Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs
Posted Nov 23, 2010 18:20 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 18:23 UTC (Tue) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 19:33 UTC (Wed) by brother_rat (subscriber, #1895)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 0:06 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 10:00 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
I am afraid I have just been proved wrong. Political correctness seems to have infiltrated everything.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 11:04 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
You'd be surpised by the range of irrational beliefs held by otherwise well-educated people (mostly outside their real area of expertise, that is).
Posted Nov 24, 2010 11:41 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
I would also add that "with the high level of education required to enjoy LWN" one could expect a somewhat elevated level of people who are opposed to religion. Of course most of them wouldn't care, but still, references to religious content would be frowned upon to some extent.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 14:55 UTC (Wed) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
It's been great guys. See ya.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 23:52 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
Posted Nov 30, 2010 16:58 UTC (Tue) by jone (guest, #62596)
yeah .. that's why i don't pay my taxes either :)
but seriously .. i'm guessing it's understandable that some might be overly sensitive particularly if you've been thwacked too often or abused with out of context biblical references .. in a similar vein - i'm guessing that any sort of "open kimono" or "money shot" references might be equally offensive to people who may have been sexually abused
perhaps an entropy analogy would be more appropriate here since it's generally benign and science is generally the more widely accepted school of religious thought that nobody will complain too much about
(let's see if i've covered all the bases .. government/politics - check .. religion -check .. sex - check .. ok - my work here is done)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 15:02 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
Oh dear. Please reread that sentence slowly and try to consider how it might seem, to someone who doesn't agree with you, for you to claim superiority on that account. It might surprise you that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Sikhs, Agnostics and others can be found at any point on the scale of learning from illiterate to professorial.
As to the quote of timeless ancient wisdom within the article, I found it amusing, agreeable, appropriate and illuminating. Appropriate because those who won't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat these. It could of course be equally appropriate for Bertrand Russell or Karl Marx to be quoted in a well-thought out article in LWN regardless of the fact that these significant thinkers were atheists.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
I also won't participate in this anymore; clearly, this discussion IS the road to destruction no matter how you go about it.
Posted Nov 26, 2010 23:16 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
It might surprise you that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Sikhs, Agnostics and others can be found at any point on the scale of learning from illiterate to professorial.
For my part, I don't claim educated people are superior to uneducated or that religious people are inferior to nonreligious, and I don't even know what "elevated" means as a quality of a person, but let me say that in spite of the diversity you point out, I'm willing to bet there is a strong negative correlation between education and religiousness.
I haven't seen any study of this, and I think one challenge in reporting such would be measuring "religious." I do believe a lot of people who describe themselves as religious aren't really. E.g. in choosing between medical treatments, one based on scientific conclusions and the other based on teaching of clergy, many such people would easily choose the former.
Tying back to the issue with the article, I doubt the author expected us to believe religiously that the road to destruction is wide, but rather to consider from our own educations whether it's true.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 20:07 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
you seek to impose your Religion on everyone else by preventing anyone else from even mentioning their Religion, or anything related to it.
you can't do the English language without the KJV
Posted Nov 24, 2010 20:18 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 19:55 UTC (Tue) by JamesErik (subscriber, #17417)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 19:58 UTC (Tue) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:09 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:18 UTC (Tue) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
I suggested the commenter bring up Automake during the next sermon that his or her pastor delivers because it bares the same relevancy. One could discuss the fact that Automake is archaic, filled with ancient lore, long-dead language, and even relates to Creation itself. That doesn't make it appropriate to bring up in church (where the audience to such a discussion wouldn't care for it), just as bringing up the bible in a technical article about technical topics is jarring and bewildering.
I have no ire for Christians, or their beliefs. I simply don't care to be reminded of that particular spectrum of humanity when I am reading about Linux.
Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:33 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 22:09 UTC (Tue) by Simetrical (guest, #53439)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 22:31 UTC (Tue) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
What I reacted to was referencing material that was simultaneously irrelevant and offensive to some (I'd wager many, in fact, but "some" is irrefutable)... while adding essentially no value to the article itself.
As an example, I don't understand why a piece of work that glorifies the genital mutilation of infants would be chosen to "clarify" why the setuid bit is a high-maintenance design. In fact, I can see clearly and totally without the biblical reference why it is a design that is difficult to maintain and develop around. I can understand the motivation behind its original design, and the frustration and confusion it causes today. All without being reminded that approximately 6,000 boys born each day in the US have their penis mutilated due mainly to a precedent set 4,000 years ago and perpetuated today mostly out of family indoctrination and brainwashing.
It's largely irrelevant, I suppose; my comment won't make any difference in the mind of the editor or author. Clearly my bias clashes with theirs. I simply wanted to make it known that, contrary to popular opinion, a biblical reference is not universally accepted as relevant, friendly, or innocent.
Posted Nov 24, 2010 6:37 UTC (Wed) by nicooo (guest, #69134)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 13:11 UTC (Wed) by jackb (subscriber, #41909)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 21:18 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 22:58 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
I would certainly be interested in any you could suggest. I tried to think of others and the closest I came was Douglas Adams' quip about underestimating the ingenuity of fools - it is in the right sort of direction but has entirely the wrong emphasis.
(Not that I think the bible is either more or less appropriate in a technical article than Dickens or Adams, but I'm keen to broaden my horizons and would love to hear any references you have in mind).
Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:26 UTC (Tue) by JamesErik (subscriber, #17417)
Neil makes a good case that this fundamental truth is applicable to the domain of Operating System design. A pat on the back to Neil. And yes I did want to make clear to Our Editor, in light of your post, that indeed someone from the readership liked and appreciated the reference.
Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:31 UTC (Tue) by ironiridis (guest, #60586)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 0:15 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
participate on lwn.net flames...
> It's often a long time before one figures out that the easy road was the road to destruction.
Indeed it is!
Posted Nov 23, 2010 20:29 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 4:25 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It's easy and convenient, isn't it?
Posted Nov 24, 2010 13:58 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Nov 25, 2010 19:31 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 14:34 UTC (Wed) by __alex (subscriber, #38036)
Posted Nov 24, 2010 15:22 UTC (Wed) by JamesErik (subscriber, #17417)
Author: Again, an excellent technical article, with *several* good, insightful citations. Thanks!
Editor: I never fail to get my money's worth from my subscription. You do a great job. Thanks!
Posted Nov 29, 2010 9:50 UTC (Mon) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
Posted Dec 3, 2010 2:31 UTC (Fri) by rlhamil (guest, #6472)
Amazing how nobody complained yet that Ec1:9 (NIV, I think) was rotting their brain!
Posted Dec 2, 2010 21:49 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
I don't particularly love the reference to the bible.
That was my favorite part. :)
I really like computer science, photography and music, but I just looove the Bible!
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds