Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Shane Hathaway wrote: P.P.S. Python is terrestrial. We don't have a celestial language, no, not even Lisp. I'm pretty sure Java is OD... Nothing celestial yet, but Perl 6 is "just around the corner", and from what I've seen so far, promises to be "heavenly" :-). ;-P ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Justin, you just made my day. Now I know why I like Ruby so much. (Of course having to learn COBOL at the moment also has emphasized Ruby's elegance)-ClintOn 6/22/06, Justin R Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:30:00AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:> P.P.S. Python is terrestrial. We don't have a celestial language, no,> not even Lisp. I'm pretty sure Java is OD... http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/2006-January/019126.htmlJustin___Ldsoss mailing listLdsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:30:00AM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: > P.P.S. Python is terrestrial. We don't have a celestial language, no, > not even Lisp. I'm pretty sure Java is OD... http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/2006-January/019126.html Justin ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Way offtopic, but... --- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > P.P.S. Python is terrestrial. We don't have a > celestial language, no, > not even Lisp. I'm pretty sure Java is OD... I hate to break it to you but Perl is as good as it gets, buddy. Look at the side binding of your quad. It's right there. Python reminds me of some garden in the OT. Java is against the WoW. Ruby is fairly precious. Lisp -- I won't go there. Tcl is inappropriate. -Jon D. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Justin R Findlay wrote: > Deciding on a prefered language/platform cannot be just a judgement of > technical merit. It is after all a preference. I prefer perl because > it's very mature, flexible, and has a vast compliment of libraries and > is also ubiquitous. Life would be a lot easier (at least for romantic > idealists like me) if there were one language that satisfied everyone's > needs. But see, you're only aiming for a telestial ideal. You've got to think higher. See your bishop. Shane P.S. Does humor overcome contention? :-) P.P.S. Python is terrestrial. We don't have a celestial language, no, not even Lisp. I'm pretty sure Java is OD... ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Dave Wagner wrote: > "We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion!". We could > also be offending people because were Mormon, does that stop us? Actually, I want to thank you for stating your viewpoint, Dave. Getting no opposition to an email like that means there's something wrong with the world. :-) > My point is > that by debating, in a civil manner, issues that affect our craft, in this > case open source software (which is very broad), we can move closer to a > more common ground and in turn faster and more frequent advances in our > technology and knowledge. I agree 100%. The only question is whether this is the right place to do that. Even mild discussions of topics like Microsoft's behavior are going to look like contention to some. Is that what we want? That's an honest question. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that. > "Users of operating systems. No one should assume that users of a > particular OS have particular aptitudes." and "It's OK to say > that a lot of people who don't know a lot about computers run Windows." > Perhaps I'm not following that email properly but this sounds fairly > contradictory. I left those together to see who was paying attention. Yes, they are contradictory. :-) > I think the first statement is correct, stereotypes > should be > avoided, afterall, I reall dislike it when someone finds out I'm a Mormon > and asks me where my other wife is. Yep, stereotyping is probably the easiest way to create contention on a mailing list. > I really feel a need to understand why it seems the majority > of this list is so dismissive of apposing points of view (as far as > programming matters go). It's the same reason I stopped responding to this > list so many months ago and it's only being validated now. Hold on. When you asked what was wrong with Microsoft, you got a plentiful answer in the form of a link to Wikipedia. You rejected that answer with a blanket statement that the article might not be trustworthy. Even if you're correct, that's a dismissive approach to conversation, don't you think? The "cite your sources" card is only useful for getting people excited. > Nonetheless I think I am going to shrink off into the dark and just keep > reading this list hoping someday I may be of help to someone here. Here you're playing the "threatening to lurk" card. I'm playing the "surprising reversal" card, hoping it weakens your desire to disappear. Shane ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
I agree with Dave here. Let's have a discussion rather than worry about being offensive. There's a lot of understanding that comes of open and respectful discussion. If we're not allowing ourselves to discuss the relative aspects of different languages and platforms in the context of FLOSS for church use then perhaps we need to rethink our purpose. On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 12:09:11AM -0400, Dave Wagner wrote: >Perhaps I am too accustomed to living in the US and the kind of >democracy we have come to enjoy though. I just hate to see censorship >being used as a means to avoid conflict, it merely represses issues, >not addresses them. Also, I would rather enjoy being able to finish the >other discussion in a civil manner. I really feel a need to understand >why it seems the majority of this list is so dismissive of apposing >points of view (as far as programming matters go). It's the same reason >I stopped responding to this list so many months ago and it's only >being validated now. I'm not dismissive of .NET and I have not intended to appear so. I think .NET is a cool technology (I hate using the word technology to describe software, but oh well). It is that Microsoft through their actions appears very repugnant. With .NET in particular I guess it's not just a Microsoft thing anymore with .GNU and mono. It's a philosophical stance, but I'm hopelessly romantic and painfully idealistic. This doesn't mean that there cannot be a dialog. I adhere to my principles because I value them. I don't adhere to disliking Microsoft. Discussions are made of words and words can propagate misunderstanding. I humbly submit that some of my principles may be misguided and it has always been my policy to seek out the best principles when principles are needed. Deciding on a prefered language/platform cannot be just a judgement of technical merit. It is after all a preference. I prefer perl because it's very mature, flexible, and has a vast compliment of libraries and is also ubiquitous. Life would be a lot easier (at least for romantic idealists like me) if there were one language that satisfied everyone's needs. Justin ___ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Dave, you took the words right out of my mouth (Well except for that .NET part ;) ) -matt On 6/21/06, Dave Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion!". We could also be offending people because were Mormon, does that stop us? I have to disagree, ofcourse by doing so I may be accused of trolling for a flame war but ohwell. Most of your list falls squarely under your broad mission statement, "The purpose of LDS OSS is to help advance God's purposes using our knowledge of technology and science. We strive to do this in harmony with the teachings and wishes of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Unfortunatly most of those things you feel should not be discussed deal, either directly or indirectly, with our knowledge of technology and science. I am reminded of the founding of this nation, not everyone agreed on a single definition of freedom and it took years just to hammer out a common definition, then we started working on who was included, etc. My point is that by debating, in a civil manner, issues that affect our craft, in this case open source software (which is very broad), we can move closer to a more common ground and in turn faster and more frequent advances in our technology and knowledge. I don't know about all of you but in my priesthood class we choose a topic and debate it in a reverent manner until we can, for the most part, agree on it's meaning in a phylisophical sense. "I think others feel similarly. Some developers apparently feel they can't participate unless the software is in .Net." Being that only two of us on this mailing list (that I can recall) have given any mention to .NET taking a pro stance, it is fairly easy to track down our comments on this matter. With that said, I can not find anywhere in the records where either of us said that we felt we could not participate unless it was done in .NET or any other language or platform for that matter. Infact, I found quite the contrary, as I recall, both of us mentioned that while we prefer programming in .NET we feel there are valid uses for all programming technologies and both of the major platforms. "These aren't hard rules, and I think we'll be judged less by whether we adhere to the rules and more by how we avoid conflicts." I think this would be a much more appropriate to concentrate on rather than the actual topic of the discussion at hand (unless the topic is wildly off-topic like political discussion). "Users of operating systems. No one should assume that users of a particular OS have particular aptitudes." and "It's OK to say that a lot of people who don't know a lot about computers run Windows." Perhaps I'm not following that email properly but this sounds fairly contradictory. I think the first statement is correct, stereotypes should be avoided, afterall, I reall dislike it when someone finds out I'm a Mormon and asks me where my other wife is. Perhaps I am too accustomed to living in the US and the kind of democracy we have come to enjoy though. I just hate to see censorship being used as a means to avoid conflict, it merely represses issues, not addresses them. Also, I would rather enjoy being able to finish the other discussion in a civil manner. I really feel a need to understand why it seems the majority of this list is so dismissive of apposing points of view (as far as programming matters go). It's the same reason I stopped responding to this list so many months ago and it's only being validated now. Nonetheless I think I am going to shrink off into the dark and just keep reading this list hoping someday I may be of help to someone here. On 6/20/06, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Haws and I had a short private exchange about the Linux vs. Windows thread, which I've attached with his permission. A lot of us are enthusiastic about building open source software that fits with our faith and convictions. Unfortunately, we're getting a little distracted. We (myself included) need to recognize that while our purpose is the same, our backgrounds and skills are quite different, and it is unrealistic to believe that we can resolve our differences here. Therefore, I'd like to suggest certain topics should not be discussed on this list. Even if we are able to maintain complete courtesy as we discuss conflicting viewpoints, some people don't follow the threads closely and to them it looks like an unprofessional flood of email about topics not related to this list. We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion! That phenomenon is a strange but consistent outgrowth of mailing lists. People not accustomed to the art of discussing things on mailing lists don't understand it and it troubles them. We really don't want newcomers to feel offended, so we need to stay focused. As for myself, in the future I'm going to pretend that when I post on this list, I'm going into a church for a
Re: [Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
"We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion!". We could also be offending people because were Mormon, does that stop us?I have to disagree, ofcourse by doing so I may be accused of trolling for a flame war but ohwell. Most of your list falls squarely under your broad mission statement, "The purpose of LDS OSS is to help advance God's purposes using our knowledge of technology and science. We strive to do this in harmony with the teachings and wishes of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Unfortunatly most of those things you feel should not be discussed deal, either directly or indirectly, with our knowledge of technology and science. I am reminded of the founding of this nation, not everyone agreed on a single definition of freedom and it took years just to hammer out a common definition, then we started working on who was included, etc. My point is that by debating, in a civil manner, issues that affect our craft, in this case open source software (which is very broad), we can move closer to a more common ground and in turn faster and more frequent advances in our technology and knowledge. I don't know about all of you but in my priesthood class we choose a topic and debate it in a reverent manner until we can, for the most part, agree on it's meaning in a phylisophical sense. "I think others feel similarly. Some developers apparently feel they can't participate unless the software is in .Net." Being that only two of us on this mailing list (that I can recall) have given any mention to .NET taking a pro stance, it is fairly easy to track down our comments on this matter. With that said, I can not find anywhere in the records where either of us said that we felt we could not participate unless it was done in .NET or any other language or platform for that matter. Infact, I found quite the contrary, as I recall, both of us mentioned that while we prefer programming in .NET we feel there are valid uses for all programming technologies and both of the major platforms. "These aren't hard rules, and I think we'll be judged less by whether we adhere to the rules and more by how we avoid conflicts." I think this would be a much more appropriate to concentrate on rather than the actual topic of the discussion at hand (unless the topic is wildly off-topic like political discussion). "Users of operating systems. No one should assume that users of a particular OS have particular aptitudes." and "It's OK to saythat a lot of people who don't know a lot about computers run Windows." Perhaps I'm not following that email properly but this sounds fairly contradictory. I think the first statement is correct, stereotypes should be avoided, afterall, I reall dislike it when someone finds out I'm a Mormon and asks me where my other wife is. Perhaps I am too accustomed to living in the US and the kind of democracy we have come to enjoy though. I just hate to see censorship being used as a means to avoid conflict, it merely represses issues, not addresses them. Also, I would rather enjoy being able to finish the other discussion in a civil manner. I really feel a need to understand why it seems the majority of this list is so dismissive of apposing points of view (as far as programming matters go). It's the same reason I stopped responding to this list so many months ago and it's only being validated now. Nonetheless I think I am going to shrink off into the dark and just keep reading this list hoping someday I may be of help to someone here.On 6/20/06, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thomas Haws and I had a short private exchange about the Linux vs.Windows thread, which I've attached with his permission.A lot of us are enthusiastic about building open source software thatfits with our faith and convictions. Unfortunately, we're getting a little distracted. We (myself included) need to recognize that whileour purpose is the same, our backgrounds and skills are quite different,and it is unrealistic to believe that we can resolve our differences here. Therefore, I'd like to suggest certain topics should not be discussed onthis list. Even if we are able to maintain complete courtesy as wediscuss conflicting viewpoints, some people don't follow the threads closely and to them it looks like an unprofessional flood of email abouttopics not related to this list.We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion! Thatphenomenon is a strange but consistent outgrowth of mailing lists. People not accustomed to the art of discussing things on mailing listsdon't understand it and it troubles them.We really don't want newcomers to feel offended, so we need to stayfocused. As for myself, in the future I'm going to pretend that when I post on this list, I'm going into a church for a quorum meeting. It'strue that conflicting viewpoints occur in quorum meetings, but smartparticipants quietly stay out and smart leaders gently defer thediscussions. We are likely to
[Ldsoss] Mailing list topics
Thomas Haws and I had a short private exchange about the Linux vs. Windows thread, which I've attached with his permission. A lot of us are enthusiastic about building open source software that fits with our faith and convictions. Unfortunately, we're getting a little distracted. We (myself included) need to recognize that while our purpose is the same, our backgrounds and skills are quite different, and it is unrealistic to believe that we can resolve our differences here. Therefore, I'd like to suggest certain topics should not be discussed on this list. Even if we are able to maintain complete courtesy as we discuss conflicting viewpoints, some people don't follow the threads closely and to them it looks like an unprofessional flood of email about topics not related to this list. We could be offending people by holding a courteous discussion! That phenomenon is a strange but consistent outgrowth of mailing lists. People not accustomed to the art of discussing things on mailing lists don't understand it and it troubles them. We really don't want newcomers to feel offended, so we need to stay focused. As for myself, in the future I'm going to pretend that when I post on this list, I'm going into a church for a quorum meeting. It's true that conflicting viewpoints occur in quorum meetings, but smart participants quietly stay out and smart leaders gently defer the discussions. We are likely to run into some of the following topics on a regular basis, and I suggest they should always be deferred to other discussion areas (personal blogs would be a good choice): - Which operating system is best. - Which programming language or framework is best. - The aptitude and skills of people using particular operating systems. - The aptitude and skills of people using particular programming languages and frameworks. - The practices of controversial vendors/employers like Microsoft and SCO. - Tabs vs. spaces. - Emacs vs. Vi. - IDEs vs. text editors. - Static vs. dynamic typing. - Coding style standards. - SQL naming styles. - RDBMS vs. OODBMS. - When to use XML. - When to use AJAX. - Web services vs. REST. - Centralized vs. decentralized architecture. - GPL vs. BSD licensing (which is more Free?) - The correct interpretation of copyright licenses. - The patent system. - What constitutes a usable user interface. - The trustworthiness of Wikipedia and other online sources. - Current political topics like global warming, the current president, the war, illegal aliens, gas prices, etc. - Top-posting, bottom-posting, excessive quoting, and other email quoting styles. Because we have newcomers here, every popular email style should be acceptable. - Reply-To header munging and related mailing list administration. - Mysterious doctrinal questions like the Church's stance on evolution. I'm basing this list on subjects I've observed in other groups that invariably lead to conflicts. Do I need to clarify any of these? Did I miss some? These aren't hard rules, and I think we'll be judged less by whether we adhere to the rules and more by how we avoid conflicts. I apologize for involving myself in a few of them. (I need to blog more often so I don't feel the need to post my opinion where it doesn't belong!) There's also the ever-present meta-topic, discussion about discussion. I'm engaging in that right now. It's not possible to eliminate it, but we can reduce its flow. Let's not do it much. I hope no one feels discouraged just because we got a little distracted. Consider the process of building a temple: you start with the same raw materials that you'd use to build any other kind of building, but the result is different because the goal is different. We're still building this little organization and learning how to build it the right way. At first, the organization might look like any other, but in time, we'll end up with something special. Open source developers often don't mind a little distracting conflict because it helps them learn, open up, and get to know each other. But this is not a typical group of open source developers, so I think we have to forgo certain discussions on this list. In its place, we have a common faith and testimony, and that's going to take us further than distracting conflicts would. Shane --- Begin Message --- Thomas Haws wrote: > Is there anything I can do to pen this contention monster I unleashed > with my thread? I feel terrible seeing the discussion deteriorate into > a "friendly" but wasteful partisan banter that is filling up inboxes and > looking bad. I may be partly to blame, since I've wanted to participate in LDS-specific open source projects for years now, yet I can't realistically participate in any project that's not cross-platform. My desire to participate may be overwhelming my judgment. I think others feel similarly. Some developers apparently feel they can't participate unless the software is in .Net. Obviously we could all build separate things that
