Mayhaps I shall have to read these lists more thoughrally. From the chatter of frost, the impression seems to be that we could be waiting untill late next year for a complete product.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:tech-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 7:21 PM To: tech at freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [Tech] specs 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.
