I estimate that we will have basic FCP support in a month; it is easier to do FCP than to do Fproxy.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:59:23PM -0600, Buddy Hopkins wrote: > Perhaps I am a late comer to this ditreabe and a seldom contributer to the > list, but I belive that the simple answer to this (on my understanding that > this is in regard to the specifications on 0.7) is why release comprehensive > specifications for something that is not (for all apperances) even ready for > a widespread public beta test? It would be nice to have 3rd party tools > right out of the gate, but is it usefull to build them now if they may still > need major renovation before use? > > -----Original Message----- > From: tech-bounces at freenetproject.org > [mailto:tech-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Newsbyte > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:49 AM > To: tech at freenetproject.org > Subject: [Tech] specs > > > "Not a very accurate translation. We are currently a work in progress, we > won't always be." > > It's rather very accurate in any pragmatic sense. Let me get this straight: > 'currently' means the last 4 years, then. So this would imply things will > cease to be a 'work in progress' once version 1.0 will be there? Why? Isn't > it a work then, anymore? Isn't any progress going to be made, then? > > But regardless, even if that would be your viewpoint, this would mean that > as long as it's beta, it's a work in progress, and the specs will remain > obsolete. If the past is any indication, this will mean yet another 3-4 > years - and *then* specs are going to be made? pfff... > > O, but wait, I know: *you* will arbitrarily decide when it's a work in > progress, and when it's not, right? Regardless of any objective criteria or > the fact it's still in beta or not, or even if it's still a work in progress > or not. That way, as usual, you are always right, even if you are wrong, and > you can ignore anyone asking for the specs. > > > "Another inaccurate explanation. The current FCP specs have been more than > adequate to permit the implementation of Frost, Fuqid, and numerous other > third-party apps. Since you are clearly such an expert, perhaps you can > explain what is wrong with the FCP specifications?" > > Aha, here we go again; the 'you are not a coder so shut-up' defence. You > haven't learned a thing, have you? Everytime you or the project get > criticised, it's back to the basic: what code did you deliver, are you the > 'expert', etc. Basically focussing on your perceived superiority as a coder > to happily ignore anyone else. Well, guess what; it's poor management. > > If I was telling toad or you (not that your contributions in code are that > overwhelming, btw) how to code, you might have a point, but as I've told you > numerous times, this "why should I have to listen if you're not a > coder"-attitude doesn't cut it in cases of project-management and making the > program user-friendly on an application-level. Thus, in this case, I *don't* > have to be a coder to notice the numerous complaints there have been > regarding the lack of detailed specs. It's a recurring theme, on slashdot, > on the mailists, on freesites, and even some of the Higher Gods have > acknowlegded the specs were poor and not up to date in the past. > > But hey, feel free to ignore all those, bacause that's always your > convenient way out, isn't it? It's never the question; maybe they have a > point, and I should concentrate on the specs a bit, it's rather: well, > slashdotters are an irratic bunch of whiners and nothing more then trolls, > people on the maillists aren't coders so why bother paying any attention > (it's not like they are 'experts' after all, are they?), Freenetters are > anonymous whiners too, and thus irrelevant, and the few expetions that are > active coders and find the specs lacking are just plain wrong. So, in > essence, you are, again, right - because you consider it to be so, whatever > others may say. And then you try to counter with saying that tools have been > made, after all, so there is no need to do anything. > > Right. Reminds me of the scene of Lisa Simpson who sold a stone to her dad > that magically repulsed any tigers, "and you don't see any tigers around, do > you"? A specious reasoning, indeed. It says more about the ability of those > coders to work with next to nothing, and still manage to make useful tools, > than anything else. Maybe you should ask *them* if they don't think that > more detailed specs would be welcome? Or that they rather would have it soon > (provided it's any good) then in 3 years, when it will cease to be a 'work > in progress'. > > But in fact, many of those have already talked about that in their > freesites, if you would take the trouble of reading those. (But then again, > you can always dismiss them too, no?) > > > "Thanks for lecturing us on what is right, because you are clearly such an > expert on software development that you have never, to my knowledge, written > a line of code for this project in your life. We don't do specs on > something before it is specified. To do otherwise would be moronic. FCP > for pre-0.7 was specified, and specified adequately enough for numerous > third-party applications to implement. If you disagree, please bless us with > your expert knowledge of exactly what is wrong with the current FCP specs." > > > And there we continue.... Note, that you never give any counterargument (the > same as your response on slashdot, on my criticism). *ALL* you say basically > boils down to just "Newsbyte is a well know troll". Gosh, that makes it so > easy, doesn't it? Throw in a bit of sarcasm here and there, and you think > you've made your case. > > Maybe you'll finally get this through your thick skull: I don't have to be a > coder to know what is wrong management-wise with the project. I have been an > IT-manager of a major project in the federal goverment, so yes, I *do* feel > entitled to 'lecture' (ironic you would see it as that, but not really > surprising) on how to manage an IT-project, in regard to human resource > pooling, and the augmenting of the user-friendliness of a program towards > the end-users. I don't know what 'expertise' *you* have in that matter, but > I doubt it is more then I have. But then again, I'm not the one focussing on > what 'expertise' someone has to evaluate the worth of someone's arguments. > > > "Wow, you must be a real expert in writing software if you can document > something before you have finalized what it is you are building. Again, > please bless us with your expert knowledge of software development and > explain how we do that." > > *yawns* You are repeating yourself, and are pretty tedious at that. (see > above) > > > "Actually, you are one of the few people who, despite having no discernible > experience in software engineering, insist in lecturing those that do on how > to engineer software. This lack of knowledge must be powerful indeed if it > lets you specify software before its design has even been finalized, and > determine that our FCP spec is meagre and obsolete even though it has been > used by a number of people to write third-party software with great > success." > > *yawns some more* You sound like a broken record. Maybe, I'll have to repeat > it one more time too, then, in the (no doubt idle) hope it gets through: > I've always said I wasn't a coder: your incessant hammering on this issue > only shows how weak your argumentation for the rest is. I'm not lecturing > how to engineer software, I'm telling you what people are asking for and > which could be helpful for the *project* (= more then the code on itself) - > and which you keep ignoring. > > So, I don't care how exactly you're going to make the specs; that's your > job, as a coder (as I said previously, and to which you seem to argue it's > the job of a non-coder). I *am* telling you however, that there is need for > specs: detailed ones, not obsolete ones, and relatively soon, not in 3 years > or whenever you deem it's not a work in progress anymore 'for the last few > years'. If you can't see anything wrong in that (your own) sentence - and, > accordingly, the wrong attitude in which the project is continuing, then > nothing will wake you up, I'm afraid. Do I need to be an expert coder for > that? No, I only have to notice what others are saying and what the > recurring complaints and problems are... something you fail to do, every > goddamned time. > > > "Well, if you can't write code, then why are you telling us how to write the > code?" > > *Yaaaaaaaaawwwwnnnn* More of the same nonsensical non-argument. I've > answered that 3 times by now, so even your peculiar way of selectively > ignoring criticism will have difficulty to filter it out the regular way. > > > "Hey ho, I see you haven't changed - I guess its time to reapply my newsbyte > -> /dev/null filter. How ever will we survive without your invaluable and > informative contributions?" > > What? Once again?! That must be the third time! Can't you make up your mind, > already? You keep reading my posts, and then you keep saying you won't read, > nor respond to them. And yet, keep doing both. I know you aren't very > consistent in your viewpoint about free speech, but can you *please* be > consistent on *something*, other then your arrogant and elitarian attitude > you spout as responses? > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051206/f77ead85/attachment.pgp>
