What I'm thinking now is to what extent the developer who put up the Mozilla wiki page was entitled to put up opinions and statements either expressed or implied about a third-party product on behalf of the Mozilla Foundation (though is that the same Foundation that pays the Consortium member fee?).? Everyone is an individual and no one is free of bias, but I'm not sure we can always foretell when we're about to say something, the consequences of our actions.? Like, does everyone of us here represent SQLite? As to the uninformed passer-by it may not be clear who among us could be a product developer and who isn't. Thereby the importance of good behaviour (but what is good behaviour and does it always have to appear to be mild and proper, and in no way possibly lead to misunderstanding, accusation, or offence, even when certain things are hard to tell?) Perhaps I should have questioned the developer who wrote the page instead of the Foundation, or his lack of confronting other developers who in the past had misused SQLite instead of the product, or making it clear that he was referring to them (but then again delicate balance, being his colleague), or the circumstances that lead to him being able to put up the page without any dissenting voices annotating and qualifying its content.? Or perhaps there were dissenting voices and they were quelled, or perhaps there weren't and there was just disinterest, in which case he should be praised for breaking the ice and actually posting some content where some was needed.? Or perhaps I wasn't brave enough to drop him a line and chose instead to bring it up here.? I'm afraid we might never know, in this as elsewhere, it's all history in the making, and for as long as we're humans, it's all imperfect.
I suppose I did it from the viewpoint of someone who being new to SQLite had visited the web pages of Consortium Members thinking that they could be better qualified than most to give feedback on the product. Had I visited the wikis of various consortium members to form an opinion and found criticism on all or most of them, I would have walked away from SQLite based on their feedback and not give it a second thought. At least, based on how I interpreted the page to be though not the page verbatim. As it happens, I already held an opinion about SQLite, I didn't need Mozilla to tell me, and it didn't make me change my mind, but I thought that new visitors could have been affected, that's why I thought I had to say something. Then as the conversation changed to talking about C/C++/C#, I feel a bit like Yuko, the girl in Battle Royale who by mistake poisons the wrong person, which by some unpredictable domino effect leads to everyone around the kitchen be killed. Quoting Linus and trying to reassure myself into thinking that heated exchange is all right, as long as we believe in ourselves and each other, and believe that method and passion will help bring up the truth, kind of helped, though I'm not sure it was enough to restore my inner peace. He said: "Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearing a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways." And by God, have I seen plenty of that in places where I've worked? Coming from people of all ranks. J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: | | Jean Chevalier wrote: | > | > Somewhat contradictory the Mozilla Foundation being a member of the | > SQLite Consortium while their performance wiki prominently features | > a warning to developers against using SQLite allegedly for | > performance reasons. Guard me from my friends... | > | > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/Avoid_SQLite_In_Your_Next_Firefox_Feature | | That page describes situations where SQLite doesn't give best available | performance, reduce complexity, or provide needed features, and then | goes on to justify those conclusions (including recognizing how SQLite | isn't unique in these respects: "This isn't an indictment of SQLite | itself -- any other relational embedded DB would pose the same | challenges."). I'm not sure what point you were raising in your post, | so I'll have to guess. Your summary suggests that you expected SQLite | Consortium members will endorse SQLite even in situations where SQLite | isn't a good fit due to preferring other tradeoffs. | | Are SQLite Consortium members somehow obliged to endorse SQLite for | tasks even when other approaches present more desirable tradeoffs? | If so, where is this obligation published? |
