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

[Tom Lord]

       > 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.


My gawd man: how are you possibly insulted?

Is ACT much larger than I think it is (you go on to confirm that it is
not)?  

I don't know much at all about ACT.  I infer it is smaller than those
others that I named.  I infer that it is successful.  I stated, based
on those assumptions, that I think it belongs to a really cool class
of corps and I meant that.  Good for you!  The comment you objected to
is praise, not insult.

I'm "not talking to" ACT because, at your scale, my R&D funding needs
are too big for you and not central enough to your mission.  I don't
want to waste your time by pretending otherwise.

How the heck did you manage to be insulted by my calling your corp
cool, when assessed in terms of its comparatively dinky size?  I
wonder if you aren't eager to read insult into any little thing,
Cabron [pop music reference].

	> 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).

That's pretty much what I'd guessed.  I'll reiterate: you go girl!
That's cool.  I admire you.  Human scaled, competent, successful:
neat!  Sheesh.  Are you just flipping out over my use of the word
"dinky"?



	[on engineering ethics]

	> I find this statement quite arrogant. I trust our customers
	> a lot more frankly than I trust you

You don't have to "trust" me or your customers.  We can talk over the
issues, preferablly in person (since vulnerabilities are part of the
topic, and since bandwidth helps), and then you can trust yourself.


	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've been estimating about 6 engineers for a year -- a little over
$1M.  And that's to produce a really top-shelf 1.0.  In total, that's
about x10 less than McVoy's estimate of $12M to compete with BK.


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

I've started to believe that there is no variation on advocacy that
could possibly succeed given presumptions such as you have exhibited.
It is interesting to try to trace those presumptions back to their
origins (*cough*cygnus).  Yet another "bash on Tom" day, I guess.



 "I am small but I am strong
  I'll get it on with you
  If you want me to
  What else can I do" -- from "Cabron" by Red Hot Chili Peppers

-t