[oclug] Linux kernel development loses BitKeeper
miden at travel-net.com
Tue Apr 19 11:03:24 EDT 2005
At band camp, one time, Brad Barnett said:
> You have missed one important thing. These directions tend to take into
> account the tolerances of those sampled for reaction, which are generally
> not human beings.
My point was that not enough account is taken of the probable rate of
failure to comply with instructions (protocol). This is a serious failing.
> There have been many cases of people being "sensitive" to pesticides.
> Even following directions, these people are horrifically effected by their
> use. It is the same with resistance to radiation. Every individual has a
> unique tolerance to radiation, and the same can be said for tolerance to
Very true. Cost-benefit ratios are simply a prediction of the number of
people who will probably be affected in a harmful way. If the number is
considered low enough then the benefits to society are judged to
outweigh the risks to the individual - and those who are damaged are
acceptable casualties (nice, huh?). Business growth seems to be viewed
as a benefit.
Is not having to get down on your knees and dig out weeds really a
benefit to society? Or is it more a benefit to an industry? I think the
answer is obvious.
> There are many cases of products that take decades of use, before people
> notice the subtle and devastating effects they have.
True. But this raises a very real quandary - do you ban everything that
can't be proven to not have long-term effects (which means everything)
and if you do how do you prove that they do or do not have long term
effects (on human beings).
I for one don't want to see development freeze-framed to the present. I
would, however, like to see much, much more caution in the approval process.
More information about the OCLUG