Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA67XBgQ018404 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:33:12 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB72D76E46 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:33:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQLCd-0007yf-9I for migo@homemail.com; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:41:39 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CQLCK-0007yZ-JV for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:41:20 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CQLCK-0007yN-32 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:41:20 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CQLCK-0007yK-1A for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:41:20 -0500 Received: from [130.158.98.109] (helo=tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CQL3i-0000F6-0s for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 02:32:26 -0500 Received: from steve by tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CQL3c-0004pS-00; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:32:20 +0900 To: Thomas Lord Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: community spirit References: <200411010336.iA13af6p023128@xl2.seyza.com> <20041101141701.GB9161@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <87wtx51w70.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net> <20041101144826.GD9161@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <41867B20.1020608@melon.dk> <2982EA60-2C38-11D9-8C6F-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> <4186917E.3030209@melon.dk> <20041101232959.GA25080@hezmatt.org> <87ekjcswdn.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <418765A9.2040206@diku.dk> <878y9kpfcm.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200411022006.iA2K6Q1n036262@xl2.seyza.com> <87y8hinbq1.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200411041938.iA4Jc4UX055425@xl2.seyza.com> Organization: The XEmacs Project From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:32:17 +0900 In-Reply-To: <200411041938.iA4Jc4UX055425@xl2.seyza.com> (Thomas Lord's message of "Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:38:04 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <87lldfe8la.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 4963 Lines: 104 >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord writes: Thomas> The bloated crazy approach is promoted in the industry It's not yet proven that it's crazy from an economic standpoint, nor have you ever really explained what you mean by social risks that make make the kinds of software engineering that you disapprove of "crazy." Thomas> press in the form of which projects get the most attention Thomas> and in terms of what kind of attention they get (and, as a Thomas> matter of history, that press attention does /not/ follow Thomas> consumer uptake -- it precedes it). Marketing 101. ho hum. Thomas> One very famous old-school programmer said to me once, Thomas> slight paraphrase, "I've never managed to fix [those Thomas> execs] -- I doubt you will either." He seemed to me to Thomas> have slipped, very largely, into a hopeless cynicism. Name names. I know enough about the famous old-school programmers, and they're varied enough individuals, that it would be useful to know who. Thomas> When first generation says "I'm not sure you can fix X", Thomas> where X is obviously of central importance, to the second Thomas> generation: that's nothing but a priority challenge. The obvious is not always the true. If it really is of central importance to others, an entrepreneur can find ways to make a profit (in whatever terms he measures profit) from it. Thomas> Stay tuned. My multi-media document format is shaping up Thomas> nicely, recently (at least the infrastructure and Thomas> structure for building it out). And that's being done as Thomas> part of the Arch project which it will begin to benefit Thomas> shortly and amply. Uh, why bother? Nobody is going to use it except for you and a few other Arch developers. The current use of your idiosyncratic format, which requires people to build non-standard tools, has caused the docs to suck. Only people who care more about tla than getting their other work done are willing to work on the docs, and I see no reason why that will change. For that reason you should IMHO switch to a format that at least one other major project uses for document sources even if they all suck, because it will allow (at least some) casual Arch users to particupate in improving the part of Arch whose bugs they are most expert on---the docs. Thomas> To the degree that /my/ design approaches can be said to Thomas> represent those of a larger community and/or a specific Thomas> and plausible design mentality -- my team has been Thomas> consistent very, very badly outspent and out-promoted, Thomas> often disrupted, often ripped off, often treated quite Thomas> rudely: we never stood a fair chance to compete. As far as I can tell from public utterances, yours and others', you've never tried to compete on the established field of play. Instead, you've refused to play by the rules, and left the game. The action is up to you, but proceeding to bitch about not having access to the resources available in the game is childish. Thomas> There is /no/ way for those execs to behave rationally in Thomas> their check-signing ability unless they are able to dig, Thomas> pretty darn far, into actual code and code designs. Your imagination has failed you. They do it the way that any organization does it: they recruit experts (that they trust to keep _their_ goals in mind) to do it for them. As far as I can tell from the published record, you have no interest in their goals and refuse to compromise with them, and therefore you are not qualified for such a position. Pity, that.... Thomas> Where does that leave such willfully ignorant execs in my Thomas> moral calculus? Well, since you ask: it should leave them _outside_ of the _moral_ calculus. Evaluating others is not moral behavior: moral evaluations are first person, "I/we should/should not do ...". Of course it is often necessary to morally evaluate others' _behavior_, in order to determine whether "you and me" can become "we" in the moral calculus. In the case in point, if you believe that what "such execs" are doing is harmful and immoral, you should become an entrepreneur and acquire the resources needed to do something about it. That's what rms did; that's why rms is justly considered a great man. If you don't, well, then you share the moral responsibility for the debacle you predict. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/