From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S262095AbTJ3AzR (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:55:17 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262101AbTJ3AzQ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:55:16 -0500
Received: from note.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU ([129.94.242.24]:22737 "HELO
	note.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S262095AbTJ3AzK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:55:10 -0500
From: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
To: trelane@digitasaru.net
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:54:41 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16288.24913.844699.956689@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: Dax Kelson <dax@gurulabs.com>, Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>,
       andersen@codepoet.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Things that Longhorn seems to be doing right
In-Reply-To: message from Joseph Pingenot on Wednesday October 29
References: <3F9F7F66.9060008@namesys.com>
	<20031029224230.GA32463@codepoet.org>
	<3FA0475E.2070907@namesys.com>
	<1067466349.3077.274.camel@mentor.gurulabs.com>
	<20031030002005.GC3094@digitasaru.net>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 21.3.1
X-face: [Gw_3E*Gng}4rRrKRYotwlE?.2|**#s9D<ml'fY1Vw+@XfR[fRCsUoP?K6bt3YD\ui5Fh?f
	LONpR';(ql)VM_TQ/<l_^D3~B:z$\YC7gUCuC=sYm/80G=$tt"98mr8(l))QzVKCk$6~gldn~*FK9x
	8`;pM{3S8679sP+MbP,72<3_PIH-$I&iaiIb|hV1d%cYg))BmI)AZ
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday October 29, trelane@digitasaru.net wrote:
> 
> Regardless, it's an interesting idea, and one which might be fruitful.  
> 
> I give you then two bits: our treatment of the tech and the reality of their
>   tech:
> 
> 00: ISVAPOR | TAKESEROUSLY
> 01: ISVAPOR | IGNORE
> 10: NOTVAPOR | TAKESERIOUSLY
> 11: NOTVAPOR | IGNORE
> 
> If we come up with a working implementation and it *is* just vaporware, then
>   we're ahead.
> We're way ahead.
>   
> If we merely dismiss it as vaporware and it turns out to be,
> no net change.
...snip...
> Conclusion: best to take it seriously and work on it; those two cases
>   are the most optimal.
> 

Sounds like the same argument that is used in "Pascal's Wager" for
belief in God, and I seriously don't think the argument works in
either case.  (note that I'm not making a statement about the
conclusion in either case, only about the arguement).

NeilBrown