Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:55:26 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jdw@wwwi.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <199610171855.LAA06293@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610171814.LAA22766@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty" at Oct 17, 96 11:14:42 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > It is a matter of what we can do and the resources that we
> > > have available -- that is all .
> >
> > No it's not. It is the difference between an entrepeneurship (16-22
> > participants, max) and a small business (100-150 participants, max)
> > and a medium business (1200-2500 participants, max).
> >
>
> I don't think that the above is the case. Clearly, FreeBSD is available
> for any large corporation to take charget of it.
This would be topologically equivalent to a "split".
> And the "club membershib" syndrome if it gets on the way it can be side step
> by way of providing patches or separate distributions.
Also a "split".
Why is is that everyone thinks that "If I run the experiment, I'll get
the the results I want instead of the results dictated by the laws of
nature that everyone before me has obtained when they run the experiment"?
This "experiment" has already been run 4 times in BSD land:
1) Jolitz vs. CSRG
2) NetBSD vs. Jolitz
3) FreeBSD vs. Jolitz
4) OpenBSD vs. NetBSD
Tell me, how you can reasonably expect the results of a fifth run:
5) ??? vs. FreeBSD
To be any different than any previous run?
How can you expect to avoid:
[6+n]) ???[ n+1] vs. ???[ n]
Do you not accept proof by induction?
Isn't it obvious to you that:
Given a set of sets of individuals with divergent goals a, b, and c:
Q = { { a}, { b}, { c} }
If there is to be a "split":
R = { { a}, { b} }
S = { { c} }
That the smaller (break-away) set will contain a higher proportion of
individuals with a tendency to break away?
Isn't it obvious that societies, defined in terms of sets of individuals
with common goals, are fractal in nature?
Further, is it not obvious that any group of N individuals can be said
to have at minimum some set of N-1 goals in conflict?
Further, is it not obvious therefore that any set of individuals which
splits will therefore have a higher tendency towards future splits?
And that therefore in any population of diverging sets, we can expect
to see an expotential increase in the amount of divergence over time?
Why do you think I disagree so loudly, yet don't go off and form
"TerryBSD", where I can run the same show by the same rules until
the inherenet structural limits force "TerryBSD" to fragment as well?
Hint: Societies are subject to statistical laws, and I'm not stupid.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610171855.LAA06293>