> Once there are known holes in the theory, it's not a
> scientific theory. At best it's an approximation, but
> quite possibly it's just plain wrong.
You are right about scientific theory, but specs are not just a theory.
You are mixing "discovery" and "invention".
A scientific theory has to match reality, because the universe deveops
independently. There is no way you can enforce your theory down the
throat on the "nature".
But the roles of specs are more than that. There are two parts of it:
1. unify/summarize the reality
2. guide future implementations on a unified road
It might do job 1 poorly (simply because the reality is a mess),
but if everyone from the point on puts the effort to follow it, job 2 can
be done, and it is the real goal. It can do this simply because *humans*
can collaborate and be influenced for a goal that could eventually
benefit everybody.
> And that's my point. Specs are not only almost invariably
> badly written, they also never actually match reality.
>
> At which point at _best_ it's just an approximation. At
> worst, it's much worse. At worst, it causes people to
> ignore reality, and then it becomes religion.
Let me add more to the moron/asshole argument:
Anyone that thinks specs are reality is a moron.
Anyone that thinks specs are useless and refuses to collaborate
is an asshole. :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
|
|