Perhaps I am a late comer to this ditreabe and a seldom contributer to the list, but I belive that the simple answer to this (on my understanding that this is in regard to the specifications on 0.7) is why release comprehensive specifications for something that is not (for all apperances) even ready for a widespread public beta test? It would be nice to have 3rd party tools right out of the gate, but is it usefull to build them now if they may still need major renovation before use?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:tech-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Newsbyte Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:49 AM To: tech at freenetproject.org Subject: [Tech] specs "Not a very accurate translation. We are currently a work in progress, we won't always be." It's rather very accurate in any pragmatic sense. Let me get this straight: 'currently' means the last 4 years, then. So this would imply things will cease to be a 'work in progress' once version 1.0 will be there? Why? Isn't it a work then, anymore? Isn't any progress going to be made, then? But regardless, even if that would be your viewpoint, this would mean that as long as it's beta, it's a work in progress, and the specs will remain obsolete. If the past is any indication, this will mean yet another 3-4 years - and *then* specs are going to be made? pfff... O, but wait, I know: *you* will arbitrarily decide when it's a work in progress, and when it's not, right? Regardless of any objective criteria or the fact it's still in beta or not, or even if it's still a work in progress or not. That way, as usual, you are always right, even if you are wrong, and you can ignore anyone asking for the specs. "Another inaccurate explanation. The current FCP specs have been more than adequate to permit the implementation of Frost, Fuqid, and numerous other third-party apps. Since you are clearly such an expert, perhaps you can explain what is wrong with the FCP specifications?" Aha, here we go again; the 'you are not a coder so shut-up' defence. You haven't learned a thing, have you? Everytime you or the project get criticised, it's back to the basic: what code did you deliver, are you the 'expert', etc. Basically focussing on your perceived superiority as a coder to happily ignore anyone else. Well, guess what; it's poor management. If I was telling toad or you (not that your contributions in code are that overwhelming, btw) how to code, you might have a point, but as I've told you numerous times, this "why should I have to listen if you're not a coder"-attitude doesn't cut it in cases of project-management and making the program user-friendly on an application-level. Thus, in this case, I *don't* have to be a coder to notice the numerous complaints there have been regarding the lack of detailed specs. It's a recurring theme, on slashdot, on the mailists, on freesites, and even some of the Higher Gods have acknowlegded the specs were poor and not up to date in the past. But hey, feel free to ignore all those, bacause that's always your convenient way out, isn't it? It's never the question; maybe they have a point, and I should concentrate on the specs a bit, it's rather: well, slashdotters are an irratic bunch of whiners and nothing more then trolls, people on the maillists aren't coders so why bother paying any attention (it's not like they are 'experts' after all, are they?), Freenetters are anonymous whiners too, and thus irrelevant, and the few expetions that are active coders and find the specs lacking are just plain wrong. So, in essence, you are, again, right - because you consider it to be so, whatever others may say. And then you try to counter with saying that tools have been made, after all, so there is no need to do anything. Right. Reminds me of the scene of Lisa Simpson who sold a stone to her dad that magically repulsed any tigers, "and you don't see any tigers around, do you"? A specious reasoning, indeed. It says more about the ability of those coders to work with next to nothing, and still manage to make useful tools, than anything else. Maybe you should ask *them* if they don't think that more detailed specs would be welcome? Or that they rather would have it soon (provided it's any good) then in 3 years, when it will cease to be a 'work in progress'. But in fact, many of those have already talked about that in their freesites, if you would take the trouble of reading those. (But then again, you can always dismiss them too, no?) "Thanks for lecturing us on what is right, because you are clearly such an expert on software development that you have never, to my knowledge, written a line of code for this project in your life. We don't do specs on something before it is specified. To do otherwise would be moronic. FCP for pre-0.7 was specified, and specified adequately enough for numerous third-party applications to implement. If you disagree, please bless us with your expert knowledge of exactly what is wrong with the current FCP specs." And there we continue.... Note, that you never give any counterargument (the same as your response on slashdot, on my criticism). *ALL* you say basically boils down to just "Newsbyte is a well know troll". Gosh, that makes it so easy, doesn't it? Throw in a bit of sarcasm here and there, and you think you've made your case. Maybe you'll finally get this through your thick skull: I don't have to be a coder to know what is wrong management-wise with the project. I have been an IT-manager of a major project in the federal goverment, so yes, I *do* feel entitled to 'lecture' (ironic you would see it as that, but not really surprising) on how to manage an IT-project, in regard to human resource pooling, and the augmenting of the user-friendliness of a program towards the end-users. I don't know what 'expertise' *you* have in that matter, but I doubt it is more then I have. But then again, I'm not the one focussing on what 'expertise' someone has to evaluate the worth of someone's arguments. "Wow, you must be a real expert in writing software if you can document something before you have finalized what it is you are building. Again, please bless us with your expert knowledge of software development and explain how we do that." *yawns* You are repeating yourself, and are pretty tedious at that. (see above) "Actually, you are one of the few people who, despite having no discernible experience in software engineering, insist in lecturing those that do on how to engineer software. This lack of knowledge must be powerful indeed if it lets you specify software before its design has even been finalized, and determine that our FCP spec is meagre and obsolete even though it has been used by a number of people to write third-party software with great success." *yawns some more* You sound like a broken record. Maybe, I'll have to repeat it one more time too, then, in the (no doubt idle) hope it gets through: I've always said I wasn't a coder: your incessant hammering on this issue only shows how weak your argumentation for the rest is. I'm not lecturing how to engineer software, I'm telling you what people are asking for and which could be helpful for the *project* (= more then the code on itself) - and which you keep ignoring. So, I don't care how exactly you're going to make the specs; that's your job, as a coder (as I said previously, and to which you seem to argue it's the job of a non-coder). I *am* telling you however, that there is need for specs: detailed ones, not obsolete ones, and relatively soon, not in 3 years or whenever you deem it's not a work in progress anymore 'for the last few years'. If you can't see anything wrong in that (your own) sentence - and, accordingly, the wrong attitude in which the project is continuing, then nothing will wake you up, I'm afraid. Do I need to be an expert coder for that? No, I only have to notice what others are saying and what the recurring complaints and problems are... something you fail to do, every goddamned time. "Well, if you can't write code, then why are you telling us how to write the code?" *Yaaaaaaaaawwwwnnnn* More of the same nonsensical non-argument. I've answered that 3 times by now, so even your peculiar way of selectively ignoring criticism will have difficulty to filter it out the regular way. "Hey ho, I see you haven't changed - I guess its time to reapply my newsbyte -> /dev/null filter. How ever will we survive without your invaluable and informative contributions?" What? Once again?! That must be the third time! Can't you make up your mind, already? You keep reading my posts, and then you keep saying you won't read, nor respond to them. And yet, keep doing both. I know you aren't very consistent in your viewpoint about free speech, but can you *please* be consistent on *something*, other then your arrogant and elitarian attitude you spout as responses? _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech at freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
