Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:50:45 -0700 From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports Message-ID: <200510171250.50481.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62.0510171950080.28675@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> References: <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <200510170844.06438.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.62.0510171950080.28675@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 October 2005 11:56, the author Jan Grant contributed to the=20 dialogue on- Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports:=20 >On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Vizion wrote: >> You guys just do not get it. >> >> I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up >> with technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather >> than on behalf of people that use them. > >This is an open-source project; patches speak louder than words. There >is a process outlined in the porters' handbook (that I've pointed you at >before) for getting ports system rejigs to even be considered. > >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile= =2Dc >ategories.html#PROPOSING-CATEGORIES > >(Given the ability of existing tools to search for ports in "half-assed" >virtual categories, I think you overstate your case.) > Sorry but those who think this way do not get it.. You cut out a highly significant part of my posting so I repeat it in full. >> I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up w= ith >>technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather than on >>behalf of people that use them. Your response : > patches speak louder than words. Gives additional weight to my words. You are reinforcing my point. The=20 division between the perceptions of a technological old guard and the emrgi= ng=20 needs of a new breed of users whose attitudes come from a user's appreciati= on=20 of the extra-technological implications of technological changes. I would=20 argue that the technologist is always one step behind the consumer in=20 appreciating the realworld potential of the products of technology. =20 I saw microsoft meteoric rise just because those who were providing patches= =20 and code in the **ix fraternity would not listen to the demands of system=20 users. The technologist who thought in terms of system did not heed the nee= ds=20 of users.=20 The problem can be both identified and summarized by the notion of that=20 technological competence needs non-technological direction if it is going t= o=20 be produce results that are socially sustainable.=20 I would appreciate it if, in the light of the history of modern day computi= ng,=20 you would not so obviously seek to belittle the voices of those who do not= =20 see things through an internal FreeBSD methodolgical filter. >>You do not get it that the ports systems, as currently configured, is =A0= out=20 >>of date as far as the newly emerging framework centric applications model= =20 >>as against the traditional application centric model. =46ramework centric applications need their own hierarchy so that plugins c= an be=20 managed within the hierarchy. So my comment: >>We now need a category /ports/eclipse and not this ridiculous scattering =A0>>arounf the system or some half hearted 'virtual' solution that gets in= the =A0>>way of a real framework centric solution. Was, I feel, more apt than your response: >(Given the ability of existing tools to search for ports in "half-assed" >virtual categories, I think you overstate your case.) Which shows again how those who think that way do not get it. =20 The issue is not about searching it is about having a hierarchy that works = for=20 a framework centric processing model! Your response: >There is a process outlined in the porters' handbook (that I've pointed yo= u=20 > at before) for getting ports system rejigs to even be considered. Shows again do not get it. You do not think about user you are thinking abo= ut=20 users can be made to work with current internal regulatory processes. This= =20 approach can be seen as somewhat condescending. The user does not want to be embroiled in the process of determining how us= er=20 needs are to be met or weighed down by a bureaucracy that was devised to me= et=20 yesterday's problems. Those who maintain/create the bureaucracy need to fin= d=20 ways of usig their accumulated wisdom to help recreate and reconfigure rath= er=20 than demand that others jump through hoops.=20 It was the failure of the **ix community to modify its relationship to its= =20 users that led to the rise of the poorer technology of microsoft. =20 Those of us within the Freebsd community need to grasp the fact that the=20 future of comuting applications lies increasingly in common framework centr= ic=20 approaches to processing that encompass common developmental and applicatio= n=20 interfaces. hence division by application type (which is how ports are=20 categorized) is not the way to go. >>I am sick to death of hearing the same old appeal based on "mot making an >> exception" which really means "I want to bury my head in the sand" and=20 >>stick to the old ways of doing things. >>And before anyone tells me -- yes I am angry. And will probably stay angry until some of the old guard begin to get it an= d=20 not just in this area. I do not want FreeBSD to finish up as just another carrier for Linux=20 applications. It is not enough to satisfy our existing user base. It is not= =20 enough to stick to the ways things have been done in the past. The ports system is fantastic BUT it is now showing its age.=20 The freedsd docs system is incredibly good but it does not provide context= =20 driven help. The freebsd install system is good but it does not have a user ventric=20 installation process. The configuration system needs a web interface. If all our energies go towards increasing system functionality rather then= =20 identifying how we can catching up on user convenience then in the battle f= or=20 tomorrow's users we will lose out to competition. Will will finish up satisfying our technological impulses and losing touch= =20 with our potential place in tomorrow's world My two pennorth david =2D-=20 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Tauru= s. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal afte= r=20 completing engineroom refit.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510171250.50481.vizion>