What's the easiest and/or simplest part of Linux Kernel?

[James Kuyper]

To everyting.

Context would help - what in the world are you quoting?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Why not query the RFC that you've just violated yourself?

Probably the same reason you didn't cite it yourself.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Probably the same reason you didn't cite it yourself.

I didn't name it because it should have been bloody obvious. It was
the RFC that was in force when n.l.c was newgrouped.

Phil

 

[James Kuyper]

I didn't name it because it should have been bloody obvious. It was
the RFC that was in force when n.l.c was newgrouped.

I don't consider it obvious. I wouldn't even have thought to look for
the term "RFC", and it certainly wouldn't have occurred to me to limit
my search to the time when net.lang.c (the predecessor to comp.lang.c)
was formed. The current version of the applicable standards, which Ben
has kindly identified for us, seems far more relevant.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

I didn't name it because it should have been bloody obvious. It was
the RFC that was in force when n.l.c was newgrouped.

No, it's really not "bloody obvious". n.l.c was became a newsgroup in
1982. The earliest RFC, and the one from which I think you quoted, is
dated 1986.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I didn't name it because it should have been bloody obvious. It was
the RFC that was in force when n.l.c was newgrouped.

Which RFC are you referring to?

The answer to that question is not obvious to me; I know a few
things about the history of Usenet, but I'm not an expert. If it's
obvious to you, you should have no difficulty answering.

Do you assert that no later RFCs are applicable, even if they say
that they supersede the one you're referring to?

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

n.l.c was became a newsgroup in 1982. The earliest RFC, and the one
from which I think you quoted, is dated 1986.

That's because news (and email) was originally distributed via UUCP over
dialup modems; the gradual transition to NNTP (and SMTP) didn't occur
until the core sites had fast (for the era), always-on connections.

Still, the quote was irrelevant; message _bodies_ are governed by RFC
822 and its successors. NNTP (or SMTP or even UUCP) only governs what
is called the message _envelope_, which is not at issue here.

S

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

That's because news (and email) was originally distributed via UUCP over
dialup modems; the gradual transition to NNTP (and SMTP) didn't occur
until the core sites had fast (for the era), always-on connections.

That's a little skewed (dial-up was only one option), but it's good
to point out that there were standards in place before NNTP came along.
That's one reason why I have no idea what RFC Phil thinks is in place at
the time n.l.c started up.

Still, the quote was irrelevant; message _bodies_ are governed by RFC
822 and its successors. NNTP (or SMTP or even UUCP) only governs what
is called the message _envelope_, which is not at issue here.

Technically, no. The article format is governed by RFC 850, but that's
something of a quibble because the main point of RFC 850 is to say the
messages are formatted as emails as per 822. It add some requirements
and imposes some restrictions, but it's basically RFC 822.

But I disagree about relevance. The comment about the character set
covers "commands and replies" and these include the text reply that
contains the a whole post when itis requested form the server. If the
ASCII restriction applies, it applies to the message as a whole.

BTW, the parts of the NNTP protocol that correspond to an email envelope
are virtually none because NNTP does not specify any delivery
information.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

On 27-Aug-13 00:07, Tim Rentsch wrote:
"Show me your code and conceal your data structures, and I
shall continue to be mystified. Show me your data structures,
and I won't usually need your code; it'll be obvious." --Eric
S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar

This quote is actually from (or perhaps paraphrased from) /The
Mythical Man-Month/, by Fred Brooks.

I was aware of the original quote and deliberately chose Raymond's
because the terminology is more modern; if I had quoted Brooks, I
doubt that [OP] would have understood the relevance of flowcharts
and tables to his question.

Brooks and MMM still deserve the credit. If you think the quote
needs paraphrasing for contemporary usage, paraphrase it yourself.
Attributing Eric Raymond is misleading.

Eric Raymond is who said what I quoted, so he is the proper person to
attribute. To attribute it to Brooks would be untrue. To claim that
_I_ had paraphrased Brooks, when I was actually quoting Raymond, would
be plagiarism.

Normal practice is to attribute the original author. The
text shown obviously has a lot more of Fred Brooks in it
than it does of Eric Raymond.

Raymond credits Brooks with the quote; since he does, it
seems appropropiate that any citation should also credit
Brooks. Nothing wrong with giving Raymond credit for the
paraphrase also, as long as Brooks is credited with the
original. What would Eric Raymond himself prefer? Perhaps
this:

Brooks, Chapter 9: ``Show me your flowchart and conceal
your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show
me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart;
it'll be obvious.'' Allowing for thirty years of
terminological/cultural shift, it's the same point.

This quote taken from the current online version of ESR's
book, at

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s06.html

I read TMMM not because someone told me to but because it was cited in
conversation. Ditto for many other important books, including TCatB. I
was returning the favor by citing it myself.

I see no reason why your motivations for reading various
books should have any bearing on what attribution should be
given. If you want to express a personal opinion about
the value of ESR's book, or any book, go ahead and do so;
but that should be done directly, not by giving misleading
attributions.

... except it's not. The quote is actually from TCatB, so the proper
attribution should have corrected your faulty memory. You're welcome.

Thanks just the same, I prefer not to accept favors from
petty and intellectually dishonest people.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Normal practice is to attribute the original author. The text shown
obviously has a lot more of Fred Brooks in it than it does of Eric
Raymond.

Raymond credits Brooks with the quote; since he does, it seems
appropropiate that any citation should also credit Brooks. Nothing
wrong with giving Raymond credit for the paraphrase also, as long as
Brooks is credited with the original.

When you cite "John 3:16", it is in the expectation that the reader will
check the source to find out that John was, in fact, quoting Jesus; you
don't cite, for instance, "John 3:16, quoting Jesus".

What would Eric Raymond himself prefer? Perhaps this:

Brooks, Chapter 9: ``Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables,
and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I
won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious.'' Allowing for
thirty years of terminological/cultural shift, it's the same point.

This quote taken from the current online version of ESR's book, at

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s06.html

This seems to be the version I read:

http://www.free-soft.org/literature/papers/esr/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar-5.html

That's one of the problems quoting with online books: they change.

I see no reason why your motivations for reading various books should
have any bearing on what attribution should be given.

You justified your position based on whether readers will think to look
something up, which opened the opposing line of argument.

... that should be done directly, not by giving misleading
attributions.

It was not my intent to mislead; I attributed the source I quoted, which
was Raymond, and he attributed the source he paraphrased.

Thanks just the same, I prefer not to accept favors from petty and
intellectually dishonest people.

Dishonesty requires intent, which I did not have; at most I am guilty of
laziness and/or assuming too much of my audience. OTOH, you did in fact
look up the quote, which is what I expected if one wasn't familiar with
both works. It is you who continue to insist on being petty, just as it
was you who suggested that I be intellectually dishonest by claiming
Raymond's paraphrase as my own.

I'm done with this argument.

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

That's a little skewed (dial-up was only one option),

Well, there were a few sites with leased lines, but they still used
standard dialup modems and UUCP. The big change was when the NSFnet
started up in 1983; the 56kb/s, always-on digital circuits enabled the
shift to TCP/IP, and so the Internet (as we know it) was born.

Technically, no. The article format is governed by RFC 850, but
that's something of a quibble because the main point of RFC 850 is to
say the messages are formatted as emails as per 822. It add some
requirements and imposes some restrictions, but it's basically RFC
822.

Mail: RFC 822 (1982) was obsoleted by RFC 2822 (2001), which was in turn
obsoleted by RFC 5322 (2008). The only relevant change vs RFC 822 is
MIME, which allows character encodings other than ASCII, e.g. UTF-8.

RFC 850 (1983) was obsoleted by RFC 1036 (1987), which was in turn
obsoleted by RFC 5537 (2009). RFC 5537 cites RFC 5536 (2009), which
parallels RFC 5322. The only relevant change vs RFC 822 is MIME, which
allows character encodings other than ASCII, e.g. UTF-8.

(The difficulty in keeping track of this mess shows why the IETF is so
reluctant to make even trivial changes to base protocols.)

But I disagree about relevance. The comment about the character set
covers "commands and replies" and these include the text reply that
contains the a whole post when itis requested form the server. If
the ASCII restriction applies, it applies to the message as a whole.

The relevant standards make it quite clear that RFC 5537 covers only the
protocol between servers while RFC 5536 covers the message bodies that
are transmitted via said protocol.

BTW, the parts of the NNTP protocol that correspond to an email
envelope are virtually none because NNTP does not specify any
delivery information.

Still, the rules for an envelope and its contents are distinct, even if
only at a conceptual level. This parallels the distinction for email,
even if it's not as useful for news, due to their common UUCP origin.

S