<SIGH..> I do know I shouldn't be replying to this thread. All these messages are obviously harmfull for the community. Besides, I'm well aware that this message will do nothing but keep this off-topic discussion alive..
On 01-ago-09, at 20:59, Hello wrote: > hahahaha pwned and rightfully so I don't think so. David raised very valid points, actually. In fact he basically wrote what I personally discussed with many other people after reading the original message. By the way, if you are willing to accept my advice, perhaps you might want to start letting us know who you are. As David pointed, that allow the rest of us to know something about you; and that's important. Personally, I find interesting to know if the person usually works with other OSS projects (so he knows the basics), and what the rest of the say of him and his work [1]. Bare in mind, meritocracy is the base upon which the open source software is build upon. If the community knew how you are and what your previous work is, it'd be make interaction much easier for we all. For instance, in this case we have David, Eric and Hello. The first time I read David on the mailing list, I realized I knew him from somewhere else (a conference? another project? articles maybe?) so I searched his name on google. The result? Geez! I could have read the articles he writes at O'Reilly, it could also read about his work at Creative Commons, on XML, LLUP, Mono, or any other of the project he collaborates with. What did I think? "This is definitely a talented and motivated person. What an awesome new signing for the project!" 'Hello', do not take me wrong (no offense, seriously), but you can understand that an anonym users replying something like "hahahaha pwned" is far far away from that well deserved and trustful position. It's plain and simple meritocracy. 1.- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrpajcAgR1E > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:44 PM, James Pearson <[email protected] > > wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM, M. David > Peterson<[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip rant] > > First off, please realize that I am not disagreeing with you, but > merely bringing up a few points. > > Posting angry rantful messages usually does more harm than good in > any internet discussion, a lesson that took me much too long to > learn, and I still forget sometimes. :) A simple "this is not > realistic, for the following reasons" would have sufficed. Giving > an example of a good benchmark is always helpful, too. > > A benchmark does not gain or lose credibility merely due to the > experience of the person performing it. Indeed. However, odds are an unexperienced person make mistakes, as we've seen in this case. Actually, experience is crucial for two kind of professionals: surgeons and engineers who perform benchmarks.. :-) -- Octality http://www.octality.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
