[time-nuts] Releasing sources (can we stop now?)
saidjack at aol.com
Sun Mar 31 13:09:51 EDT 2013
Not only has this thread been completely off topic from this list, but the level of discourse has turned abysmal, and now we are even posting insults.
I have not seen that kind of tone in more than 7 years on this list.
Please discuss this between yourselves, and spare the rest of us.
Sent From iPhone
On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:32, Lizeth Norman <normanlizeth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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/**
>> and follow the instructions there.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts