[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
>> though they
>> certainly reflect Eric Raymond's hackers-as-humble-übermenchen
>> perspective quite well.
>
>Yup. Consider, in what branch of academia other than computer science
>do we hear of professors offering *payment* for bona fide errors in
>their books? Mostly they very much don't want to hear about 'em.
And how often do we hear of _anyone_ offering payment for bona fide
errors in their books? "Bug-fixing" may be a more common process in
computing because of the nature of the project, but I don't think that's
elevated computing to some more hallowed space.
My employer certainly doesn't pay for errors found in its books, except
(and this is relatively recent) prior to publication on a per-book or
per-chapter basis rather than a per-error basis.
In my general experience, authors much prefer to hear about errors than
not, whatever field they're in. If anything, I suspect that the volume
of errors in computer books outweighs the number of errors in books in
other fields, though measuring that would of course be a challenge.
Now can we get back to XML from hacker supremacy?
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
