on reputation and lines and putting things places (Re: gcc branches?)

[Robert Dewar]

> Is "second" your hacker/engineer hat?  That's the guy I want to talk
> with.  When you start asking questions about patch set formats and
> their implications in context, then I'll know you are on the right
> track.  When you start asking questions about global namespaces for
> revisions (changesets), by then we'll be getting along famously.  When
> you start asking about how to automate various aspects of the GCC
> process in an arch-based framework, I'll [censored] and send you to
> heaven.

I was responding specifically to your idea that the SC could approach
corporations to get funding. This part of your previous message was
about money, not about hacking. And I was specifically addressing 
that request. Once again, if you want to extract funds from corporations
big or small you can't do it by exhoration, you have to show value unless
you are specifically asking for charity type handouts. Corporations
certainly do make such contributions, but there is a long line :-)

> Yeah, but, you're comparitively dinky anyway, right?  I don't mean
> that as an insult.  You're a successful but relatively tiny corp?  If
> so, I'm not talking to you (while you're wearing that hat).  I do hope
> to make your life better as a side effect, though -- and to help
> others succeed at similar scales.  Hurray for human-scale corps!  You
> go girl (flippency aside: tiny corps are really cool, if you ask me).


Now I begin to get some real sense of why you get nowhere. You seem to
to think you can get people to help you by insulting them. I have seen
you do this to the SC, and to individuals. It's a strange way to try
to win friends and supporters.


In fact a successful small corporation like ACT potentially is a much
better friend for you than RH or IBM, or any other large public company
that must answer to stock holkders or outside investors. 

We have a 35 engineers who are very competent and entirely devoted to
the continued development of free software. We spend a lot of resources
in developing FS (for example, our current development of GPS). 

> Hmm.  Too bad its _so_ unfashionable to talk about engineering ethics
> -- otherwise I'd be able to flame you for that comment in the manner
> it deserves without having to endure lots of stupid replies.  Customers
> are hyper-super-double-plus-ultimate-thats-why-we-are-here important,
> but their demands do not trump fundamentals.  Our relationship with customers
> must be a two-way street.

I find this statement quite arrogant. I trust our customers a lot more
frankly than I trust you, since you so obviously have a (big) axe to
grind. Yes, I understand that you think this project is wonderful and
essential and valuable. Well so far that does not distinguish it from
dozens of other projects ranging in worth from dubious to useful. You
have to convince others of this fact, and you may be competent at
software developemnt (or not, I have no idea), but for sure your
competence in persuading other people is minimal. It just won't do to
call people unethical and stupid for disagreement with you.

If this interchange had managed to convince me that arch was of interest,
then I would be quite happy to have a look to see whether it might meet
our customers needs. Obviously customer needs are often expressed in very
general terms (we need a good IDE, we need a good CM system etc). And in
such cases, we definitely play an active role in suggesting (and developing)
appropriate solutions.

It really doesn't sound like you need $10 million and a team of 50 engineers
for this project. On the contrary it sounds like a relatively small 
investment of effort by competent people could make a big difference. But
you seem more interested in fulminating than illuminating. 

I have really learned nothing about arch from the thread that would entice
me to take a closer look, on the contrary, it has left a rather negative
impression. The idea that one should look at source code to figure out
what it is about is in particular a bit absurd.

It is rather sad to see what may possibly (for all I know) be a really
valuable project hanmpered and sabotaged by incompetent advocacy.