Re: Is Linux Unix?
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 20:58, John Summerfield wrote:
> Simon Kitching wrote:
> >
> >They do in the long term. Name a system of government that has been more
> >efficient than democracy over a 100 year period. The most significant
> >
> >
>
> The Roman Empire.
>From my memory of history, the Roman Empire was fairly close to a
democracy until Julius (you got to vote as long as you had sufficient
cash). And went downhill rapidly after that.
>
> In contrast, Debian makes a decision. Whoops. we didn't mean that. Let's
> change it!
I think the agreement to exempt Sarge from the new requirement for free
documentation & supporting files to be a fine example of when
backtracking was useful.
>
> >>That's why we don't have democratic armies. While a democratic army is
> >>planning the next battle, it would get cut to ribbons by the enemy.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Very few democracies that regularly use direct vote on issues
> >(referendums). The swiss one is the only one I know of.
> >
> >Instead, representatives are selected. So the parallel would instead be
> >a system where a set of Generals were elected, and they then took the
> >necessary decisions.
> >
> >
>
> They'd be lucky to get _competant_ generals that way. Witness the Roman
> Republic. It's not quite how it worked, but similar.
>
> Or elected _US judges:-)
:-)
> >
> >>Hackers are good at cutting code. They don't like documentation - go
> >>look for debian-installer documentation for example.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hackers also by definition work on projects that aren't complete and are
> >evolving. There's a significant problem in trying to document stuff that
> >isn't complete and is evolving.
> >
> >Still, I partially agree with you on this.
> >
> >
>
> Umm. First lesson in project managment. Projects have defined
> starting-points and defined end-points.
>
> I once worked on some IBM projects. Documentation was part of the
> project, and it can be written when the specs are done. That's not to
> say it will be _complete_ then - it has to be adapted as the product is
> changes as design errors are found and some of the fine detail evolves.
>
Intriguingly, I worked for IBM once in my life. Detailed specs, done by
Richard Helm (of the "gang of four"). Documentation up the wazoo. Didn't
help in the slightest. The main problem was the design was "tossed over
the wall" and the superstar designer then went back home, resulting in
an inability to adapt the project design to reality later.
Another large IBM project failed around the same time. You can find the
details here, in the document titled "Ministerial Inquiry into INCIS"
(that's *never* a good title for a report!). I would say that the
"waterfall" method of development has had its day. But quite how you
document an app being created using Agile/XP/etc is indeed an
interesting question.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2000/incis_rpt/
> >
> >Yes, except that a truly benevolent, tolerant and trusting dictator
> >won't last long. And one who isn't those things won't be a good ruler.
> >
> >
> If te dictator is truly benevolent, & tolerant then there is no need to
> overthrow him. How long since an English monarch was overthrown?
About the same amount of time since the power of an English monarch was
overtaken by the power of parliament I believe.
> Instead, over centuries it's evolved into a democracy arguably better
> than the American example.
>
> Which would you prefer? the US model? or what you have?
I don't even believe the US model is a democracy. A system where the
third candidate in a presidential election is roundly criticised for
running at all, because he can split the vote and allow someone else in
is not democracy. Nor is one that requires accepting major donations
from corporations in order to have a chance of being elected.
[flame proof suit on :-]
[And sorry for the off-topic post. I'll shut up now, unless really
baited!]
Cheers,
Simon
Reply to: