Re:TCL vs TK / Ousterhout bailing/ maintaining cod
on
Tcl Core Team Interview
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ousterhout and Welch are still members of the
Tcl Core Team, even if they aren't in the
interview. Ousterhout doesn't do *any* coding
anymore, on any project; a severe hand injury
makes it impossible for him to type. And I have
nothing but respect for Ousterhout's wisdom in
letting himself be bought out two years ago,
when a software company was still worth something.
I'd hardly call it "bailing", more like
"taking a profit."
The point that Ousterhout and Welch used to reply
to questions is a good one. The Tcl community is
still like that. comp.lang.tcl is one of very
few newsgroups where newbies don't get flamed to
a crisp.
One very good point about ITER is that the
temperatures and plasma densities they're
talking about are getting tantalizingly close
to what's needed for
the proton-boron-11 reaction.
They should be even closer to what would be needed for the deuterium-helium-3 reaction. (What a pity that helium-3 doesn't occur naturally at the Earth's surface!)
Both
of these reactions yield no neutrons, and
hence don't present a problem of radioactive
waste, which comes from neutron activation of the
reactor wall.
The radio hams have been doing high-altitude
ballooning for years. The original poster will
probably be quite interested in the
site that
maintains the unofficial records.
Perhaps the most active organization in the area is Edge of Space Sciences, which has conducted 63 amateur balloon flights to date, and knows well how to grease the skids with the FAA.
All the comments that I've read here so far discuss the rights of the consumers, of the engineers, and of broader society. One set of parties that they appear to overlook is the creditors of a failed corporation.
When a corporation enters receivership, its assets - including its intellectual property - are allocated for the benefit of its creditors. The idea is that those to whom the corporation owes money should be able to recover what they can from those assets. If they so choose, they have a perfect right to try to remarket the intellectual property, or to sell the rights to the highest bidder. I think that right must be preserved; as many have pointed out, the company's failure may have had little to do with the quality of the software.
The problem arises only if the receivers see no value in the intellectual property and choose to abandon it. I'd see this, though, as irresponsible behavior on the part of the receivers. If they cavalierly put the corporation's physical assets out with the trash, they'd certainly be found negligent in their duty to the creditors!
Instead, require them to put it on the auction block, with a reserve price high enough to pay for the effort of transferring it to the buyer. Let it go to the highest bidder - which could be a users' consortium or another software house.
Of course, this scheme will run the risk that the high bidder will be the chief competitor of the failed company. To some extent, that's business -- they at least have to pay enough to outbid the rest of the community.
If this idea turns you off viscerally, think of it as getting some extra money to protect the engineers whose paychecks have bounced.
Slashdot Mirror
Ousterhout and Welch are still members of the Tcl Core Team, even if they aren't in the interview. Ousterhout doesn't do *any* coding anymore, on any project; a severe hand injury makes it impossible for him to type. And I have nothing but respect for Ousterhout's wisdom in letting himself be bought out two years ago, when a software company was still worth something. I'd hardly call it "bailing", more like "taking a profit." The point that Ousterhout and Welch used to reply to questions is a good one. The Tcl community is still like that. comp.lang.tcl is one of very few newsgroups where newbies don't get flamed to a crisp.
The first paper about Tcl on Mars that I saw was this one presented at the second Tcl/Tk workshop in 1994. Does that help?
Both of these reactions yield no neutrons, and hence don't present a problem of radioactive waste, which comes from neutron activation of the reactor wall.
The radio hams have been doing high-altitude ballooning for years. The original poster will probably be quite interested in the site that maintains the unofficial records. Perhaps the most active organization in the area is Edge of Space Sciences, which has conducted 63 amateur balloon flights to date, and knows well how to grease the skids with the FAA.
All the comments that I've read here so far discuss the rights of the consumers, of the engineers, and of broader society. One set of parties that they appear to overlook is the creditors of a failed corporation. When a corporation enters receivership, its assets - including its intellectual property - are allocated for the benefit of its creditors. The idea is that those to whom the corporation owes money should be able to recover what they can from those assets. If they so choose, they have a perfect right to try to remarket the intellectual property, or to sell the rights to the highest bidder. I think that right must be preserved; as many have pointed out, the company's failure may have had little to do with the quality of the software. The problem arises only if the receivers see no value in the intellectual property and choose to abandon it. I'd see this, though, as irresponsible behavior on the part of the receivers. If they cavalierly put the corporation's physical assets out with the trash, they'd certainly be found negligent in their duty to the creditors! Instead, require them to put it on the auction block, with a reserve price high enough to pay for the effort of transferring it to the buyer. Let it go to the highest bidder - which could be a users' consortium or another software house. Of course, this scheme will run the risk that the high bidder will be the chief competitor of the failed company. To some extent, that's business -- they at least have to pay enough to outbid the rest of the community. If this idea turns you off viscerally, think of it as getting some extra money to protect the engineers whose paychecks have bounced.