If you can point out where I indicated that grovelling would be needed, go right on ahead. There is a difference between relating a bug report and getting abusive, though.
At least the GP is comfortable attaching a name to their *posts*. I understand why you didn't want to.
If I write a tool, and I decide to post it for public access etc, and some users come along and use it, that does not somehow obligate me in any way to those users. Say my tool is a form generator. Somebody comes along and uses it for a while, but then starts complaining that it doesn't support widget X--for which I have no use. Now, I am not pushing a "product" here, despite the fact that this is no less "real life" than whatever your last sentence was referring to (presumably proprietary software; interesting viewpoint). Do I have any responsibility to the user to add widget X? Of course not. I have no responsibility to the user AT ALL.
If the user wants me to feel that kind of obligation, they can pay me. Otherwise they're just freeloading on my free-time effort*.
* n.b.--I would only consider a user to be "freeloading" once they start taking the devs for granted.
Re:The diplomatic response
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hey, as soon as Joe User decides to start treating Jill OSS Developer as though *she* owed *him* something, the "so submit a patch" comeback becomes perfectly acceptable.
Most users are OK. But you do get those who treat the dev team (whatever the project is) as though they are idiots who need to do what they're told NOW.
Ah, yes, but remember Rumsfeld's simple explanation--helps me keep it straight.
The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.
--Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
I agree with everything you've said (I've been using PHP since PHP/FI).
But in the authors' defence (just for the reading public, not you--you don't seem to be slamming anyone), they agreed with you too. They made no bones about the fact that PHP 4 objects were essentially arrays which could contain functions, with some sugar like inheritance thrown on top for flavour.
Some of us in the PHP community, on the other hand, might have gotten a tad overexcited.:)
Hey, you made the sports analogy. But yes, I am definitely of the opinion that no entity should be allowed to continue growing, if it is doing so unethically and at the expense of others. I don't equate the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of domination.
I don't understand this part of copyright law, but it seems that Apple wouldn't have much leverage on this, since there's been a *nix 'mail' program for, oh, decades.
As a matter of fact, yes. It's a bad analogy, though, as the English language has since been standardized. Actually, it's a great analogy--only not in your favour. The very reason that English was standardized was to avoid both ambiguity and the mental load of having to decipher what the intent of the author might have been.
Adding to the language is great. wtf, afaik, lol, etc are useful. But loosers hoo kant spel or tawk gud doo nuthing to improof cumyunikayshun.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a significant difference between evolution and sloppiness.
For instance, I often get emails from my boss which do NOT indicate a shift in language usage; they indicate--well, I'm not sure what they indicate, since I usually have to write him back and ask him to explain what he wanted again. Misspelled words, sentence fragments, and so forth often make the language so ambiguous that it could mean two or more different things.
Yes, his first language is English.
Language evolution is one thing; mangling or misusing language to the point of ambiguity is quite another.
The law is only one way to influence the flow of information. Money is a great workaround if you don't want to be seen to be violating the tenets you want to appear to uphold.
It seems the difference is more one of method than degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Thought I was pretty clear, but I guess not.
For the terminally slow: user input != abuse. User input is good. Necessary, even.
However, abuse by users need not be tolerated just because they are using something I wrote.
If you can point out where I indicated that grovelling would be needed, go right on ahead. There is a difference between relating a bug report and getting abusive, though.
At least the GP is comfortable attaching a name to their *posts*. I understand why you didn't want to.
If I write a tool, and I decide to post it for public access etc, and some users come along and use it, that does not somehow obligate me in any way to those users. Say my tool is a form generator. Somebody comes along and uses it for a while, but then starts complaining that it doesn't support widget X--for which I have no use. Now, I am not pushing a "product" here, despite the fact that this is no less "real life" than whatever your last sentence was referring to (presumably proprietary software; interesting viewpoint). Do I have any responsibility to the user to add widget X? Of course not. I have no responsibility to the user AT ALL.
If the user wants me to feel that kind of obligation, they can pay me. Otherwise they're just freeloading on my free-time effort*.
* n.b.--I would only consider a user to be "freeloading" once they start taking the devs for granted.
Hey, as soon as Joe User decides to start treating Jill OSS Developer as though *she* owed *him* something, the "so submit a patch" comeback becomes perfectly acceptable.
Most users are OK. But you do get those who treat the dev team (whatever the project is) as though they are idiots who need to do what they're told NOW.
Anakin does. Vader dies in the sixth.
Because the courts *always* get it right, as we all know. They are infallible. It's what separates them from the rest of humanity.
That would be "grammar Nazi".
True. Eternal love can only be expressed by the fruits of slave labour.
What do the women know that we don't?
Clarification:
.
But in the authors' defence. .
I meant the authors of PHP 4.
Torben
I agree with everything you've said (I've been using PHP since PHP/FI).
:)
But in the authors' defence (just for the reading public, not you--you don't seem to be slamming anyone), they agreed with you too. They made no bones about the fact that PHP 4 objects were essentially arrays which could contain functions, with some sugar like inheritance thrown on top for flavour.
Some of us in the PHP community, on the other hand, might have gotten a tad overexcited.
Torben
Yes, of course it's possible. But apply Occam's Razor. Which is more likely?
a) A planet got knocked out of its system, and traversed hundreds of light years, until it settled into orbit in another system.
b) We don't know everything.
I admit that a) is not impossible, but I vote for b).
Don't worry. You probably won't.
Hey, you made the sports analogy. But yes, I am definitely of the opinion that no entity should be allowed to continue growing, if it is doing so unethically and at the expense of others. I don't equate the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of domination.
I think you've just stumbled upon the concept of handicapping.
...programming must be art:
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it".
On second thought, this kinda leaves OSS out in the cold. Hm.
I don't understand this part of copyright law, but it seems that Apple wouldn't have much leverage on this, since there's been a *nix 'mail' program for, oh, decades.
As a matter of fact, yes. It's a bad analogy, though, as the English language has since been standardized. Actually, it's a great analogy--only not in your favour. The very reason that English was standardized was to avoid both ambiguity and the mental load of having to decipher what the intent of the author might have been.
Adding to the language is great. wtf, afaik, lol, etc are useful. But loosers hoo kant spel or tawk gud doo nuthing to improof cumyunikayshun.
I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a significant difference between evolution and sloppiness.
For instance, I often get emails from my boss which do NOT indicate a shift in language usage; they indicate--well, I'm not sure what they indicate, since I usually have to write him back and ask him to explain what he wanted again. Misspelled words, sentence fragments, and so forth often make the language so ambiguous that it could mean two or more different things.
Yes, his first language is English.
Language evolution is one thing; mangling or misusing language to the point of ambiguity is quite another.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes--oh wait."
". . .now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
I always *knew* Obi-Wan was an Imperial Navy traitor!
I could never never figure out why nobody twigged on the accent thing...
The law is only one way to influence the flow of information. Money is a great workaround if you don't want to be seen to be violating the tenets you want to appear to uphold.
It seems the difference is more one of method than degree.
Stick it on the angels' feet, silly.