Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Al, Not everyone who posts on the lists are insiders. If you want some insider info, go to the actual people doing the work, like Don Brown. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-devm=114369603519450w=2 Hubert On 3/30/06, Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the describing that you are referring to. I just go by what the insiders have published here. If the insiders have no credibility, let's turn off the lights and go home. When the WebWork deal was announced it was made clear that WebWork was so much better that there was no point in trying to shoehorn it in the current codebase, but a new Struts Action 2 was going to be created that was going to be, essentially, WebWork. The current Struts, so bad that it could not be fixed, was going to be re-christened as Struts Action 1 and, for all intents and purposes, mothballed. Of course, it was not put this bluntly, but that was the gist of it. Now, to me this qualifies more as a takeover than a merger; a revolution not evolution. Which, by the way, is fine with me. What is not so fine is trying to cling to the Struts name because of its value as a brand, even though the software is completely different. If you are now interested in JSF, more power to you, just let go of the Struts name. If the other committers think that WebWork is much better, they should join the WebWork project and leave the reins of the Struts project with someone else. Names that confuse are not very useful. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Are the insiders the ones that coded Struts out the door or the ones that are bringing new code to the table? If you meant the ones that coded Struts out the door then if they refuse to do anything about lessons learned, I would not listen to them. I would listen to the outsiders who told them they were headed down a bad path. Do not think I think Don Brown does bad work. I think he is probably by far the most talented committer. He is almost as good as the outsiders. ;-) On 3/30/06, Hubert Rabago [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Al, Not everyone who posts on the lists are insiders. If you want some insider info, go to the actual people doing the work, like Don Brown. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-devm=114369603519450w=2 Hubert On 3/30/06, Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the describing that you are referring to. I just go by what the insiders have published here. If the insiders have no credibility, let's turn off the lights and go home. When the WebWork deal was announced it was made clear that WebWork was so much better that there was no point in trying to shoehorn it in the current codebase, but a new Struts Action 2 was going to be created that was going to be, essentially, WebWork. The current Struts, so bad that it could not be fixed, was going to be re-christened as Struts Action 1 and, for all intents and purposes, mothballed. Of course, it was not put this bluntly, but that was the gist of it. Now, to me this qualifies more as a takeover than a merger; a revolution not evolution. Which, by the way, is fine with me. What is not so fine is trying to cling to the Struts name because of its value as a brand, even though the software is completely different. If you are now interested in JSF, more power to you, just let go of the Struts name. If the other committers think that WebWork is much better, they should join the WebWork project and leave the reins of the Struts project with someone else. Names that confuse are not very useful. - 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~
Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote: It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a tooth pulled. So if they say it... Here you ascribe an outlook on things to the Struts people which assumes that your motivations are theirs. Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as cooperative, not competitive, even between projects. I think Niall's answer to the question why did Struts development stagnate is pretty much what I would say. I'm not doing this for bragging rights, and it's not the only thing I like to do in my spare time. I contribute when I can. If it helps anyone, that's great. As far as I can tell it hasn't hurt anyone. Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is another group of developers whose motivations are not what you personally might guess they are. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new. -- Robert Moog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Joe Germuska wrote: At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote: It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a tooth pulled. So if they say it... Here you ascribe an outlook on things to the Struts people which assumes that your motivations are theirs. Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as cooperative, not competitive, even between projects. LOL. Well, Joe, wouldn't a casual observer say that you are taking this position because your team lost the technical competition? Of course, you'd expect the losers to rationalize things saying it wasn't *really* a competition. But the fact remains that projects in the same space are competing to offer the most compelling solutions in their application space. It should be a friendly, good-natured rivalry, yes. But the logic and structure of this is one of competition. It is a marketplace (more of ideas than money and so on) but a market of sorts nonetheless and a market system is something with a logic and structure of competition. When Patrick and Jason wrote stuff like Struts really sucks and so on, there was a clear sense that this was a competitive situation and they were kind of throwing down the gauntlet. I think Niall's answer to the question why did Struts development stagnate is pretty much what I would say. I'm not doing this for bragging rights, and it's not the only thing I like to do in my spare time. I contribute when I can. If it helps anyone, that's great. As far as I can tell it hasn't hurt anyone. Well, in this case, there is the additional problem that Struts and Webwork, while competing, as I say, were not competing on an even playing field. This is why the Webwork people, despite having a much better product, have far fewer users. By bringing in Webwork and abandoning the existing Struts codebase, you are accepting that all the people who are currently using Struts would have been better off using Webwork. (I suggest that you not try to attack this point, because it looks unassailable.) So your assertion that it hasn't hurt anyone is quite debatable. By leveraging the extra placement and visibility advantages of ASF to promote an inferior body of work, you have been breathing the oxygen of an innovative project that really was doing the real work of pushing forward the state of the art. Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is another group of developers whose motivations are not what you personally might guess they are. Well, they've made a Faustian sort of deal in order to get more publicity for their work. But if you think these guys like Patrick and Jason aren't ego-driven, surely you're kidding yourself. Just as you'd be kidding yourself if you think Craig, say, isn't extremely ego-driven. None of these people, as far as I can see, make the slightest attempt even to hide it. Of course, when the ego-driven people are forced to admit that their work was inferior, then sure, they can then say that this isn't really a competition, and they don't mind because they don't have egos and so on. But, Joe, I think that, most poeple, in their heart of hearts, don't believe this kind of line. It's a bunch of politically correct drivel really. Get real. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ Joe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
At 7:09 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote: Joe Germuska wrote: At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote: It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a tooth pulled. So if they say it... Here you ascribe an outlook on things to the Struts people which assumes that your motivations are theirs. Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as cooperative, not competitive, even between projects. LOL. Well, Joe, wouldn't a casual observer say that you are taking this position because your team lost the technical competition? Some might; some might not. Whether or not they said it wouldn't mean it was correct. Of course, you'd expect the losers to rationalize things saying it wasn't *really* a competition. No. You would expect this. I would not. So your assertion that it hasn't hurt anyone is quite debatable. By leveraging the extra placement and visibility advantages of ASF to promote an inferior body of work, you have been breathing the oxygen of an innovative project that really was doing the real work of pushing forward the state of the art. See, I am not doing any of these things. I'm just a person who has a job to do, and I choose to work with others to help me get this job done. Everything else you have written is your own window dressing on the situation. But if you think these guys like Patrick and Jason aren't ego-driven, surely you're kidding yourself. Just as you'd be kidding yourself if you think Craig, say, isn't extremely ego-driven. None of these people, as far as I can see, make the slightest attempt even to hide it. Frankly, I don't care what their motivations are. But, Joe, I think that, most poeple, in their heart of hearts, don't believe this kind of line. It's a bunch of politically correct drivel really. Get real. I just thought I should point out that for all of your self-assured declarations about how the world works, you are not necessarily right. You can try to speak for most people, but you don't speak for me. Really, Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new. -- Robert Moog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Hello Joe. Haven't seen a post from you in a while. Got me thinking. I just wanted to say, for the record, you and Niall and your fellow team members rock! I have been a subscriber to this list for years. I don't use Struts anymore because I don't author HTML/HTTP browser applications anymore. So many of you may not know who I am because I haven't posted in a while. There was a time when I volunteered a lot answering questions on this list though, and of course asking a ton of questions as a user. Struts, WebWork, Spring, scriplets, tags, framework, no framework, J2EE, no J2EE, I always tried not to get caught up in the implementation details (sounds funny for a programmer to say such a thing). Frameworks, methods and practices come and go as do other work trends. HTTP/HTML is only one possible combination of a large number available in the seven-layer network. To stake too much on any of this is to limit yourself as a programmer. What's important never changes -- it's the people! (Oh yeah, lookup tables remain important too, I guess. ;) ) And the job of a programmer is nothing more than to make an electronic device do what he, or his customer, wants it to do. So, I just wanted to say, to Joe, Niall, Hubert, Craig, James and the others (please don't think because I didn't mention your name that I don't appreciate you -- I remember many others, developers as well as users), Struts was a great framework to me because you guys helped your users with a professional and friendly attitude, even when we asked the same old dumb questions again and again. You helped me and many others get our jobs done and put food on the table. Whether Struts or WebWork or any other framework is here today or tomorrow isn't that important. You guys will still be around, plugging away, answering your users' questions and treating others with respect and dignity, and making whatever project with which you are associated a winner. Keep up the great work. Sincerely, Erik -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mar 29, 2006 11:26 AM To: user@struts.apache.org Subject: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize) At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote: It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a tooth pulled. So if they say it... Here you ascribe an outlook on things to the Struts people which assumes that your motivations are theirs. Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as cooperative, not competitive, even between projects. I think Niall's answer to the question why did Struts development stagnate is pretty much what I would say. I'm not doing this for bragging rights, and it's not the only thing I like to do in my spare time. I contribute when I can. If it helps anyone, that's great. As far as I can tell it hasn't hurt anyone. Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is another group of developers whose motivations are not what you personally might guess they are. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new. -- Robert Moog - 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]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
On 3/29/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. The way it has been described here it looks to me more like a takeover than a merger. As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is another group of developers whose motivations are not what you personally might guess they are. That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their little-known framework is re-branded as Struts. Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world. It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
On 3/29/06, Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/06, Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. The way it has been described here it looks to me more like a takeover than a merger. You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the describing that you are referring to. Craig
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
On 3/29/06, Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their little-known framework is re-branded as Struts. Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world. It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you. Seriously, this seems like a win-win. Struts gets a better technical design, WW gets some recognition and a good brand. The users get the best of both worlds. I don't really see what all the hullabaloo is about really... Larry - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
The hullabaloo, Larry, is about the stability of the platform with a bunch of committers who don't appear to be up to the job and who are not willing to look at what went wrong. The stability of a platform like Struts is a big deal. This is a time to decide to go with or to get off the Struts wagon. How the committers respond has a lot to do with this. On 3/29/06, Larry Meadors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/06, Al Eridani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their little-known framework is re-branded as Struts. Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world. It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you. Seriously, this seems like a win-win. Struts gets a better technical design, WW gets some recognition and a good brand. The users get the best of both worlds. I don't really see what all the hullabaloo is about really... Larry - 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~
