[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please don't remove libc5 - old non-free software might need it!

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, David Starner wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:49:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, David Starner wrote:
> > 
> > > Also, from the Jargon File "FUD /fuhd/ n. ... has become generalized to
> > > refer to any kind of disinformation used as a _competitive_ weapon." 
> > > (Emphasis mine) Unless you're claiming that Harald Schmid is the secret
> > > tool of a competetor (and even that would be streaching the original
> > > definition), it's not correct to call it FUD.
> > 
> > 	Uhm, just FYI, FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.  That's what it
> > stands for, it's an acronym.  The definition in the Jargon File appears 
> > *way* too limited, so much so as to be incorrect and wrong.
> A lot of acronyms have meanings outside the literal words. DOS, IDE. 
> If it's just an acronym, then we should stop using it negative manner.

	Some use 'girl' or 'gal' in a negative manner.  Does that mean
the definition is required to be negative?

> It's good if we doubt and are uncertain of many of these wild plans to
> cross debian-devel. Unquestioning acceptance is usually bad.

	This I agree with.

> Would you accept a statement that Linux users spread a large deal of FUD
> about Microsoft Windows? Your definition of FUD doesn't add a factor of
> truth in - calling an advertisment that said "Windows NT makes your 386 
> a stable platform to run Yahoo off of" false would be FUD. 

	Of course it is.  There is a difference between a definition and
the connotation one associates with a word.

> I don't find your definition of FUD useful, and leaving that the only other 
> well defined alternative seems to be the Jargon File's version.

	Faulty dilema, just to start with.  Also, there is the simple issue
of definition vs. connotation.  They are not the same.


Reply to: