[time-nuts] Releasing sources (was Re: Brooks Shera)

Lizeth Norman normanlizeth at gmail.com
Sun Mar 31 11:32:23 EDT 2013

All u guys that post code to push up your little ego and then don't help
when it sucks need to see a shrink.

Don't want emails, don't post. Keep your bad code in the folder were it

There are enough who think they know.

And finally: The code in question is without question buggy.

BTW: I did build Brooks' project and had to send him two emails. One with a
question and the other a thank you.

Have a nice day
Norm n3ykf

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jim Lux <jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 3/30/13 2:58 PM, Lizeth Norman wrote:
>> What a bunch of hooey. Another so called expert wasted hours of my time
>> because he can't be bothered to either note that code is buggy or just
>> can't be bothered..
>> If you don't want to release it, then don't. If you do and it's a POS,
>> Expect emails.
> Let's talk about that "wasted hours"..
> You had a need.  You had two alternatives:
> 1) write the needed code yourself
> 2) use something someone else has written.
> Presumably, you figured that #1 has large cost (if it were trivial, you
> wouldn't even start considering #2)..
> The value of satisfying the need is Value(#1)
> So you make a *speculative investment* in trying #2.  It pays off and you
> are ahead of the overall game by Cost(#1)-Cost(#2).  You've just got a
> substantial return on your small investment (you spent Cost(#2) and you got
> Value(#1) in return)  If it doesn't pay off and you've invested Cost(#2)
> without any return.
> This is not "wasted".. this is "a speculative investment that didn't pay
> off".
> A smart investor might look at the quality of documentation, or at the
> source code, or look for support groups.  Such things sometimes exist and
> make the probability of usefulness go up (In modern terms,the "Software
> Reuse Readiness Level" is higher).
> Sure, sometimes you invest blind, and find that the program doesn't work
> well, etc., but that's not wasted.  You've basically paid for information.
> Finally, what is a POS for you may not be a POS for other people.  A lot
> of freely released software was written to satisfy a tiny niche need, with
> NO intention that it be used for anything else.  If you want to use it as a
> starting point, fine, but don't come whining when it doesn't happen to do
> what YOU need.
>  This is especially true of software written to provide an interface to a
> piece of test gear or equipment, for which the writer has exactly one
> instance.  All they care about is that they can get their counter, timer,
> antenna tuner, or whatever to work.  They have neither the time, money, nor
> inclination, to make the software work for ANY model of that piece of test
> equipment, nor to accommodate all the manufacturing variations.
> Or maybe someone wrote software to extract data from a published source
> for some need, and then the published source changes its format.  The
> extraction software is now broken, but it met the original need, it might
> provide a framework for a future user to modify.
> I don't have a problem with this.
> ______________________________**_________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/**
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts<https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts>
> and follow the instructions there.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list