Re: Re: about your concept

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:02AM +0200, JP Dinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:59:06PM +0200, JP Dinger wrote:
> > > > presumably because they can't
> > > > understand how anybody would use it otherwise.
> > > 
> > > If people insist on finding out the hard way their idea doesn't fly,
> > > let them.
> > 
> > Do you see anybody stopping them? No?
> >
> > Anybody can write code, if they want to try out their idea. It just
> > probably won't be merged, and is likely to be ignored.
> 
> Merging means stamping it fit for general tryout, something you don't
> usually do until after some testing at least. Ignoring means not even
> trying out new code, defeating the purpose of an experimental platform.
> Ignoring also means discouraging people from contributing code for their
> ideas, which is even more damaging.

Now you're back to the "You people must help me build something that
you don't want" idea. That's not how it works. If *you* want
something, then *you* must do the work. You cannot expect anybody else
to do it for you, especially when they can see out of hand why it's a
dumb idea.

> > It is
> > significant that none of these people have done so.
> 
> If you insist on measuring merit by lines of code alone, then yes.
> OTOH if you first ignore all contributed code then complain nobody
> contributes code anymore, is nobody to blame for not doing so?

Congratulations, you've managed to miss the point quite
stunningly. They *didn't* write any code. That means they didn't care.

> > > > X has the right approach, as always. The current division between core
> > > > and window manager or application functionality is in exactly the
> > > > right place. The implementation can just be done better.
> > > 
> > > >From my reading of /The Thesis[tm]/, or even from various opinions on
> > > this list, I didn't get the idea that Y was to be a copy remake of what
> > > X did right 20 years ago. Sure we should use what was done right, but I
> > > don't think that's all we can do. Far from it, even.
> > 
> > Nobody, including Mark, who is significantly involved in Y has given
> > *any* particularly deep opinions on the design and direction of the
> > project on this list.
> 
> So you're saying that Y-devel is not a list for what you consider the
> clueful but more of what you think of as a courtesy to people you don't
> really deem worthy to talk with. Something like a pacifier for the
> wannabees to be ignored.

You said that. And you pulled it out of thin air, it appears apropos
of nothing.

> Glad to clear that up then. I'd encourage you to put your money where
> your mouth is and indeed do just that. But as some others on the list
> have assured me, you should be a quite clueful and capable coder. I'm
> sure there's many a person eager to learn and improve with help from
> a master. Calling them insane or other names doesn't really help them
> getting clued in.

You're not going to get it.

> > Mark's project report (which is *not* a thesis; anybody who calls it
> > that has no clue what they are talking about) is a fairly unique sort
> > of document and does not encapsulate the project in any
> > fashion. Primarily because it's not a thesis.
> 
> Someone called it that and it stuck.

Just because people act like sheep does not make them right.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA/6SSlpK98RSteX8RAr74AJ9VCN5LJSyTs8Mydcn5BPZBh5tpkwCfWcxF
jUgkVIMDNk1jjyyySpresTc=
=aYf1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----