Re: [ox-en] the Deleuzian engineer
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:45:59 -0800
Sorry about the cheap shot. I was exaggerating to make a point and I'm
sorry if I got carried away. :-/
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:22:04PM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
1. Will or will not an engineer who refuses to use certain
libraries, languages and technologies because of political reasons
tend on average to produce lower quality software?
It depends on the methods we using to evaluate the quality of the
software. You seem to calling for some sort of objective analysis of
software. This type of evaluation is only possible if we've got
some sort of universal consensus on the criteria that we're using to
do the evaluating. Otherwise, we'll come to different conclusions.
Clearly, there's not that consensus. You are very convinced that it
doesn't include a number of elements that other folks think are
essential. Your definition of what an engineer should be concerned
with is not the only one out there and I don't see any reasons why it
should be the best.
I believe that software exists in the real world. If *everything* were
in the public domain, or were GPLed, and there were no patents, and
there were no political implications of design software to work in
certain ways, or not work in certain other ways, it would be different
situation. But we don't live in this ideal world.
2. Is or is not an engineer who causes other engineers to duplicate
their code for no good reason retarding the average quality of all
software, wasting resources and contributing to the mass inefficiency
of global software production?
Lets say I agree with this. My point is that you haven't gained
anything because you've simply moved the argument to what is or is not
a good reason which is just as contested as the original statement
because it's the same set of issues at stake.
Benjamin Mako Hill