Mark Collette wrote:
>
> Does anyone here actually know what opensource means? It doesn't mean that
> you complain to opensrs about how they should pander to your every whim.
It means that if the *SERVER* does not meet your needs, and you have no
control over the *SERVER* code, you are able to make suggestions and
that hopefully the fellows working on the *SERVER* will take your
suggestions to heart the next time they look at implementing new
features, or reimplementing the code.
> It means that they will work on making _a_ functional system, as they see
> fit that resolves the _needs_ of the users, and if you don't _like_ the
> system or are not able to _wrap_your_brain_ around it, you are totally
> free to code your own.
I _have_ implemented my own *CLIENT* in Perl. I would prefer to
implement my own *CLIENT* in Java. If the *SERVER* met my *NEEDS*
better, I _could_ write my own *CLIENT* in Java. As it is, all I can do
is try to make my opinion known as to what my *NEEDS* are to the fellows
in charge of writing the *SERVER* code. If they do not feel like making
changes to make my life easier, (and apparently, the lives of at least
several others on this list who would like to see a closer convergence
to an XML-like interface) then I suck it up and work with a tool that
*I* consider less-than-perfect for the job for *ME*.
Fortunately, the joy of having an open system like OpenSRS is that the
developers seem to actually listen to my suggestions rather than just
bitch and moan and complain because I don't share their exact mindset.
> Any cool spiffy feature or nifty idea that would make your day, is up to
> _you_ to implement. In the end, it's just a byte stream going down a
> socket, that any language could duplicate. And yes, it might be easier for
> you, using language X on platform Y if they used approach Z, but they may
> not have _time_ to reimplement the whole system to be easier for _you_.
As far as "it's just a byte stream" that's nice. All traffic on the
'net is "just a byte stream". Sure makes network programming a lot
easier now that you realise that, doesn't it?
If it were true that Tucows didn't need to implement their server to
meet the needs of their users, they should not call it "Open" SRS. As
it is, it sounds like Charles and the rest of the fellows at Tucows are
VERY receptive to suggestions and thus it deservces its name. Users on
this list, however, do not seem to be nearly as open or receptive.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
> That being said, I also think it would be better using the spiffy XML
> method with chocolate sprinkles on top, but until I write the code to do
> that, and send it to them as a patch (which I won't do because perl works
> fine for me) then I wouldn't complain about what they do.
I would happily write code for the server to handle XML and send them
patches IF I HAD ACCSES TO THE SERVER CODE. I'll happily write my own
CLIENT to handle XML if they migrate over to something that will easily
translate into being handled in an XML-ish fashion.
I'm assuming you're referring to my post about the XML interface as a
"complaint" which is totally bogus. If we are not allowed to make
*SUGGESTIONS* for fear of being branded a "complainer" then this list,
and therefore the whole "Open"ness of "Open"SRS development is just a
joke.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter what YOU think about my suggestions, as
long as Tucows are listening, which they do appear to be doing, for
which I thank them and because of which I heartily apologize for causing
such a ruckus the last couple of days with my comments.
EOT
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With Microsoft products, failure is not Derek Glidden
an option - it's a standard component. http://3dlinux.org/
Choose your life. Choose your http://www.tbcpc.org/
future. Choose Linux. http://www.illusionary.com/
