[time-nuts] Releasing sources (was Re: Brooks Shera)
normanlizeth at gmail.com
Sun Mar 31 13:54:22 EDT 2013
On a positive note, the number of people that have demonstrated the
downright humility to help me has been staggering. Not only with the
basics, but the details as well.
All it takes has been a cogent email. No begging or offer of other.
Said taught me much about smt prototyping. All in one email.
I could go on.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Scott McGrath <scmcgrath at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are those of us who write code to solve a problem and post it so
> others can use it as is or as a starting point for their own code.
> Has nothing to do with ego boosting has more to do with paying it forward
> for all the snippets of code and diagrams we used in the past to jump start
> our own efforts
> At least in my case I don't have the time to support it other than for my
> own use if others find it useful that's a bonus. But it's free and it's
> value is determined by the user.
> My time has a value and I'm happy to support things when paid either in
> cash or in kind. But I don't work for free.
> If you want support buy commercial packages which include support or offer
> to pay for the things you need.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 31, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Lizeth Norman <normanlizeth at gmail.com>
> > 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
> > belongs.
> > 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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,
> >> 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
> >> 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,
> >> antenna tuner, or whatever to work. They have neither the time, money,
> >> inclination, to make the software work for ANY model of that piece of
> >> 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
> >> 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<
> >> and follow the instructions there.
> > _______________________________________________
> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> > To unsubscribe, go to
> > and follow the instructions there.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts