My last comments on this ... Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that some faceless, nameless, identity-less non-entity at > the upper levels of LPI has now decided to change that ... > OK, so I'm ticked off ... > But remember that almost no-one supports LPI for purely logical > reasons ...
Of those various, allegedly non-existent "industry" influences, I'm sure at least some of those with the "six sisters" would strongly disagree with you. If you don't know who I mean, I'd have to question if you attended any TAC and have worked with Matt or anyone else at LPI. > We do it because it's cool ... Could you _please_ stop responding on-behalf of _all_ of us? Especially for people like myself, professionally at odds with 97% of Linux professionals most of the time. ;-> First rule of standards development: People _differ_ in what is important. Second rule of standards development: Industry is what _makes_ products and _employs_ people. Seen far too many IEEE standards fly because they realized rules #1 and #2 as well as tank because they didn't (especially #2). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
