In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says... | |"BCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message |news:[email protected]... |> Hello retard, |> |>> Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:26:19 +0000, BCS wrote: |>> |>>> Hello Simen, |>>> |>>>> On 25.06.2010 19:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote: |>>>> |>>>>> "Simen Haugen"<[email protected]> wrote in message |>>>>> news:[email protected]... |>>>>> |>>>>>> I've just started using stackoverflow.com, and it's a great way of |>>>>>> getting answers. |>>>>>> |>>>>> All I'm going to say is: |>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg31735.ht |>>>>> ml |>>>>> ------------------------------- |>>>>> Not sent from an iPhone. |>>>> Hehe. From this and other posts you make, it seems you are suffering |>>>> from a serious case of the NIH syndrome :) |>>>> |>>> Why do you say that? After writing about half of that thread, I am of |>>> the opinion he holds his opinion for reason that have nothing to do |>>> worth NIH. |>>> |>> The sad fact is, there can't be many good stackoverflow kind of sites. |>> You can perhaps attract some part of the community, e.g. noobs or d |>> users in this case, but you can't beat stackoverflow anymore. What we |>> had before? Expert-sexchange. All kinds of crap with closed source |>> mentality. And national programming boards. Stackoverflow |>> revolutionized things, you can't beat it. And no, writing the web |>> server won't make it better/faster - it would just suck more. NIH. |>> |> |> I still don't see how that is NIH. The issues Nick brought up are |> implementation issues (the use of OpenID, mandatory JavaScript, | |...JS nag banner... |...and no so much the use of OpenID, but the requirement of it for any login |(and the consequential "pushing" of OpenID). | |> etc.) Under the constraints he has chosen to apply to him self, SO as |> implemented is effectively unusable. From what I remember, I suspect that |> if these issue were addressed Nick wouldn't have any problem using SO. |> | |Exactly. (As long as they didn't screw up something else in the process.) | |And I did make [polite] suggestions for these improvements awhile back, but |they were outright dismissed. It's clear they're not willing to fix any of |it. | |And for the record, the anti-NIH horse gets trotted out far too often, |anyway.
They sounded a bit like a charitable org to me, but "national", by defintion, cannot be so, and I know it. But "that aside", K. Gorlen's work is known and historical and paid for. Who is K. Gorlen? ( There used to be a well-known saying, "If you want something done |right, you have to do it yourself." (Experience frequently demonstrates that |to be true.) But then a bunch of managers (inherently stupid) and IT monkeys |showed up that didn't know anything about software and decided the best |thing to do in any conceivable situation is always to go out and buy |whatever package some salesman is pitching no matter how crappy it is. And |they defended their idiocy with a FUD-storm against anyone ever writing |anything in-house. YMMV. You just described the stock market. You're a gambler, or not. The odds are stacked against you if you gamble. > And it worked, and now all the buzzword sheep out there |trot out that damn NIH garbage anytime there's a hint of someone wanting to |write something that's similar to something else that exists but sucks. (And |yes, of course there are extreme cases where NIH does occur to an absurd |degree, but those cases are far less common than the anti-NIH brigade would |[and does] have everyone believe.) "to be honest", I knew the usage of 'NIH' was different than my knowledge, but not from the start of this thread (just now). So, what is "NIH"?
