that
>>Charles> is absurd.
>>
>>On 23 Mar 1993 21:15:52 -0500:
>>
>>Charles> Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
>>
>>Lighten up a little, Charles. Got anything constructive to say?
>
>Saddly saying something doesn't work is constructive because it
>allows others to avoid wasting time trying to get something working
>which, for whatever reason, doesn't.
>
>What is NOT constructive is people on this group trying to bully
>others into keeping quiet about things which don't work. Oddly
>enough this was exactly what happened on the NeXT news groups -
>anyone who dared to suggest that there was anything wrong with
>NeXT or the hardware/software was shouted down. Look at NeXT now.
Ricks message is just the opposite. He is not trying to bully
you into "keeping quite" but rather to open up about why
you think something is broken. These systems (networking and file
systems) are big and complex. Saying "it is broken" is like
saying "it is over there" without gesturing when someone asks
you where something is. Let me spell it out:
PHRASE TRANSLATION CATAGORY
======================================================================
"It is broken" Your work is sh*t Criticism
"It is broken because ..." Your work is good, but here's Constructive-
how it could be better Criticism