Nicely put!

On 7/6/05, Andrew Greenberg <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> 
> Let's recap this all too oft-repeated thread:
> 
> 1. Squeak is not generally accepted.
> 2. Generally accepted platforms have feature X
> 3. Squeak should have feature X to become generally accepted.
> 
> the discussion proceeds:
> 
> 1. Quibbles about whether S is generally accepted, or whether
> S should be GA
> 2. Quibbles about whether the feaature actually exists in GA
> systems
> 3. Quibbles about whether X is sufficient to bring S closer
> to GA
> 
> Feh, just feh. None of this matters, right or wrong.
> 
> Squeak is an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT. If you think S should have a
> feature, build it please. Darwin will determine whether your
> arguments on 1, 2 or 3 are right. If you don't or can't implement
> it, ask for the feature. If you can't sell it, Darwin determines
> that result.
> 
> It may be inferred from the failure to implement what you seek that
> not all the assumptions 1, 2, 3 are accurate, or the conclusion
> suggested necessarily follows therefrom. Prove us wrong, that would
> be good. Don't do anything to move the ball forward, we all have
> more important things to do.
> 
> Please do not misunderstand -- this is a fundamental property of OSS
> projects. Quibbleds about what isn't there isn't generally
> interesting in the absence of a changeset.
> 
> 


-- 
It's easy to have a complicated idea. It's very very hard to have a simple 
idea. -- Carver Mead
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20050706/2f9846eb/attachment.htm