Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Open source developers just in it for themselves

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Open source developers just in it for themselves

 
 
Hamish Campbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On Jun 17, 1:38*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Your claim, echoing the Larry D'Loserite dogma, is that open source
> developers must, by definition, contribute back to the open source
> community. The Eclipse survey roundly **disproves** that claim. *Most
> developers who consider themselves part of the Eclipse community **do not**
> contribute anything back. Most, as I said, are in it for themselves (or for
> their company).


Bit late in the game, but I'm a commercial developer who uses and
contributes back to various open source efforts - and I gotta say your
responses on this thread (and the original post) have been a
disjointed mishmash of half accusations and breathless exhortations
about stuff everyone working in open source already knew.

Yes, the vast majority of people who use open source don't contribute
code (or even bugs, forum posts, etc) back. That's fine. It's a key
feature of open source projects that it is given away without
obligation. Ultimately it doesn't matter, the project survives on it's
own merits.

It's pointless to quote the proportion of non-participating users vs
contributors. They're all part of the community to some degree.
Sometimes there is commercial and personal benefit, sometimes it's
just for kicks. Again, it doesn't matter - it isn't measured and it
isn't the point.

All you are doing is spuriously interpreting these survey results to
attack a opinion you have defined for someone else. It's a half backed
attack on your own stawman.

Oh wait, I think I just defined the word TROLL.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On Jun 17, 1:38*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Yes, the list of nz.comp thugs, prats, and ideologues who have suffered
> humiliation on my watch is rather long.


How can a list with only yourself on it be "rather long"?

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On 17/06/10 13:38, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c194430$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c1886fa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c16f86a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
>>>>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
>>>>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
>>>>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
>>>>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
>>>>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
>>>>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
>>>>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
>>>>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
>>>>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
>>>>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
>>>>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
>>>>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
>>>>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
>>>>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>>>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
>>>>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
>>>>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
>>>>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
>>>>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
>>>>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
>>>>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
>>>>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
>>>>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
>>>>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>>>>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
>>>>>>>>> something worth investigating"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
>>>>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
>>>>>>>>> their religious convictions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
>>>>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
>>>>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
>>>>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
>>>>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
>>>>>>> denial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
>>>>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
>>>>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
>>>>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
>>>>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
>>>>> earning a living.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
>>>> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
>>>> the community?
>>>
>>> Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
>>>
>>> "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>>> respondents were. "
>>>
>>> I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
>>> link to the evidence one of these days.
>>>

>> It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
>> were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that has
>> dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65% (approx
>> 2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
>> definition members of the Open Source community.
>>>

>
> Your claim, echoing the Larry D'Loserite dogma, is that open source
> developers must, by definition, contribute back to the open source
> community. The Eclipse survey roundly **disproves** that claim. Most
> developers who consider themselves part of the Eclipse community **do
> not** contribute anything back. Most, as I said, are in it for
> themselves (or for their company).
>

It would do *if* the survey was of open source developers, but it
obviously isn't, since 2/3 of them aren't allowed by their company to
contribute back, they must therefore be developing closed source
software. Not contribution = closed source. This is obvious to anyone
with the intelligence of a flatworm, and I'd be slandering flatworms if
I suggested that you came anywhere nearly as high as them in intelligence.
>
>> As a former Microsoft MVP I resent the fact that the image that you
>> project of the Microsoft community is so bigotted and ignorant. Thank
>> the little gods that your type is rare in both the Open Source
>> community and, to my certain knowledge, in the Microsoft community.
>>

>
> Yes, the list of nz.comp thugs, prats, and ideologues who have suffered
> humiliation on my watch is rather long.
>

You don't possess a mirror do you?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On Jun 18, 12:06*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Is Anton the Wanton Censor back there sneaking up on me again?


It might seem like it, but it's actually the Iraqi Information
Ministry looking for a new spokesperson. They haven't detected levels
of denial in the face of reality this high for many years.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On 18/06/10 00:06, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c19d6f3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 17/06/10 13:38, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c194430$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c1886fa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c16f86a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
>>>>>>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
>>>>>>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
>>>>>>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
>>>>>>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
>>>>>>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
>>>>>>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>>>>>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
>>>>>>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
>>>>>>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
>>>>>>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
>>>>>>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
>>>>>>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>>>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
>>>>>>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
>>>>>>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
>>>>>>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>>>>>>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
>>>>>>>>>>> something worth investigating"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
>>>>>>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
>>>>>>>>>>> their religious convictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
>>>>>>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
>>>>>>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
>>>>>>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
>>>>>>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
>>>>>>>>> denial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
>>>>>>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
>>>>>>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
>>>>>>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
>>>>>>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
>>>>>>> earning a living.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
>>>>>> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
>>>>>> the community?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>>>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>>>>> respondents were. "
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
>>>>> link to the evidence one of these days.
>>>>>
>>>> It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
>>>> were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that has
>>>> dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65%
>>>> (approx
>>>> 2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
>>>> definition members of the Open Source community.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Your claim, echoing the Larry D'Loserite dogma, is that open source
>>> developers must, by definition, contribute back to the open source
>>> community. The Eclipse survey roundly **disproves** that claim. Most
>>> developers who consider themselves part of the Eclipse community **do
>>> not** contribute anything back. Most, as I said, are in it for
>>> themselves (or for their company).
>>>

>> It would do *if* the survey was of open source developers, but it
>> obviously isn't, since 2/3 of them aren't allowed by their company to
>> contribute back, they must therefore be developing closed source
>> software. Not contribution = closed source.

>
> Therein lies the dogma.
>

Oh dear! When you can't distinguish dogma from my logic, then you have a
problem.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On Jun 18, 9:33*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > Oh dear! When you can't distinguish dogma from my logic, then you have a
> > problem.

>
> Exactly,


So you do admit to having a problem?

That's an important part of past the first stage (Denial).

> now you're catching on to what makes a Larry D'Loserite so
> difficult to carry on a discussion with.


So Cliff is now catching on to why you have trouble conversing with
Larry?

OK, this looks a little bit like the second stage (Anger). Good, we're
making progress.

> They the logic of their dogma leads
> them to believe in the dogma of their logic. This is why programmers are
> rarely allowed to roam outside their cubicles. Those raised on the
> categorical imperatives of set theory often lose all capacity to.....well,
> think outside the box....no matter what the evidence laid before them.


How very postmodern, but this is slipping dangerously back towards
Denial.

If you're going to get over your break up with Larry, you'll need to
get past this. I know how devastating it was when he made fun of your
MS Office macro tweaking career, and that all your old friends and
colleagues have moved on to rearranging files in Sharepoint sites
while you're stuck at home minding the kids without enough time for
career development.

But look on the bright side, you did get all the MS and Apple shares
while Larry was left with only the netbook and a bunch of VA Linux and
Corel shares.

This tit for tat battle with Larry where you each try to devalue each
others stock portfolio is preventing you moving on. And the way you
turn on all your old nz.comp friends when we helpfully try to point
out that you're being irrational is also worrying for those that care
about your mental health. Even if it seems this way, we really aren't
tying to take Larry's side of this - in fact we hardly talk to him any
more.

It is hard when he doesn't talk to you anymore, especially since the
child support dried up. And how painful it is when their little faces
remind you of him. We know what you're going through.

But you really do need to let go.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2010
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:00:04 -0700, AD. wrote:

> This tit for tat battle with Larry


Isn't his name Laurence?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2010
On Jun 18, 2:23*pm, Sweetpea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:00:04 -0700, AD. wrote:
> > This tit for tat battle with Larry

>
> Isn't his name Laurence?


Not to those of us who remember them in their happier times.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2010
On 18/06/10 09:33, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c1a8f53$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 18/06/10 00:06, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c19d6f3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 17/06/10 13:38, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c194430$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c1886fa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4c16f86a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something worth investigating"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their religious convictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
>>>>>>>>>>> denial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
>>>>>>>>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
>>>>>>>>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
>>>>>>>>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
>>>>>>>>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
>>>>>>>>> earning a living.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
>>>>>>>> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
>>>>>>>> the community?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>>>>>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>>>>>>> respondents were. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
>>>>>>> link to the evidence one of these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
>>>>>> were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65%
>>>>>> (approx
>>>>>> 2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
>>>>>> definition members of the Open Source community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your claim, echoing the Larry D'Loserite dogma, is that open source
>>>>> developers must, by definition, contribute back to the open source
>>>>> community. The Eclipse survey roundly **disproves** that claim. Most
>>>>> developers who consider themselves part of the Eclipse community **do
>>>>> not** contribute anything back. Most, as I said, are in it for
>>>>> themselves (or for their company).
>>>>>
>>>> It would do *if* the survey was of open source developers, but it
>>>> obviously isn't, since 2/3 of them aren't allowed by their company to
>>>> contribute back, they must therefore be developing closed source
>>>> software. Not contribution = closed source.
>>>
>>> Therein lies the dogma.
>>>

>> Oh dear! When you can't distinguish dogma from my logic, then you have
>> a problem.

>
> Exactly, now you're catching on to what makes a Larry D'Loserite so
> difficult to carry on a discussion with. They the logic of their dogma
> leads them to believe in the dogma of their logic. This is why
> programmers are rarely allowed to roam outside their cubicles. Those
> raised on the categorical imperatives of set theory often lose all
> capacity to.....well, think outside the box....no matter what the
> evidence laid before them.
>

Dogma is the opposite of logic. You seem to be long on dogma and short
on logic.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
bAZZ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2010
In article <b3f21e24-b050-4710-aaac-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On Jun 18, 12:06*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Is Anton the Wanton Censor back there sneaking up on me again?

>
> It might seem like it, but it's actually the Iraqi Information
> Ministry looking for a new spokesperson. They haven't detected levels
> of denial in the face of reality this high for many years.


Now that IS funny LOL.

bAZZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open Source Developers' Conference 2007 - Brisbane - Call for Papers Richard Jones Python 0 06-16-2007 03:57 AM
Open Source Developers' Conference 2007 - Brisbane - Call for Papers Richard Jones Python 0 05-29-2007 09:52 PM
Wanted JXTA Developers for an Open Source Project dexpro@gmail.com Java 0 08-08-2005 05:03 PM
Open Source Conference in Japan: Open Source Realize Forum 2005 pat eyler Ruby 1 03-05-2005 03:50 AM
Survey: "Motivation of Free/Open Source Software (F/OSS) Developers" =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc_R=F6ttig?= Python 0 07-16-2004 12:02 PM



Advertisments