Re: Misunderstanding (Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 67)

[David Kastrup]

"Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden> writes:

> From: Manoj Srivastava <address@hidden>
>>         I think you first have to make your case that arch is
>>  inferior. It does not change a whole lot, but what we have works just
>>  fine.  Over the last year I have twice evaluate bzr and git, and found
>>  that they do not support the feature set of arch that I have come to
>>  rely upon -- so in my view, at least, bzr and git are the inferior
>>  products. YMMV.
>
> We've had a disconnect.  I don't actually have a strong opinion
> about Arch one way or the other, other than being somewhat dubious
> about its maintainence status.  (Full disclosure: from personal
> experience with Tom Lord, I consider him borderline insane and
> possibly committable -- but I also consider that to be almost
> irrelevant to the issue at hand, as having bizarre semi-delusional
> episodes clearly hasn't stopped him from writing good software
> occasionally.)

If it is irrelevant to the issue at hand, why bring it up?  I find
that quite a lot capable and productive programmers, particularly
project leaders, appear borderline insane.  It is not really
surprising, considering that the brain is one mushy associative
holographic memory dump with a single stream of consciousness (known
as "mind") emerging as the main interpretation of its state and
history in interaction with its surroundings.  Lower the redundancy by
utilizing your brain better, and readjust with the behavior and
sensory impressions and ways of "thinking" of computers rather than
humans, and you detune a much more delicate and complex instrument
than most others that are around.

Most creative geniuses are nuts one way or the other.  The world is
richer for them.  Normal people tend to exhaust their creativity in
procreation and leave the task of memorable and lasting creativity to
their children.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum