On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Robert McQueen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really don't think these kind of comments are productive for anyone. [...] > However, I'm not interested in participating (therefore I have not done > so) in participating in discussions about collaboration on Sugar which > a) ignore everything we've done so far, and b) contain fallacies such as: > * Given a working IPv6 network, we... > * Given a global DNS hirachy of school servers, we... > * ...
Whoa, there. Please don't drag me into this, and force me to rebut. We have a perfectly working link-local IPv6 network on every deployment we've ever fielded. And you (further on in your email) state "so provided the school server actually has a unique DNS name, we're all set." which sounds suspiciously like your second "fallacy". We've had a fruitful discussion of http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Network_principles in the past, and you made several good suggestions which I integrated. I don't think the "Network principles" proposal is "anti" the current networking stack at all; it just clarifies what networking situations we will attempt to provide and support, and does a little bit to decouple presence from the rest of the collaboration stack. I hope your email was written in the heat of passion only, and doesn't reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. I was accused of having some personal malicious intent towards Collabora multiple times during Sugarcamp, and it's rather dreary to have to keep insisting that it's just not so. If we need to clarify further, let's do so in order that we can continue working together productively -- but perhaps not on this particular thread, which is perhaps currently too hot for reasonable discourse. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
