On Feb 17, 2008 2:49 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not telling Ted what to do at all, you're just assuming it in your > blind fury over me coming out with the truth that most of *your* > coding effort is directly or indirectly supported by non-developer > users who do so by buying CDs, making monetary donations and the like.
You are insulting him because he didn't finish what he started. That's not going to help him or anyone else complete it, and may dissuade others from starting work again. > Marco you are an idiot, you should stick to coding, don't come in the > real world, you'll get wasted. Is this how you get things done in the real world? Name-calling the developers of a project you wish to help? > > > The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the > > > following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ > > > > I didn't read anything that fixes any problem that exists today. Sure > > it's a neat research project, no debate there. Whenever or if it > > becomes interesting in the real world somebody in this project will > > re-evaluate its merit. > > That's why I called you an idiot. > The project is not a research project, but a real live production > grade code working under Solaris 10. Not to beat a dead horse here, but what problem would it fix for you? Your refusal to answer this question is damning to your cause. > > > Not really, I'm not insulting you or any of the core developers. > > > What I meant is newer features. > > > Why is it that our soft-updates based file system can't do background > > > 'fsck'? > > > > Because what the other projects did is wrong. A background fsck renders > > a system useless. I don't think having a background fsck that prevents > > my machine from booting is about as useful as not having it. Do I want > > it? of course I do but not bad enough to write the code myself. > > So what you are saying is that what the god father of BSD file systems > (Marshal Kirk McKusik) is doing is wrong? You didn't even read Marco's reply! He is in favor of a well-implemented background fsck. > > > True, your investment as well as *ours*. > > > > How are you investing? Typing up an email does not constitute > > "investment". Sweating over a few lines of code for days on end is. > > The investment is not just from me, its from all those users who don't > code, but still support the project by buying CDs, T-Shirts, make > donations and help out developers by supporting their wish lists. The support is surely appreciated but does not guarantee anything in return. That's why they're called "donations". > > Every time you say "would be nice", "they should" or "why not?" you are > > belittling someone's blood sweat and tears. Ted gave you the starting > > point, go ahead and finish it. That is cooperative code development in > > action. > > Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own > code well enough to have completed it. > BTW, you are as big an oaf as Richard Stallman, you keep ranting about > how you've put in your blood, sweat and tears, but forget to > understand the point that without us users you are nothing. What developer would want a user like you? How would you like it if people started complaining when you decided to change hobbies? If you can round up five or more developers to work on a from-scratch TCP/IP stack, how hard can it be to get a few more that are interested in completing rthreads? If they're good enough to write a lockless or thread-safe IP stack, who's to say they can't do a thread library? Anyways, if you won't stop ranting, please stop the name-calling. It isn't helping anything. Good luck, --david
