> This is a distinction without a difference. Wut? Explanations are the same thing as justifications? I think you have to explain ... > This isn't a moral iss

> This is a distinction without a difference. Wut? Explanations are the same thing as justifications? I think you have to explain ... > This isn't a moral issue, so "justification" is irrelevant. Actually, it is? > There are only tradeoffs. Insisting that the design was just bad, broken, unreliable, or braindead, while not even acknowledging the tradeoffs (i.e. ignoring the positives or, instead, calling them negatives) strikes me as disingenuous. There probably were no benefits, other than for the people implementing the kernel, as explained earlier. > Nope. That's a strawman. So, what am I misrepresenting then? > I urge you to read the essay and the commentary around "Worse is Better". Otherwise, all this is essentially just a shallow dismissal. Yeah, thanks, it doesn't make sense as a justification, only as an explanation.