Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

Posted Nov 24, 2010 11:41 UTC (Wed) by ikm (guest, #493)
In reply to: Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs by marcH
Parent article: Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

I think the word to use here is "selfish", not "unreasonable". Basically a selfish reader would argue that the author is better omit stuff that might rub that reader wrong, and would sound that concern of his. While there is some truth to it, there's also the desire of the author to write what he actually wants to the way he wants to. Most will agree that the latter is to take precedence, but the point is, maybe it is just easier sometimes to avoid any confrontation in the first place. Again, this is for the author alone to decide.

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.

Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

Posted Nov 24, 2010 14:55 UTC (Wed) by ironiridis (guest, #60586) [Link] (2 responses)

You're right; sorry about that. I shouldn't be paying for a service that "might rub me the wrong way".

It's been great guys. See ya.

Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

Posted Nov 24, 2010 23:52 UTC (Wed) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link]

I didn't mean to judge anyone, and especially you. For the record, I didn't particularly enjoy that biblical reference as well, so I do support you on this one. But lwn is a nice place, so why not leave people to believe what they want and quote what they want? We all have our differences. It would mean a lot to me if you would try to rethink your decision.

Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

Posted Nov 30, 2010 16:58 UTC (Tue) by jone (guest, #62596) [Link]

'I shouldn't be paying for a service that "might rub me the wrong way".'

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)

elevated ?

Posted Nov 24, 2010 15:02 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] (2 responses)

"one could expect a somewhat elevated level of people who are opposed to religion"

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.

elevated ?

Posted Nov 24, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link]

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone. I won't go on to describe just why I think it is elevated, let's just leave it as a opinion of mine. As for how it might seem to others -- you are right, I have mentioned there would be no good coming from discussing that.

I also won't participate in this anymore; clearly, this discussion IS the road to destruction no matter how you go about it.

elevated ?

Posted Nov 26, 2010 23:16 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

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.

Ghosts of Unix past, part 4: High-maintenance designs

Posted Nov 24, 2010 20:07 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

you religion is that all 'Religions' are invalid and only held by uneducated people, thus any reference to anything Religious should not exist.

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) [Link]

"I have stolen more quotes and thoughts and purely elegant little starbursts of writing from the Book of Revelation than anything else in the English language--and it is not because I am a biblical scholar, or because of any religious faith, but because I love the wild power of the language and the purity of the madness that governs it and makes it music." -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (also, Rev. 22:18-19: the first "noderivs" license?)