You know, I can not think of a single open-source project that is trully evil either...
I think we should satrt one... Perhaps something that rythmicly chanits versus from the satinic bible while searching out pharmicy networks and intentaily overiding perscriptions so people OD or shutting down other medical facilities, or turning off the power to nursing homes in the Arizona summer or the Wisconson winter... Hmmm... That semmes evil, I am sure we could get an open-source counity to rally behind that ;) On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2005, at 1:03 PM, John D. Mitchell wrote: > > You're confusing intent with result. The actual results of the ASF is > > a > > lot of bad software and a lot of bad "communities" around that > > software. > > And a lot of bad "mouthing" :) > > >>> Anyways, as I stipulated, I'm willing to agree that there are some > >>> aberrant projects that aren't lame and/or evil. :-) > > > >> Wouldn't evil imply intent? What open source projects (in or out of > >> the > >> ASF) do you feel are evil? > > > > Gee, if you didn't intend to kill a room of children but you did > > choose to > > get behind the week of a tanker truck while impaired and > > "accidentally" ran > > it into the building, is that evil? > > I don't believe in accidents. > > >> Your handwaving and philosophizing is fun and all, but please bring it > >> down to something concrete. Point out something specific please. > >> Generalities aside (let's assume that a concrete issue *is* the > >> generality for now :) > > > > Dude. You've been given plenty of examples over the years in our > > conversations (and conversations that you've had with other people, at > > least one of whom is also on this list :-) -- you just don't seem to > > view > > those as being e.g., evil. > > I don't recall any example you (or Drew, I assume) have provided as an > "evil" example of open-source. You've both given me an earful about > how Ant sucks, but I haven't heard it as classified as evil. > > Don't hold back... lay it out here for the rest of the "community" to > see, please. > > > The justification that "we must be good because we're giving our > > software > > away for free" regardless of the quality of the community or software > > is > > self-righteously self-serving. > > I've never heard that from anyone I know at ASF, either explicitly or > implicitly. I hope that the real underlying theme is "think globally, > act locally". > > > That's exactly what I'm talking about and > > that is a concrete example that applies to the vast majority of the > > Apache > > projects. > > That is not the perception I get from any ASF projects, even the lame > and evil ones. > > > The fact that the ASF created that standard of behavior and > > allows that to continue is the proof of the failure of their > > stewardship > > (in terms of e.g., "health" vs. "popularity"). > > The ASF is making it up as it goes. If others follow thinking we're > making the "standard" then they are misled. They should learn from the > trials and tribulations. New ground is being broken - follow behind > "us" and you might fall in the same hole we do. So, who's fault is it > that bad practices are happening outside the ASF? Wanna blame the ASF > on that? Looking for a scapegoat it seems to me. > > Erik > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
