Subject: Re: street performer protocol
From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:24:01 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 20 May 2000, Brian Bartholomew wrote:
> 
> Stephen> But I think it is hubris in the extreme to think that a
> Stephen> commercial developer with a hot product in a hot market can
> Stephen> achieve that degree of perfection, then stop on the last
> Stephen> dime.
> 
> I agree, there will be slop.
> 
    It doesn't have to be slop.  The requirements are just evolving.  ls
(like many standard Unix utils) has a very well-defined and stable set of
requirements it meets.  Most mass-market applications don't, at least not
in the same way.  Some custom applications will, but not even all of them
do.   
    And, for that matter, the sources for fileutils are still
non-constant, last I checked.  I couldn't say with certainty that the
changes are solely for working with different platforms - sometimes it
appears hackers just have too much time on their hands and change things
in ways they find more (intellectually) pleasing.

Lynn

PS  Sorry to leave the conversation so abruptly.  I wanted to take some
time to think about my response, and then went on a job interview, and in
the meantime the thread exploded (not surprising of course).  On the
bright side, I'm now working for freespeech.org.  They don't officially
condone the Free Expression Project, however, particularly the reverse
engineering parts.