Reminder of a python Project.
huaiyu at gauss.almadan.ibm.com
Thu Jun 27 21:27:44 CEST 2002
Timothy Rue <threeseas at earthlink.net> wrote:
>Anyway, the flamers didn't have to respond at all. It was a simple post
>and the reference to research indicating that GPL projects have a low
>count of developers, with what I believe is 1 as a mean, is as well what
>research found (sorry no link - search for it yourself - /. had it linked)
>It was an informational post, that all.
>Amazing who all something like that get a flaming response from. Good
>thing the world is not made up of nothing but, for we wouldn't have any
It looks like nobody else is talking to you in plain English this time.
I'll make one last effort in the hope of making it clear to you why this is
so. There's no point in replying if you do not agree. Indeed, that would
be an indication that I failed.
First off, there is no point in explaining the cost of software bugs.
Everybody knows it, including those who said, tongue in cheeck, that all
such problems are solved. It's the same if someone starts to say that road
accident is a big problem and we should reduce it. (No, please don't start
to analyse how inadequate this analogy is; that would miss the point
entirely. It is only intended to convey the kind of impression people have
about such claims. Either you get the idea, or you don't.)
Second, many poeple are convinced that a better theory/framework/paradigm is
needed to go to the next stage. (We are living in an exciting time, don't
we?) However, no one here is convinced in the slightest bit that you've got
_it_. It is like claiming, in the 1940s, that machines should be capable of
controlling themselves, and that all this is reduced to the basic principles
of "action and reaction". That won't cut it. On the other hand, someone
who actually developed the theory of transfer functions, frequency analysis
and various associated techniques, and identified a specific class of
machines and a specific class of goals for which it is useful, would have
been ranked among the pioneers of control theory. Again, this is just an
analogy to convey the idea. Either you get the idea, or you don't.
Thirdly, if you really want to convince people of something, it is to your
advantage to focus on the positive things instead of the negative.
Retorting people who discounts your "discovery" just makes more people
annoyed at you. Touting the importance of research that claims the
importance of some problem does not in any way advance the importance of
your approach to solving that said problem. Instead of fighting people in
this group (ok, this time they started to fight you first, but that's beside
the point), it is more to your advantage to do some solid research and come
up with at least one real solution to one real prolem (in the science sense,
not in the marketing sense).
Finally, get really worried if slashdot becomes your primary feed of
More information about the Python-list