Nicely put!<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/6/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andrew Greenberg</b> <<a href="mailto:werdna@mucow.com">werdna@mucow.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Let's recap this all too oft-repeated thread:<br><br> 1. Squeak is not generally accepted.<br> 2. Generally accepted platforms have feature X<br> 3. Squeak should have feature X to become generally accepted.
<br><br>the discussion proceeds:<br><br> 1. Quibbles about whether S is generally accepted, or whether<br>S should be GA<br> 2. Quibbles about whether the feaature actually exists in GA<br>systems<br> 3. Quibbles about whether X is sufficient to bring S closer
<br>to GA<br><br>Feh, just feh. None of this matters, right or wrong.<br><br>Squeak is an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT. If you think S should have a<br>feature, build it please. Darwin will determine whether your<br>arguments on 1, 2 or 3 are right. If you don't or can't implement
<br>it, ask for the feature. If you can't sell it, Darwin determines<br>that result.<br><br>It may be inferred from the failure to implement what you seek that<br>not all the assumptions 1, 2, 3 are accurate, or the conclusion
<br>suggested necessarily follows therefrom. Prove us wrong, that would<br>be good. Don't do anything to move the ball forward, we all have<br>more important things to do.<br><br>Please do not misunderstand -- this is a fundamental property of OSS
<br>projects. Quibbleds about what isn't there isn't generally<br>interesting in the absence of a changeset.<br><br></blockquote></div><br><br><br>-- <br>It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple idea. -- Carver Mead