[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in theInternet?

Lynne Jolitz lynne at telemuse.net
Sun Jan 7 14:29:28 PST 2007

I think this rant illustrates my point to Greg perfectly as to the pitfalls of getting buy-in in open source and working in a respectful and considerate manner. :-)
Lynne Jolitz.
We use SpamQuiz.
If your ISP didn't make the grade try http://lynne.telemuse.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org]On Behalf Of Detlef Bosau
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 4:34 AM
> To: end2end-interest at postel.org
> Cc: Lynne Jolitz; frank.duerr; Daniel Minder
> Subject: [e2e] Borat Science. Was: Re: Are we doing sliding window in
> theInternet?
> Once again: NO!
> <Bad Flame>
> First of all: What is Linux?
> A job application of mine once was rejected, one question was: Do you 
> know Linux?
> When it came to Unix, I mentioned several flavours of Linux-clones, I´m 
> familiar with - I forgot about Linux. Therefore, in the eyes of that 
> employer,  I was an idiot.
> Excuse me, I use Linux in my home since 1993, that´t not that long but 
> it´s perhaps longer that many kids in some human ressources
> department use computers at all.
> </Bad Flame>
> O.k. For a even more bad flame on this issue, please refer to RMS´ well 
> known talk on Linux and Free Software.
> I just remember that one day even in some university allegedly a 
> department´s chair had said that Linux were more realistic than the NS2.
> Here in Germany, we have a "joke". Roughly translated: At night, it´s 
> colder than outside.
> That´s the same scientific level.
> What is "realistic"? What is _reality_?
> I only can talk about standards and whether a software is compliant to 
> them or not.
> The problem with Linux is, that it is "positioned" on the market as a 
> competitor for M$ products and that their are growing commercial 
> interests behind it - and no adequate commercial responsibility and 
> accountability at the same time. So, Linux lost its virginity when it is 
> taken as a scientific research system and it never achieved maturity 
> when it comes to a commercial accountability.
> I use Linux because it is free, it is sufficient for my purposes. But I 
> don´t accept this "Linux religion" which appears to be continously 
> spreading.
> The very point is a different one.
> As I said some days ago, scientific research starts with a problem 
> statement, than we investigate whether there exist solutions or whether 
> the problem can be solved at all and evaluate solutions and approaches. 
> Perhaps we consider new ones if they are better than existing ones or 
> even the first ones to exist.
> That is, to my understanding, proper science.
> And it absolutely doesn´t matter whether wie run TCP/IP on Linux, M$ 
> systems, AIX, HP-UX, SunOS or even the KA9Q stack.
> So, what are we talking about here?
> Should we do advertising for certain operating systems?
> Or should we talk about end to end issues in distributed systems?
> Here in Germany standards sometimes are respected the same way as an act 
> of parliament. E.g. we have something called "Technischer 
> Ueberwachungsverein", roughly: Technical Supervisory Association. If you 
> own a car, you have to persent this to this association every two years 
> in order to make sure that your car complies to the technical 
> regulations here in Germany. And if you don´t do so, you are not allowed 
> to use this car in the public road traffic otherwise it would be a 
> criminal offense. And it absolutely doesn´t matter in this context if 
> you use a Volkswagen or a BMW. (Thanks to Professor Schrempp 
> Mercedes-Benz does not exist any longer. There is some nostalgic trade 
> mark which remembers us at these cars.) So, even you have a "star" at 
> your hood this won´t help you if the test badge is missing.
> So, we do not experiment with different brake, steering wheels etc. in 
> the public road traffic and count the victims of deadly accidents 
> afterwards.
> Instead we _first_ define standards, _then_ we make sure that cars used 
> in Germany comply to these. Otherwise these cars must not be used. Period.
> I once talked to a colleague who told me how this is handled in some 
> country where he spent his vacation. IIRC they had an extemely 
> scientific way for brake testing there: The experiment. Roughly spoken: 
> Put a child against a wall, tell the driver to brake timely before the 
> wall - and if the child is still alive afterwards the brake may have 
> worked sufficiently fine.
> Sometimes, this approach is called "Borat Science".
> Lynne Jolitz wrote:
> > Yes, Greg. You're right. Buy-in is difficult to achieve and 
> maintain, especially in open source. As I also went on to say in 
> that same email you quote:
> > "But if it's not worth the time and effort for the academic 
> side to take on this charge, the marketplace will have to serve instead."
> >
> > People are very good at finding reasons to justify inaction on 
> their part, and it is frustrating to even try for something 
> better. That takes vision and risk.
> >   
> Excuse me, but what exactly do you call "inaction" here? I always see a 
> vivid discussion here. Many papers are published - much more than I can 
> read. Problems are identified and solved. Where is "inaction" here? In 
> addition: When will the first M$-guy come to this discussion and will 
> claim that the academic community has to fix what they don´t get handled 
> in Redmond? Do you happen to mix up the task of industrial / commercial 
> implementation and proper academic research?
> > If one were to set up such an arrangement with any eye towards 
> the long-term, wouldn't it be wise to find an approach that would 
> bring in parties and allow them to all benefit from an accord? 
> Isn't it in the best interests of OS and networking 
> Of course! That´s to my understandig the purpose of the IETF. _That´s_ 
> the venue.
> > developers, academics, and scientists to make sure things work well?
> >
> > But that would require people to reach out to others, put skin 
> in the game, and take a risk. It requires trust and mutual 
> respect. It's much easier to complain and expect someone else to 
> do the work. And it's much easier to ignore complaints because 
> there is too much work to do already.
> >   
> Excuse me, I have no one to do my work. I´m a single unemployed male and 
> I have to do _any_ of my work on my own. And perhaps, some day this is 
> reckognized. If not? Bad luck.
> So, _please_ don´t tell me anything about risks before yo know what 
> you´re talking about.
> I try to take part in the academic discussion _without_ any help or 
> assistance. When I try to publish a paper, I even don´t know who will 
> pay to possbible conference fees. That´s all my own risk. Perhaps, some 
> time this will pay. For the moment, it doesn´t. Howver, there is no 
> opportunity for me to get a job, so I try to do some scientific work.
> _Without_ any help by the IETF or any others.
> Perhaps, this requires to do some homework. When something does not 
> work, you will even have to spend a night on it or a weekend.
> But please don´t talk about taking a risk here.
> > And that's why the marketplace is the default. It's not the 
> best solution, but it is a solution.
> >
> >   
> The marketplace has thrown me out.
> I´m a single male, unemployed for 3 years now, aged 43. For the 
> marketplace, I´m not longer a human being. I graduated in 1992, so for our
> employment centre and our human ressources departments I´m regarded as 
> an "unskilled worker".
> So, I take a risk, i.e. that Joe throws me out of this list when I say 
> this, but is my honest opinion: Please leave me alone with this McKinsey 
> attitude!

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list