Re: [MiNT] Sparemint Site/Updater

[Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>]

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 17:54 -0600, evan@coolrunningconcepts.com wrote:
> Quoting Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>:
> 
> > As with ozk said on WCOWORK and XaAES, I can always just stop working on
> > it.  It's not that big of a deal, don't make it out to be one.  GDBM
> > sounds like a hassle still.  I wanted something high level, fast, and
> 
> Uhmm .. I never said you had to use it.  I was only curious why that decision
> had been made, nothing more.  Its just an idle question!   I'm beginning to
> think that its not allowed to ask a question anymore because someone will fly
> off the handle.  I wasn't even suggesting that you use it!
> 

I wasn't flying off the handle here really, more below.  I was just
simply answering your question.  Not sure where you picked up the
negative vibe regarding our conversation about database backends.

> > wise.  And I don't know why everyone hates that attitude.  While I am
> > doing it for the community, I'm mostly doing it out of my own
> 
> No, its interesting that you didn't care to learn IPC and didn't care to
> seperate the front end from the back end.  The "Interesting Attitude" is that
> you code based on what you feel like and not based on what the majority 
> feel is

It's not that I don't care to.  I'm more interested in results at this
point.  My time is spread thin, and the easiest remotely acceptable way
to do it is the way it gets done.  My way isn't wrong, it's just not
perfect...  but the original design spec agreed on by Frank and others
is this design.

> a good practice.  I'm just wondering how many badly written applications that
> don't work under MiNT were written with that very same attitude of "I don't
> care.  I'll do it my way" in mind.   Now, I'm NOT saying that your program
> doesn't work.  I'm NOT saying its crap.  I'm NOT saying that the design 
> choices
> are wrong.   I just said that the attitude is interesting ... NOT that its a
> wrong attitude, but there really isn't much room to make suggestions as you'll
> do it your way anyway.   Don't read too much into it, OK?
> 

Well after the conversation about WCOWORK I decided to just shut it down
quick and clean ;)

> > need/desire.  You know, I wrote gim and asked for suggestions and very
> > few people gave me any and even fewer people use it.  When it comes down
> 
> I wasn't around then.  My suggestion would have been to look into adding a GEM
> interface around libgaim since glib is already ported, but thats just me.
> 

Not a bad idea.. but too late.

> > to it, I wrote it for myself.  While I expect sum to be more widely
> > used, I don't expect a lot of people in terribly limited ram situations
> > to be using it... and ram is the only real reason besides "properness"
> > to separate the gem from the console portion.  And it doesn't even need
> 
> No - the idea is that you can easily change and debug the front end and 
> back-end
> seperately, or create a new front end or a new backend.  Its a code modularity
> thing, not a RAM thing.
> 

Who cares?  I mean there'll be like 10 people using it.  Nobody has even
had the motivation to create the program (with the exception of a great
(but dumb) perl script).  I super super super highly doubt someone will
ever want to implement a new frontend or new backend separately.  The
project can be maintained as a whole.. It's small enough anyway.

> > Finally, I think I'd rather be an asshole (or wrong) who puts forth the
> > effort then the nice guy who will let everyone else push him around for
> > what amounts to no good reason.  At least my way things will get done
> > because I won't be screwing around with stuff I don't know well - and
> > thus will be very slow to implement.
> 
> Nobody is pushing you around.   Gemdos handle redirection is very simple.  I'm
> just surprised its not more common and that everyone doesn't know it.  
> Where do
> you get all this implied hostility?
> 

The implied hostility is from you and prior threads.  You indicated that
you like to play devil's advocate.  Most people react strong to the
devil and his advocates ;)  You admitted previously that you like to
stir up trouble even if there's no really good reason.  I don't want a
long drawn out thread so I reacted very strongly to stop it where it
starts ;)

> > Besides only you and Standa spoke up so the idea isn't universally
> > hated ;)  And I know I could convince Standa of the virtues of my way
> 
> Never said hated!   You said you didn't know IPC, I gave you one way its often
> done so you could better modularize your code.  You ignored the 
> suggestion with
> a "I'll do it my way no matter what" statement, which I found interesting, but
> otherwise ... its your choice.   You've already said the GEM interface can be
> removed completely, so I don't have any problem with that at all!
> 

Lol, look, sorry I read between the lines.  I put something out and I
receive complaints about the implementation.  I know you never said
hated but I got the impression that you felt if it's not modular, it's
crap.  And you're putting words in my mouth.  I heard your suggestion,
processed it, thought about it, and decided that while it may be a
better idea, it's not consistent with the ground-up design and as the
lead developer, I veto it.  That is not to say I'm blanket rejecting
ideas...  Just I don't have time to go fix stuff that isn't truly
broken...  I screwed around with forking and IPC stuff for over 2 months
and I never could get it working.  I know what will take ME time to
implement.  The fact remains that there's no GOOD reason to change the
design.  The integration was the original intent and I think it's a good
idea and nobody has been able to give me a REAL reason why it's bad,
just theoretical reasons that affect substantially larger or more used
projects.

Okay now?

Thanks,
Mark