From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: article abour Reiser4 on linux.com Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:51:21 -0400 Message-ID: <44DA0479.7070701@slaphack.com> References: <87bqqzbaug.fsf@baldur.nicundtas.de> <44D5B43D.3060501@namesys.com> <1154904931.6553.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44D99CA9.9040807@namesys.com> <20060809094708.GA21342@wintermute> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20060809094708.GA21342@wintermute> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Andreas Sch=E4fer wrote: > On 02:28 Wed 09 Aug , Hans Reiser wrote: >>> Unfortunately, it's not one of which editors approve. It too easily >>> looks as though the writer is being influenced by the source.=20 >>> =20 >>> >>> If I were to do so, I'd risk being banned from publication.=20 >=20 > Uhm... interesting. It's not that I have so much experience with the > press (just three interviews so far), but everytime I got the article > for review before publication. > If you didn't trust the source in the first place, why should you > bother to take information from it at all? If you do trust it, why not > ask again? Hmm. Except in this case, they were summarizing a rather large debate,=20 so it's not a question of trusting the source or not, it's a question of=20 whether you want to fact-check with every person on reiserfs-list and=20 lkml, until you've got the whole thing so debated and watered-down that=20 it's meaningless. Then, too, sometimes it's better to check ahead of time than to get it=20 wrong and have to correct later, because people won't always read the=20 corrections.