Subject: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: arch advocates]]
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 22:10:10 -0700

Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:

> Red Hat's (by policy!) passivity is a bug.  It's not a neutral stance
> nor is it legitimately viewed a stance of non-interference.

Well, of course it's not a neutral stance.  It's a decision of what to
focus on.  It may be, in the long run, a mistake.  But you haven't
even attempted to show that it is a mistake.

> Is RH aiming for "cheaper and better" for their customers? -- I
> honestly wonder how safe it is for me to be frank about that: the
> expected outcome is that they would sick the lawyers on me, regardless
> of the accuracy of what they say.  (This "bring out the threat of
> litigation bug" isn't RH-specific: it seems to permeate US business
> culture, at least in the regions I've toured.)

I simply can't imagine Red Hat sicing lawyers on you, or any
programmer, if only for reasons of horrible publicity in the group of
people they depend upon for their business.

But I do know that paranoia is often a component of megalomania.

Ian