Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:21:00 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <20011202002100.F18351@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <000f01c17ab1$1ac8c590$0a00000a@atkielski.com>; from anthony@freebie.atkielski.com on Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:42:40PM %2B0100 References: <15367.37543.15609.362257@guru.mired.org><040701c179af$4bda25f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15367.43943.686638.723011@guru.mired.org><003301c179ea$8925d270$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15368.2156.193643.17139@guru.mired.org><005601c179f3$a4030640$0a00000a@atkielski.com><15368.5624.255357.964607@guru.mired.org><008901c17a30$7d084f40$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15369.3159.548082.862287@guru.mired.org> <000f01c17ab1$1ac8c590$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:42:40PM +0100 I heard the voice of Anthony Atkielski, and lo! it spake thus: > > But that doesn't matter. Either something is good enough, or it's not. If it > _is_ good enough, then, by definition, you will not profit from anything that is > better. Bullkaka. I drive a 1991 Ford Ranger. The stripped down model, with a 4-cylinder engine, manual transmission, no power steering, and no AC. It's "good enough". Sure, I have to downshift on the highway going up hills to stay above 55mph, and sure it's hot as hell during these Mississippi summers, and sure it's hard to make tight turns when I'm not moving, and sure it guzzles gas above about 58mph, but it's "good enough". It gets me from Point A to Point B. That doesn't mean that "better" would not be "better". Suitability is not a binary proposition. > For example, if you need three features in a word-processing program, and you > find a program with those features, the fact that another program might have ten > features makes no difference, because you already have the three you need. So, in other words, you have no desire to make any task any easier/quicker/more efficient than the absolute bare minimum you can concieve at the moment. I use vi. I use about a tenth of its features. But from time to time, I come across one I didn't know about, and when I start using it, it adds ot my experience by giving me previously unused power and flexibility. Is that a waste, because I didn't use, say, :E, for years? > In other words, you cannot say that something is "good enough," and then say > that there is still something to be gained from something else. Either it meets > requirements, or it doesn't. See above mentioned "Bullkaka". Would you rather drive a Ford Focus, or a BMW 750? Focus is 'good enough', isn't it? Why would anybody want to drive a BMW? And in another mail: > On a secure UNIX system, you should never run an X server on the console, > IMO. I run X on my workstation. Doesn't make it any more 'insecure' than otherwise. My running X doesn't let you break into my box any more easily. It doesn't allow you to corrupt or remove my data, it doesn't allow you elevated access, it doesn't allow you ANYTHING you couldn't do without X running. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011202002100.F18351>