bogus bogotuning

[Greg Louis]

On 20040128 (Wed) at 1424:41 +0100, Joerg Over Dexia wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to chime in on this, although it's almost off-topic
> now...
> 
> Am 06:46 28.01.2004 -0500 teilte David Relson mir folgendes mit:
> ->On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:40:30 -0500
> ->Greg Louis wrote:
> ->> On 20040127 (Tue) at 1504:51 -0800, Greg McCann wrote:
> ->> > On 1/27/2004 at 5:23 PM Greg Louis 
> ->> > >results with bogofilter.  Should we clutter the code with
> bad
> ->> > >options and then say,"actually this is a bad thing, don't
> use it"?
> 
> That's the Un*x way, I'd believe.

I'm normally on your side about letting users shoot themselves in the
foot, but even Un*x only does that if there's a benefit to be had for
someone.

> the developers don't know what that should be good for.

This developer thinks he knows that it can be good for exactly nothing. 
He wrote bogotune for himself and put those limits into the very first
version to remind himself not to do worthless runs (and save the wasted
time if he forgot).

> This actually sounds like the "we know what's good for you"
> attitude which drives MS users up the wall....

Yeah, I've worried about my stance being somewhat arrogant, but
honestly, I think we do more users better service by not coding options
that permit invalid runs.  Anyone who wants to take the responsibility
on herself can convert the code to warn but not exit; as you point
out, it's not hard.  I just think it's bogus to offer it officially.

> It sends the message open source has been sending from the
> beginning. It says: "You're responsible".

Unfortunately it also implies that there might be some use in having
such an option -- which I do not believe is the case, and am unwilling
to be seen as supporting in any way.

-- 
| G r e g  L o u i s         | gpg public key: 0x400B1AA86D9E3E64 |
|  http://www.bgl.nu/~glouis |   (on my website or any keyserver) |
|  http://wecanstopspam.org in signatures helps fight junk email. |