Subject: Re: *precisely* NOT a commons (with tragedy)
From: Tom Lord <>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:08:19 -0800 (PST)


       This is an inaccurate specification, generally conflicting with
       conventional useage of:

         - Consumable resource.
	 - Renewable resource.
	 - A commons.
         - The tragedy of the commons.

I think my meaning clear and usage reasonable.  I think there are
straightforward point by point refutations of your arguments (e.g. the
infrastructure *is* consumed because it's state is effectively
destroyed by use without tending).  Your description of the Linux
infrastructure is interesting, but non-responsive.  Blah blah blah.
Not a very interesting debate.

However, if you want to be the language maven, would you mind giving a
quick definition of the tragedy of the commons in your terms, defining
the key technical terms?  That'd make better reading than the insults.