From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c8f87e93 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E2F68A3711; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:32:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18F8A3705; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:31:46 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="gTsgNP66"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id CA8BCA3705; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:31:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f52.google.com (mail-lf1-f52.google.com [209.85.167.52]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2DA9A3704 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:31:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f52.google.com with SMTP id p6so29099174lfc.1 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:31:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tf6Ac44/VuefkYuVmMek/EJFooH4eiUHPLp3Xr7QMF0=; b=gTsgNP660JuUHbBtUCe9MlcmODqVxaHFHsnBq4/JakLB+agwlHUzqJ+4tNfFhGTcHf F1gGaTZ18Boqs46zf8cKfSffVKP5JsO1hwN1gJJ90mjmCq6g7ZS9HCIau48JfiZrkmke d57VXN9JmA30nRUn6KtKhe32EZ92v7eCYXPckXks/IKsu/TivgR0hbhUmjOYGi/Ph8P1 o5fNOKJ0SLtba5Ptf5YD5i7Qn9yIloMkzBFtS08Esr2eRWZ8c1JPcOOeKlFrDBwgMfif kRtLcY3MOjxqNnPz4To2Lhftzoa/DWfgshrr1BF4jzehbNXznTeaockq3UqrQYIo8DN/ H+lQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tf6Ac44/VuefkYuVmMek/EJFooH4eiUHPLp3Xr7QMF0=; b=MpXuoCcI5Saf4iaEOzypI4waQWK/dONDuCbC8rShA0wqIhWZEizC4vjPyGdMNDt/p+ jaAxaMem1NC3JOZTuL3V2bGrheGjnfurk0Rx1FdYaVIPLUBkd0vBZ6t0roer6eKWm/Gj gjgvS9y+eWFLl07B8CvFTxQfBHDzn0AsvI0UV/ANHAHsRvIy6yg+w3TTN3O5AA+mKS1q ZfSWtsb7ECoroeVupqMeXn738AY4ekblYDn3oTccpIXzIhuvxjDqSMAu9yWZL2Z6/Szm UY8YgXAVkyeMm9y4AxOEVGXjGLorxDRbCttnIIYqHFdIeoV3oMyB5ktIkdELKK98aTbU Wusw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcosZlraxQsf8IRM20jGSOd5idjy2uXrenpEbOsNDTidoCOMeC/ D/j2gVwB7XtSv0NwLd1bm84P8UTjanLSclH4tnj5jQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6zFC8DK9y+EEiMG3sR9mOSq0Vb4cC27MNAJf0Hkx28dgtc63NsL49j4fviH4WMn6+7CiG0EPuDutEVbZU7ejU= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4116:: with SMTP id b22mr3856839lfi.19.1546828299960; Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:31:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <201901062341.x06NfXe2021557@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20190107021142.GF24497@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20190107021142.GF24497@mcvoy.com> From: "A. P. Garcia" Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 21:31:27 -0500 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000590749057ed50754" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Isaacson v Unix [really RMS bashing] X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000590749057ed50754 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, 9:12 PM Larry McVoy On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 08:38:45PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 2019-01-06 6:41 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote: > > > ... > > > As others have said, I don't conflate coding prowess with the ability > to > > > design. I've had many an argument with John Gilmore (one of the people > > > who doesn't mind footing the cleaning and repair bill after allowing > RMS > > > to stay at his place) where he begins with "When I wrote GNU tar..." > I've > > > always responded by saying that writing tar is no big deal; the > specification > > > was the hard part. > > > > > > > Hear, hear. I'd aver this is very much the case in any typical > > software-related day job, and _definitely_ mine. > > Yep. The spec is hard, the code is easy. That is a pattern. > > I've been the guy behind decent sized projects, BitKeeper is 2673371 > lines of code. Getting to a spec was hard, writing the code was easy. > We were a tiny distributed team of about 10 engineers, the hard part was > agreeing on a design. Which we did by getting on the phone and talking > about what we talked about yesterday. We passed the idea between people > and when we could do the pass back and forth and nothing had changed > from the previous pass, we had a design. Coding that was just typing. > > It's very similar to what Udi Manber told me as an under grad, he said > writing papers is easy. Not for me. But I came to understand that > papers are two things: a big base of knowledge and an outline. If you > have those two then the paper is just typing. He was right. > Coming back full circle, maybe the person with the right viewpoint was actually RMS. It's not about the technology. It's not about the code or the spec. Maybe it really is about the freedoms that he talks about. Maybe if bit keeper were FOSS from the start, the world would be using that instead of git. But where would be the value proposition in that? It's a tough question. > --000000000000590749057ed50754 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


= On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, 9:12 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com wrote:
On Sun, = Jan 06, 2019 at 08:38:45PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
> On 2019-01-06 6:41 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote:
> > ...
> > As others have said, I don't conflate coding prowess with the= ability to
> > design.=C2=A0 I've had many an argument with John Gilmore (on= e of the people
> > who doesn't mind footing the cleaning and repair bill after a= llowing RMS
> > to stay at his place) where he begins with "When I wrote GNU= tar..."=C2=A0 I've
> > always responded by saying that writing tar is no big deal; the s= pecification
> > was the hard part.
> >
>
> Hear, hear. I'd aver this is very much the case in any typical
> software-related day job, and _definitely_ mine.

Yep.=C2=A0 The spec is hard, the code is easy.=C2=A0 That is a pattern.

I've been the guy behind decent sized projects, BitKeeper is 2673371 lines of code.=C2=A0 Getting to a spec was hard, writing the code was easy.=
We were a tiny distributed team of about 10 engineers, the hard part was agreeing on a design.=C2=A0 Which we did by getting on the phone and talkin= g
about what we talked about yesterday.=C2=A0 We passed the idea between peop= le
and when we could do the pass back and forth and nothing had changed
from the previous pass, we had a design.=C2=A0 Coding that was just typing.=

It's very similar to what Udi Manber told me as an under grad, he said<= br> writing papers is easy.=C2=A0 Not for me.=C2=A0 But I came to understand th= at
papers are two things: a big base of knowledge and an outline.=C2=A0 If you=
have those two then the paper is just typing.=C2=A0 He was right.

Coming bac= k full circle, maybe the person with the right viewpoint was actually RMS. = It's not about the technology. It's not about the code or the spec.= Maybe it really is about the freedoms that he talks about. Maybe if bit ke= eper were FOSS from the start, the world would be using that instead of git= . But where would be the value proposition in that? It's a tough questi= on.
--000000000000590749057ed50754--