Andrew: > A little poking around the Southampton university website (this is > like 20 minutes away from where I live, btw) indicates that this is > almost certainly a paper by a recent graduate and/or research student, > with their supervisor's name tacked on. It's probably a writeup of a > personal project.
> I don't think there's anything to see here. Every university in the > world generates these things by the hundred every year. I've written a > couple myself. They rarely go very far - it's more to do with academic > justification than practical results. The paper suggests that the work-in-progress they are working on will be used by a larger, ongoing project. I don't think this is *just* a blip. But, yes, I agree -- this specific thing is not obviously going far. It's not unimaginable it would wind up being uncritically adopted by something like Eclipse and, from there, having a more direct social consequence. I don't claim otherwise. The mode of reasoning, though -- that is much larger than just this one project. That's where the real concern is and where there certainly are "things to see". As I pointed out, taxonomic v. ontological confusion in analyzing software engineering efforts has serious economic consequences and is subject to gaming and sabotage. (ahem.) -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
