On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 02:30:56 AM -0500, Alexandro Colorado
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am just stating the facts, developers do stuff because they want
> to and they think is cool, which might not be very cool or useful to
> the users.
Then how can you keep saying that in FOSS users must be developers and
viceversa, or that such a FOSS isn't (wants to remain) relegated to
those users who _can_ also be developers is beyond me. Anyway:
> If this is not telling you something, then I guess we are
> just in two different lanes on this one.
No, we aren't. I perfectly know that volunteer developers code what
they like, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's just why I
said "university which _demands_ (because it becomes a requirement by
law in order to have public funds) that its students develop the least
glamorous parts of FOSS if they want their degree.
My point is that such laws will be voted, or voted soon enough to make
a difference, only that the kind of FOSS "advocacy" which started this
sub-thread stops as soon as possible.
> developers are not about creating demand
it would be enough if some of them _stopped_ to actively discourage
demand
> But developers are about coding, and sales man are about getting
> commission.
Sincere thanks from all the non-coders who advocate a wider adoption
of FOSS as volunteers, without ever getting any commission
> Yes in this world an age, you need FOSS sales people, people that
> wil make you want OOo and tell you that OOo will get you to the top
> of the tallest mountain and will make you travel to places you never
> imagine.
>
> I guess there is just not that many people in the community to lie
> you in such a way.
Please don't get ridiculous playing the pure lamb among the wolfs,
it's absolutely unnecessary and off topic. *Nobody* asked you to lie
(see point 2 at the bottom), just to be aware of the consequences of
certain attitudes and of how limited in scope some slogans have
become.
> >The problem is that the only "more" that 95% of people can give to
> >FOSS is voting for it, and it won't happen if they are driven away
> >with any variant of the "users are developers" slogan
>
> If users are not developing this software, then who u think is going
> to develop this software?
why, for example (as I EXPLICITLY explained, did you read my whole
message): students and teachers of public Universities who want to
keep getting public funds? Private developers/sw houses which won
public contracts to do just that unglamorous FOSS coding that no
volunteers would do? Etc etc... But, again, how do you think public
pressure to make this can happen soon and effectively enough if
ordinary end users keep to be placed in front of the "users are
developers" wall?
Besides that:
1) this subthread has nothing to do with OOoutlook or whatever it
could be called
2) I agree (and you can find proofs in the archives of this list as
old as 4/5 years IIRC) that it is NOT an OOo task (regardless of
who or how writes its code) to ever develop and integrate such a
client from scratch)
and I really, really have nothing to add, so I promise this subthreads
ends here, as far as I'm concerned.
Marco
--
Help *everybody* love Free Standards and Free Software:
http://digifreedom.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
