[linux-elitists] git and a sysadmin book

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 15 18:03:27 PST 2009


Quoting Jeremy Hankins (nowan@nowan.org):

> Purely as a matter of presentation, using the term "entropy" as you
> were was begging for confusion; and I think the ensuing thread bears
> me out.

Er...

Could you please show us _any_ poster to this thread evincing any
confusion whatsoever, about what Karsten meant by the phrase "large
pools of low entropy" in the context of his dictum about "all buildings,
large crowds, nuclear power, comprehensive databases, absolute power,
monopolies", and similar things?   I think it's abundantly clear that
the one or two people who posted concerning Karsten's rule of thumb knew
precisely what he meant -- and knew that it wasn't the physics
definition.

You would be a case in point:  Your nit was explicitly feedback advising
Karsten about the technical meaning of "entropy" (and it seemed you
likely assumed the physics meaning to be the only such technical sense),
in _distinction_ to what Karsten said.

So, you clearly weren't the least bit confused as to what Karsten meant.
Nick Moffitt wasn't.  I wasn't.  Who was?

You have a valid point that Karsten was being a bit murky in mashing
together (in his rule of thumb) order/entropy and (potential) energy or
stasis.  I think any halfway attentive reader of his dictum will notice
that he's doing so.  But that's not confusion.

If this _were_ in context of physics, the carefree murkiness of
Karsten's appeal to pop science would be a problem.  But it isn't -- and
the general-discussion concept of entropy isn't the same, and won't gain
rigour by waving the spirit of Feynmann at it.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list