Just a little point

>
>> so I'm laughing when people suggest that we are predators.
>>
> I am still counting your contributions back to the packages which you
> are using, which are public domain, and have public repositories...
>
> answer zero
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>> so I'm laughing when people suggest that we are predators.
>>>
>>>
>> I am still counting your contributions back to the packages which you
>> are using, which are public domain, and have public repositories...
>>
>> answer zero
>>
>>
> Its not even a technical issue, you have chosen a philosophically
> predatory stance from the outset.
>
> "We will make our own image, without any concern for giving back to
> those who made it possible" The number of times I have heard, we are
> changing this that or the other, and if you want the improvement "you
> can port it if you want to", completely illustrates my point.
>
> Those who made the contributions that you are using probably expected
> that any improvements to their efforts would be fed back to them in a
> form that they could make use of.

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Keith Hodges<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>>> so I'm laughing when people suggest that we are predators.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am still counting your contributions back to the packages which you
>>> are using, which are public domain, and have public repositories...
>>>
>>> answer zero
>>>
>>>
>> Its not even a technical issue, you have chosen a philosophically
>> predatory stance from the outset.
>>
>> "We will make our own image, without any concern for giving back to
>> those who made it possible" The number of times I have heard, we are
>> changing this that or the other, and if you want the improvement "you
>> can port it if you want to", completely illustrates my point.
>>
>> Those who made the contributions that you are using probably expected
>> that any improvements to their efforts would be fed back to them in a
>> form that they could make use of.
>
> This is a priori discarded because of the MIT license.
> If you don't want this kind of behavior, the GPL/LGPL licenses exists for this
> very exact situation. With MIT you can't force retributions back.
>
>
>>
>> It is the main reason for companies to make their code open source,
>> because they anticipate some reciprocation from those who benefit, and
>> thus the benefit is mutual, and might offset the considerable cost of
>> development.
>>
>
> I don't think so. And when they do so, the choose other license. Take
> the Java case. It is not MIT, but GPL. This is so that MS, IBM and other can't
> run away with the code with giving back. Again, the license establish the
> rights and obligations of the receiving party.
>
>
>> And in case you are wondering, the public repository for the community
>> to work towards improving SUnit,
>>  ( squeaksource/Testing ) does include
>>
>> #assert:equals:
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
> Miguel Cobá
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> cheers mike
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2009, Miguel Cobá <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Keith Hodges<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>>>> so I'm laughing when people suggest that we are predators.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I am still counting your contributions back to the packages which you
>>>> are using, which are public domain, and have public repositories...
>>>>
>>>> answer zero
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Its not even a technical issue, you have chosen a philosophically
>>> predatory stance from the outset.
>>>
>>> "We will make our own image, without any concern for giving back to
>>> those who made it possible" The number of times I have heard, we are
>>> changing this that or the other, and if you want the improvement "you
>>> can port it if you want to", completely illustrates my point.
>>>
>>> Those who made the contributions that you are using probably expected
>>> that any improvements to their efforts would be fed back to them in a
>>> form that they could make use of.
>>
>> This is a priori discarded because of the MIT license.
>> If you don't want this kind of behavior, the GPL/LGPL licenses exists for this
>> very exact situation. With MIT you can't force retributions back.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is the main reason for companies to make their code open source,
>>> because they anticipate some reciprocation from those who benefit, and
>>> thus the benefit is mutual, and might offset the considerable cost of
>>> development.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so. And when they do so, the choose other license. Take
>> the Java case. It is not MIT, but GPL. This is so that MS, IBM and other can't
>> run away with the code with giving back. Again, the license establish the
>> rights and obligations of the receiving party.
>>
>>
>>> And in case you are wondering, the public repository for the community
>>> to work towards improving SUnit,
>>>  ( squeaksource/Testing ) does include
>>>
>>> #assert:equals:
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>> Miguel Cobá
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

>> Pharo continues with a not invented here policy, and has made no  
>> attempt
>> to review the code based for projects that could be mutually  
>> maintained.
>>    
>
> I think it is a misanalysis to label that NIH, there are quite  
> different factors contributing to the lack of pushing contributions  
> upstream.
>
>  

>> If find it weird that 2 Smalltalk implementations/communities, so
>> close to each other like Squeak and Pharo, go to great lengths at
>> flaming each other...
>
> No they don't, it's just me.
>
> Please don't tar the mostly polite squeak-dev with my brush.
>
> I spent a lot of time working on stuff that pharo could use,
> particularly because a lot of it was Stephane's idea in the first place,
> going back to August 2006.
>
> My two main points of contention are Monticello and SUnit but as you can
> see there are others.
>
> Monticello:  I put a LOT, read LOTS of effort into joining the 3+
> Monticello forks into one, and assuring that it loads in to all forks of
> squeak, as a strategic approach for the whole community to have common
> tools everywhere.
> Pharo has made that effort a waste of time, simply because they wont use
> or contribute to the merged uber-Monticello.
>
> SUnit: I put a second lot of effort into improving SUnit so that it
> could support multiple forks of squeak simultaneously. I also wrote a
> non Gui test runner for automated testing. SUnit is a public resource
> and is maintained in a public repository. Pharo have needlessly forked
> SUnit.
>
> Several things that wind me up, one is wasted effort, and another is
> duplicated effort, and the third is making plans to duplicate effort on
> purpose.
>> that will only leave us isolated, both in our own camps ?  I'm
>> puzzled!  What do I do if I like both?  Choose my camp or abandon them
>> both ?
> If you like both, then please encourage them to make parts that could be
> common common. For example I maintain ProcessSpecific for Logging, Pharo
> has integrated ProcessSpecific but has made no attempt to pick or offer
> feedback to version that was maintained. This is one of numerous example
> of subsystems that could easily be mutually maintained.
>
> There are many initiatives in the pharo camp, that could be developed
> and deployed into both camps. I spent all that time on Monticello in
> order to ensure that this could happen, but pharo only develops
> initiatives for itself, therefore Pharo is effectively planning for
> duplicated effort.
>
> One more example, Pharo could come up with an initiative to fix the
> sources/changes file mess. This would be very benefitcial to me. However
> its no good if I cant load it into squeak where a lot of my code runs.
> So at some point someone would have to duplicate the effort for Squeak.
> All it would take is a little thought and planning.
>
> When I took the initiative to write Rio as a replacement for
> FileDirectory, I did it in such a way as anyone could benefit.
> When I took the initiative to write Logging as a potential core feature
> for Kernel/Server images I did it so that anyone could benefit.
> When I wrote the TestReporter as a text based tool for testing I did it
> so that anyone could benefit.
> When I wrote Bob for automated image building and testing I have done it
> so that it can build any image.
> When I wrote  Sake for rake like functionality it loads into any image.
> When I wrote Sake/Packges for managing packges dependencies I did it so
> that any image can benefit.
>
> I dont know what initiatives pharo has completed, but, and please do
> correct me if I am wrong. I havent seen a single initiative from pharo
> that has been developed and deployed so that everyone could benefit.
>
> best regards
>
> Keith

> Sorry Keith, but I must say this:
>
> The obvious reason Pharoers reject your contributions are not
> contributions as such but your attitude as the contributor. And I'd do
> the same, reject them, because they are dangerous. Because they bring
> you and your attitude with them.
>
> Please think that way a bit. For the sake of Squeak community and our
> progress. And for the sake of your work at the end. Changing your
> attitude will change the acceptance of your work too, be sure!
>
> Best regards
> Janko

>> Pharo continues with a not invented here policy, and has made no  
>> attempt
>> to review the code based for projects that could be mutually  
>> maintained.
>> This is a problem, and I shall continue to point it out until it is
>> resolved. It's a mindset issue.
>>
>>
> I would like to make my point in a different polite way.
>
> If you are the maintainer of a package and, in this multi-fork world,
> you would like to maintain a single test suite for both squeak and
> pharo, such that all tests run green, then the SUnit in
> squeaksource.com/Testing may be for you.
>
> It was developed for a multi-fork world back in August/Sept 2006. It
> allows you to categorise which tests you expect to work on which
> platform and which image version.
>
> It is a multi-fork world out there, why not think it through?
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project