From: jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box? Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 00:57:54 GMT
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 1993 12:16:17 EST,
>>>>> news@cck.coventry.ac.uk (news user) said:
Colin> Saddly saying something doesn't work is constructive because it
Colin> allows others to avoid wasting time trying to get something
Colin> working which, for whatever reason, doesn't.
OK, saying something doesn't work for a particular person in a given
situation is at least a data point. Slamming it is a different
matter.
Colin> What is NOT constructive is people on this group trying to
Colin> bully others into keeping quiet about things which don't work.
While I will agree that my message was entirely inappropriate, it was
not my intention to disuade anyone from reporting bugs. I will be the
first to admit that Linux has plenty of bugs. Any dynamic work made
up of 100,000 lines of code is going to have bugs and weaknesses. But
Linux proper doesn't have many glaring bugs left. Just lots of subtle
ones. And ferreting them out is challenging, educational and a lot of
fun. Everyone is welcome to take part.
I was (weakly) trying to make two points. One is that pieces of
software are not objects to be loved or ridiculed depending on whether
they work for you or not. In the case of Linux, they are something
that somebody wrote and shared with others with the hope that someone
else would find it to be useful. Please keep this in mind when you
are about to post what a piece of junk something is.
The other is that even slams can be useful if they provide some facts.
When Charles slams something, it's not just noise from "a blithering
idiot" but an apparently educated statement from an apparently
sophisticated hacker. He has the ability to be more constructive but
for whatever reason isn't.
Anyway, I apologize to Charles for my stupid message.