You chose to reply to me on the deity list, instead of the devel list where I made my comments. Please keep CC:ing me the replies, since I don't read the deity list.
Behan Wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > And while it may be true that your packages are written for you, I > > thought that Deity was being written for users. > > All packages are written for users. It's just that users forget that > volunteer writers write code because it's fun. If users place too many > demands on the developer (i.e. by nagging them), it is no longer fun. > Ultimately all free programming is done for the satisfaction of the > developper, not their users. True, but... If I decide to actually sit down and finish one of my pet projects (a low bandwidth NNTP-based news reader in perl), and package it for Debian, I ultimately wrote it for me. I'm writing it because I saw too many other newsreaders (tin, GNUS, trn, nn, pine, etc) suck down the entire active file before they started doing anything -- and at 28.8Kbps, that takes a long time. I would be turning it over to the user community because I think that they could also benefit from the problems I see and am trying to fix. But ultimately, I'm writing the program because -I- have a problem I want solved. Yes, it is being written for users, but I am the primary user I care about. However, the "problem" I thought deity was being written to solve was in part the perception that Debian has among novice users caused by dselect. As much as deity solves some techincal problems (mainly, IMHO, some of the pesky dependancy-ordering problems), it is in large part a "face-lift" -- faster, sleeker, prettier, better organised, but still basically doing the same job as dselect. Deity, more than my newsreader-in-development, is aimed at problems perceived in the user community, not at problems perceived by the developers of Deity. (Please don't take my above description of Deity (especially as a "face-lift") as a negative criticism. I personally am looking forward to using a tool with better package source handling features, better maintenance of dependencies, faster operation, prettier interface, etc. The cosmetic problems in dselect that I believed had spawned the deity project are not small ones, and I support the development of deity.) > As long as users don't get demanding (i.e. expect the developper to be > at their beck and call) and treat them with a bit of respect, I've found > almost any developper will respond very well to their suggestions. > > The best way for things like this to work in my experience is for > developpers to ask for ideas/advice, and then when people give it, don't > expect the developper to necessarily take it. It was afterall, only > advice. The project is still the developper's. Agreed. And sometimes the best way to get ideas and advice is to present something the users don't like, and listen to their reaction. Personally, I thought that was what Bruce was doing with "trove". However, there is a fine line between advice and criticism (which is welcomed) and nagging (which is not). Unfortunately, that line tends to be drawn by the listener, not by the speaker. > > What really gets to me is the stirrings of hypocricy I'm seeing. > > While Bruce is out claiming open source software is good, while the > > developers have stood behind the DSFG, and everyone is publically > > endorsing the "Cathedral and Bazarre" article by Eric Raymond, behind > > the scenes we have prominant, well-respected developers threatening to > > abandon the bazarre and head into the cathedral. > > No offense, but it is demanding views like the ones you are portraying > that are pushing people to do this. If everyone just backed off I think > everything would get a lot better. It is a catch-22 situation. I'm confused. What "demanding views" are you refering to? I don't remember portaying any. > When > the bazarre becomes to demanding or sometimes even insulting, then > anyone would withdraw from that model. That's human nature. > > I find it incredible that people expect other people to remain open even > when they are being attacked. Sheesh. I may have missed something, but as far as I know, the first post in this particular incarnation of this thread (the one to which Manoj was directly responding to) was the most attacking message from the "we don't like 'deity'" camp. However, I found the responses of Manoj and Guy to be irrelevant to the naming issue, and rather insulting to the community of non-developing users (myself included). I don't expect other people to remain open even when they are attacked. I think this issue has gotten out of hand, and I think it threatens more than just the name of a particular software package. I think it reflects some underlying attitudes I don't particularly like. When I first got involved with Debian (around the time of the release of 1.1), it seemed like there were about 1000 silent users, 200 active users, and 50 developers. Now we have about 200 developers, and a much larger number of users of both types. I was amazed to hear that SPI has received $10,000 in donations from CD sales. That's 2,000 copies of the CD's out there, not counting the ones bought by people who didn't chip in the extra $5.00 donation. Was Debian better before? Do we really want to return to the small number of vocal people? > > For what it's worth, the discussion to change the name wasn't brought > > forth by a user, but by Bruce Perens, who, when shoved, cited Ian > > Murdock as another person concerned by it. Neither of whom deserve > > the level of contempt that is implied by you comments above. But I > > don't expect that to matter, since Bruce got attacked with "what have > > you done for us lately?", instead of respected. > > Please reread the thread. Bruce did not get attacked out of the blue > like you are implying. He pushed the Deity team too hard by imposing > his own views. And people responded to that pushing. Yes, the Deity > team pushed back, but we didn't start the pushing match. If I remember, Bruce started by announcing the name "trove". People responded with -lots- of suggestions, you posted some guidelines for suggestions, and a general brainstorming session happened. At that point, I saw no problem... Some people asked what was wrong with "deity", and Bruce explained that the use of the term might be offensive, and some discussion, not flaes, of that occured. Then Bruce noticed that a lot of the names were coming from users, not from developers, and tried to guilt people into developing packages. He commented that "no one" had read the design documents for deity on the deity web site, and suggested that there was something wrong with everyone having a comment on the name, but no one caring about the design enough to contribute to -that- work. This alienated the members of the Deity team, who didn't like to be called "no one", and things really started to go down hill from there. It was shortly after this that Manoj started going from neutrality about the name to the pro-Deity camp, in reaction to the process more than the other choices. Am I remembering correctly, or will I have to check the archives? If I have to check the archives, I'll have to wait until next week. I'm home for spring break, and my net access currently sucks. > > > ps: not that I have contributed much to deity; but I do contribute to > > > Debian. > > > > Then by your own logic, you should have as much say in Deity as I have > > in kernel-package. > > Except for the fact that he is on the Deity team, which guarantees him a > say in Deity's name in my book. We've asked for input from the user > community, but that does not imply that there is a vote on the name. > The Deity team will ultimately choose the new name. It wasn't clear that he is on the Deity team, and his ps implied that he wasn't. I should have realised that he was on the Deity team, I seem to remember his name as the author of one of those design documents that "no one" has read. To whom should I direct my comments about those documents? Most of my comments are about the documents themselves, and not so much about the design itself. I found them hard to follow and not tied together. I didn't have a framework I could start with to say "this is what Deity is, and these are the way the pieces fit together", so I was unable to get a gestalt of Deity to let the documents fill the details in for. > Thanks, > > Behan Buddha -- E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
