On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:26:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 31 January 2018 at 09:43, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
I'm sure you can find much better D devs to contribute such work by posting bounties on the D or ldc bountysource pages:

https://www.bountysource.com/teams/d https://www.bountysource.com/teams/ldc-developers

I was surprised to see a gdc bounty page. I was even more surprised that the one notable bounty is an issue that's either blocked by Walter, or waiting on someone to implement array op templates in druntume/object.d. :-)

Heh, the lead gdc dev doesn't know that gdc bounties exist, not sure I could have made my case for their being hidden any better. :)

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:30:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
I'm reminded of airlines who have a "Priority" or "Privileged" queuing system at the gate. If you didn't want to wait in line to board, then you should have paid up.

Not sure if any parallels ring with you here. :-)

Any system that requires payment can be superficially compared to any other, but the real salient point here is the discrepancy: to even get on the flight, you have to pay for a ticket, whereas he paid nothing for the open-source sections of a mixed codebase. So, he's more like a guy who shows up at the gate without a ticket _and_ barges into the Priority queue, which is a sure way to get thrown out of the airport altogether. :D

And I have no problem with priority queues, baggage fees, etc., as the reason they charge for those is to _lower_ the ticket price for the cheapest consumer, a concept called price discrimination (and before I get the usual nonsense about how that's illegal, or it should be, it isn't and it shouldn't):


So I pay less for my cheap flights, while others who want to lug a ton of suitcases or get through the line faster pay more, which is only fair.

On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 09:50:32 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 08:56:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:

So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense, there's no point in going any further.

You need to do better than that to convince me ;-)

I wasn't trying to convince you. I pointed out that your statements were a mess of logical contradictions and suggested that we stop there.

Now.. I might entertain a model of paying someone, *after* they had committed there fix back to the community, as open source (and the fix has been formely approved and confirmed) - but certainly not beforehand.

But even that really worries me, as people may then refuse to contribute unless they know they're going to get paid. And, it assumes that people in that open source community project have the means to pay them. What happens to that open source community when the funds are not there?? Do the developers just go off and look for other projects that do have funds, like they were 'bounty' hunters. Is that the future we should be creating?

Your so called hybrid model, is like my neighbour borrowing my lawn mower, and while he's got it, he notices it needs an oil change, does the oil change, and then refuses to give me back the lawn mower till I've reimbursed him. But he never paid for the lawn mower did he??

Well.. my neigbour says, if you can't pay me for the oil, then I'll take the new oil out, put the old oil back in, and then you can have your lawn mower back.

I don't want neighbours like that.

I can't be bothered to strain through your tortured analogies that make no sense and explain to you all the ways you're wrong. I'm respecting you enough to point out that none of your points make any sense, most would just ignore crazy analogies like this and move on, content to let you stew in this nonsense.

Reply via email to