"It cannot reasonably argued that usage is low and declining while simultaneously saying that perpetual support of old code is required."
I assume this was to me (?), but I thought it clear that I favored a reboot (i.e. dropping existing code) as a viable plan, because of declining usage of current code. (Even though a bit of my day job is trying to support it anyway.) Support sustains usage, but if usage goes, it's right to move on. Maybe I'm unclear about who wants what, but the recent messages here sound like support for shelving old code, and you said "+1". But my "nihilism ... has little traction"? And while nothing convincing has emerged from the H2O stuff yet, I specifically take seriously here "Mahout2O" as a future I could see liking. There may be many possible violent agreements here. I sense it's getting personal again. My $0.02 has merit given my experience and the 'constituency' I sort of represent, so I'd wait to dismiss me until you're sitting comfortably and not on your iPhone :) Everyone has earnest guarantee that I'm trying to be constructive. May the market smite me if I am the troll you think. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > Sean > > Why do you care so much that Mahout not work on a flexible high performance > future? You have stated in prominent interviews left Mahout behind and that > it is at the "end of the road". > > Your point has been eloquently made and your nihilism about the future of > Mahout seems to have little traction. > > Why not just let go?
