Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:57:05 -0700
From:      Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Cc:        Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
Subject:   Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports
Message-ID:  <200510180957.07227.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051018152611.GA11790@soaustin.net>
References:  <200510150015.j9F0ExKr085847@sakura.ninth-nine.com> <200510170844.06438.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20051018152611.GA11790@soaustin.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 08:26,  the author Mark Linimon contributed to the 
dialogue on-
 Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 

>On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:44:01AM -0700, 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.
>
>What we 'get' is that you have your individual opinion that you have
>stated, repeatedly.  What you do not 'get' is that simply restating an
>opinion does not necessarily make anyone agree with you.

Agreed - so how can I invite those who do not agree with me to at least 
appreciate there is another way of looking at things? 

But what would be appreciated would be for responses that do not carry with 
them comments such as "we cannot make an exception" .

Is there not an old old scientific guideline, for testing a hypothesis, which 
runs on the lines of "Create an exception to test the validity of the rule".

The rule being tested seem to fit into two categories.

I. We cannot make an exception - if that were true no one would ever do 
anything different for the first time -- Is there any reason why a serious 
thinker should not treat such a response as an unthinking knee jerk reaction? 
Perhaps what is meant by that remark is hold on - there may be some work 
involved.. which then invites a cost benefit analysis..but that did not 
happen.

The second is that eclipse is no different from other applications in the 
ports tree and therefore should not be treated differently. You are right I 
have repeated the argument as to WHY it and other framework centric 
applications are different. I argue that because they are different and they 
do therefore test the assumptions that lie behind categorization by 
application type.

The question to my mind is how do we adapt a valuable tool, the FreeBSD ports 
system, to deal with a computing phenomenon that was not around when its 
structure was devised during a  time when all computer programs were 
applications. 

The simple solution is to give eclipse its own category.. to treat an 
exception as an exception. Can we not acknowledge it is different. Is there 
any reason why we cannot adapt to the difference? 


You chide me for repeating an argument while I ask why the need for a seperate 
category is , without any logical justification, just as frequently presented 
as a challenge to precedent which has to be defended against at all costs, 
rather than opportunity for the future. 

I at least do try to substantiate my arguments against opposing view points.. 
Unfortunately I have yet to hear any credible argument supporting the 
genralized notion "we cannot make exceptions" or indeed any argument which 
supports the notion that an exception free world is in any way desirable!

david





>
>mcl
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510180957.07227.vizion>