Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better
On Monday 2002 December 02 17:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:21:15PM -0800, Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote:
> > The adapter analogy completely distracted from what I was trying to say.
> > If carmakers were only the equivalent of assemblers (large scale kit
> > builders), Then the conceptual-frame of the vehicle would be designed to
> > use the parts as they came from their suppliers. There would be NO
> > adaptors, only adaption of the DESIGN. Is that clearer?
>
> I think a closer analogy to what you have in mind would be to assume that
> all cars are identical, and then insist that all cities must have exactly
> the same road layout, so that users only need to buy one map.
Obviously some still don't get it. I said right from the beginning, that
everyone could have their own design. No two cars would look alike. The
cosmetics could be anything you want. The paint would all be mixed by
companies that always had that paint in stock. But the functional components
would be uniform. The point is, if you want or need to adapt something, it
should only be your own product that get's adapted (on the drawing board).
Speaking of software, you could only make modules to function in cooperation
with existing software. Then if someone wanted to use your modules, they
could. They just would not have the right to replace yours, without
submitting it to you for approval. We already have the system that you want
now, and it is completely confusing. And the wonderful thing about confusion
is, it will only get worse. Everybody is cooking in one pot, all with
different recipies. And most of the ingredients are conflicting (some
needing to be cooked at different temperatures). They may have all been
great recipies on their own, but not all in the same pot, at the same time.
If you want to try and use a street analogy, the streets would all be the
same width, and houses would all have a minimum distance they would have to
be from the curb. Any city could have any layout it wants. But every street
(rural included) would have to have sidewalks (They are cheaper than having
kids hit by cars). Utility companies would not tear up streets, blocking
traffic for months at a time, because all the utility services would be in
preplanned tunnels. No street could be laid without first having these
access tunnels and adequate sewage lines installed (for projected growth)
The traffic lights would all have the same duration (and ground clearance),
so no one would be confused as to how much time they have in each and every
intersection. Stop signs would all have the same clearance (for visibility)
like fire hydrants (for accessabliity), so that parked trucks vans buses etc
could not obscure the view of approaching vehicles. Maybe all streets would
have parking areas that were indented (having enough space to open the
driver's door without concern for approaching traffic), so that the stop
signs were in an area that extended beyond the region of (imparied visibility
typically caused by) parked vehicles (providing uniform visibility and
accessability).
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson >> more from the perfect world!!
>
> Richard Braakman
Reply to: