On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded > > to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the > > contradiction. That is the entire point of his question. > > > > The two points that are in conflict are: > > > > 1) These works were intentially included in Debian as a result of > > conscious choice on the part of developers > > 2) Identifying these works in order to remove them would be > > prohibitively expensive in its use of time. > > These are not in the least contradictory. Let me make an analogy. > Let's say we have a barrel of oats with some chocolate sprinkles mixed > in. Sifting through and removing all the chocolate sprinkles would be > a lot of work. But knowing that there are some chocolate sprinkles in > there (that no one ever worried about or had any problems with) is not > a lot of work. This is especially true when the barrel of oats was > created by pouring together hundreds of bags of oats created by others > and many of those upstream bags contained chocolate sprinkles. So you are now retracting your original argument, and instead claiming that developers chose to ignore this problem *without* investigating the details? In future please state your two-line arguments instead of using eight-line vague analogies. This is a different assertion to your original one. It is also even more unlikely, because it assumes Debian developers acted out of deliberate ignorance. In addition, this assertion does not support the rest of your argument. If they acted without investigating the problem, then their actions do not form any kind of precedent. So your argument collapses in entirity. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature