On 3/19/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really do see these fallacies coming up at all. The fallacies which > typically come up are ones like: (1) argument ad hominem; (2) appeal to > authority; (3) appeal to common practice; (4) appeal to emotion; (5) appeal > to flattery; (6) appleal to popularity; (7) appeal to riducle; (8) biased > sample. These seem to have a life of their own. Yours are, so far as I can > see, never around. Could you give an example from someone's submission on > this list? > > Tapestry is as diverse as JSF and is in Apache as well as Struts, yet no one > in Struts has ever complained about Tapestry. (Tapestry, by the way, does, > in my opinion, what JSF wants to do better than JSF does it. If JSF should > have tried to "horn in" for branding purposes, Tapestry wo0uld have been a > better choice than Struts.) However, if Craig had tried that, Howard > Lewis-Ship would have made him go through what everyone else goes through, > leading to JSF, inevitably, being show the door. > > This discussion is not about diversity. That is Ted's pronouncement which > is unrelated to the facts. This discussion is about greed and branding and > JSF's difficulties getting a toe hold in the mind and eye of the public, I > don't know of a single soul that does not wish JSF well when it is not > pushed on someone. Ted is right that committers on this list do what they > want to do. And, he is right that the committer clique decided to jump into > bed with Craig and JSF. There are committer feet sticking out all over > under the covers of JSF and Shale. This is not to promote diversity. This > was to serve themselves. That is irresponsible to their elected position.> > Ted's idea that serving an open source community is one way to do your job > is a big part of the problem, not a part of the solution, around here.
> Frequently we find developers coding away to make something in Struts fit > what they need on the job rather than what Struts needs. Isn't that the point? So what does struts need according to dakota jack? This has been > especially prevalent the last year and a half. Ted finds this perfect. I > think it is an abomination. The motivation for working in open source used > to be more due to a desire to do top quality work, something many bright > people were stopped from doing at work or otherwise frustrated about. Now > my job, I don't know about yours, does more exciting work than anyone at > Struts even has a dream about. Spring and other places are working on > exciting, clean, real, stuff. This attempt to sell JSF has turned Struts > into slogging away at best. > > Struts, in my opinion, by tying itself to the think and the values of a > commercial product has completely lost track of any sense of what is and > what is not open source and what is community. The entry to assisting on > these things as a committer used to be merit based in the sense that you had > some talent and could work with others. Now it is a club based on balancing > the voting blocs. When Ted started, he could just jump in after showing > that he was no fool, and start helping. Those real open source days at > Struts are over at this point. Now any indication that you might actually > make Struts grow or have something new and interesting to offer is a sure > sign that you will be rejected. Things have gotten so bad with this that > the committers had to admit that they essentially had killed Struts and > needed to get some help from some people who really had been doing open > source work. Those people will find, I predict, that they made a mistake > coming here and that the Struts name was not worth it. > > > > On 3/19/06, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/19/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Indeed! Hoo hah! Has anyone asked why Tapestry, which is just JSF done > > > well in my opinion, is causing no difficulties on the Struts list? > > > > Diveristy is important, even those who don't agree with a darwinian > > model seem to agree with this. Trying to push one size fits all would > > seem to reflect an intollerance of ambiguity and perhaps demonstrates > > more about an indiviual's personality traits than a genuine balanced > > opinion. Who really cares that much if this or that framework is > > superiour or not according to this or that principle, blue print > > and/or design pattern. All will be ultimately evaluated in the cold > > light of market forces (including available skills, development > > time/cost, and maintainance). > > > > Here are some of the fallacies that keep comming up > > > > Affirmation of the consequent > > if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less > > and be higher quality, > > the app was built according to x design pattern, > > therefore the app cost less and is of higher quality. > > > > Denial of the antecedent > > if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less > > and be higher quality, > > my software didn't cost less and isn't high quality, > > therefore it doesn't follow x design pattern. > > > > I actually agree that certain patterns help facilitate positive > > outcomes, but attempting to propose that sucess and failure are merely > > a function of choice of framework or the framework's strict adherence > > to x design pattern is just plain silly. Albeit I've a foot (or > > perhaps both feet) strongly in the silly camp because I'm engaging in > > this sort of futile dialogue. > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > On 3/18/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" > > > > > > > > This is a false principle in the terms of software development. > > > > You don't have blind forces assembling the source code of Struts, > > > > but real living people who can see what people want and choose > > > > to write a solution for it. People decide in ASF, not Darwin. > > > > If the Commiters want Struts to succeed into the future, they need > > > > to always have passion and dedication to keep up with the demands > > > > of the MVC market. Any philosophy which reduces Struts to "a gaggle of > > > > engineers", I think, is a reductionist viewpoint; the problem is > > > > much bigger than engineers just wanting to solve problems. That's > > > > why other ASF projects like Tomcat and Tapestry are big winners and > > > > continue to be big winners: a passion to to be successful with > > > > whatever they craft, and a desire to see their projects be the best > > > > at what they are in the industry. I totally see this passion in > > Craig's > > > > work - let's transfer some of that energy into Struts Action > > Framework... > > > > and it's finally happening (again) with WW2. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > --- Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've stayed out of this silly thread up until now, but i guess its > > > > > time to be silly as well.. > > > > > > > > > > Now I imagine that I'll get burned by micheal o'grady (dakota jack) > > > > > for quoting this, but Ted's central principle that "darwin decides" > > is > > > > > a sound one. Its sound because it's also a principle that doesn't > > > > > state that struts or anything is good because its better or because > > he > > > > > influenced a group of people to act in a certain way, but because a > > > > > technology survives the ecological pressures of the economy and > > > > > projects that adopt such a approach remain profitable. > > > > > > > > > > Now natural selection doesn't produce perfection, even in biology, > > but > > > > > what you can be sure if is that any organism that lives today has > > been > > > > > begat by organisms that have survived "well enough". If best > > technical > > > > > solutions always won then betamax would have won the video wars. > > > > > > > > > > While struts is adopted and projects survive the ecological > > pressures > > > > > of engineering and economics it will probably survive. If a > > different > > > > > technoloy is adopted by other folk and they can knock out projects > > for > > > > > less then they will "probably" outlive struts or at least have a > > > > > better chance. > > > > > > > > > > But all these abstract principles of perfection serve very little. > > > > > From a darwinian perspective a ford motor car is more successful > > than > > > > > a ferrari. Now my understanding of the apache development that if > > > > > solutions (commits, patches etc) are best when they are real world > > > > > solutions, by facilitating these "adaptations" software is more > > likey > > > > > to survive ecological pressures because the adaptations are in > > direct > > > > > response to the enviornment in which these products find themselves. > > > > > > > > > > The other important factor to have a healthy ecosystem that there is > > > > > never a single organism/technology that covers all niches. Its also > > > > > true that in a single ecosystem there are never two organisms that > > > > > occupy the same niche for very long. This is nature, and I don't see > > > > > the human activity of software development being very different. > > > > > > > > > > I could carry on, but I wont.. What the main point is that it > > doesn't > > > > > really matter what anyone thinks of this and that. What will survive > > > > > will survive (excuse the tautology). Ferrari survives as does ford > > > > > (albeit from selling the financial products to buy their goods) they > > > > > occupy different niches. In the case of betamax and vhs only one > > > > > survived because they occupy the same niche. All any of us can do is > > > > > try and knock out projects as best and as cheaply as possible, and > > > > > darwin will decide the rest. Central to a good ecosystem is > > diversity. > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > On 3/18/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think the flaw in my analogy is that nobody will starve if they > > > > choose > > > > > > not to eat at the Struts shelter :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > > > > > Steve Raeburn wrote: > > > > > > >> Let me try another analogy. Let's say you go down to volunteer > > at a > > > > > > >> homeless shelter. You serve a few meals and wipe a few tables a > > > > > > >> couple of times a month. Do you become bound by any > > responsibility > > > > > > >> other than to show up and help? Do you become responsible for > > > > solving > > > > > > >> the homeless problem? Should you feel obligated to give someone > > a > > > > > > >> bed? Some people may feel they do have such a responsibility. > > > > Others > > > > > > >> won't. It's not my place to criticize a volunteer for not > > taking on > > > > > > >> those additional responsibilities. I am just grateful that > > you've > > > > > > >> just done a little bit to help out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good analogy, it took me a while to figure out why it > > > > wasn't > > > > > > > right for me with my position in mind (you had me doubting > > myself > > > > for > > > > > > > a few hours before it hit me!)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the volunteer does as you say, then I would agree, there > > isn't > > > > any > > > > > > > added/assumed responsibility. One would hope they have their > > own > > > > > > > sense of responsibility and treat the homeless people kindly, > > but > > > > > > > that's about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However... if the volunteer does good work and is consequently > > asked > > > > > > > to become a permanent volunteer by an existing group of > > permanent > > > > > > > volunteers, and as a result is given some degree of authority to > > > > make > > > > > > > decisions that will affect those that come to the shelter, then > > I > > > > > > > think there is definitely a higher level of responsibility to > > that > > > > > > > "community" of homeless, as well of course to the other > > permanent > > > > > > > volunteers. Again, as I've said all along, the degree of extra > > > > > > > responsibility I think is debatable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your original analogy, the volunteer would be someone like > > > > me. In > > > > > > > my modified version, they would be a committer. At least in my > > > > eyes, > > > > > > > there is a difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent analogy though, you definitely made me think and > > evaluate > > > > my > > > > > > > position, I appreciate that! :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > > back." > > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
