Fare's attitude

[Paul Dufresne]

On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 09:39:59AM -0700, Tril wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 02:53:44PM +0200, LeDudu@gmx.net wrote:
> > > I have an exe-file with a size of 1077 bytes.
> > > The disk only accepts an img-file of 512 bytes. When I try to make an
> > > img-file with "IMG version 2.0 by Kalk Huth", it becomes an img of 1,47
> > > megabytes. Now I know I should do it with Microsoft DEBUG
> > > but I don't know how!!!
> > 
> > 1) first and foremost, this list is NOT os-help, but os-ideas.
> >   Stop polluting this forum with your silly questions,
> >   and go os-help@tunes.org instead!
> 
> But they both have such low traffic that nobody cares.  Maybe they should
> be merged again.  Paul DID say he wanted to allow ANY topic to be
> discussed here.  A brainstorming list needs freedom of topic.  We can add
> lists if necessary.
Well, I did say that I would suggest that anything should be considered
on topic on os-ideas. But somehow I was thinking by it that anything
that does not have an appropriate list on Tunes should be on-topic on
os-ideas. So I was approving the content of Fare comment in the sense
that yes, this request for help would have better been post on os-help.

Now I think that by raising his voice like that, Fare is more likely to
have people quit Tunes than actually follow the link he proposed.
That's already what has happened with Jim Little (Prism guy), that have
made his own list rather than go here on os-ideas. I'd like to suggest
that Fare could have simply said "I have an answer for this but I will
post it on os-help rather than here, because I feel this thread would
fit better there.". That way Fare would not have polluted this list
with it's answer. :-) I personnaly appreciate these new actions made
by Fare to have a better leadership on the project, but I don't see
why he have to look angry to do so.

I often remember the title of the paper 'Worst is better'.
For me this means, in the context of Tunes, that expedients
systems often win on non-expedient systems because they get in
the hands of people who need them more sooner than the non-expedient
one, and in the long run they become almost as good as their
non-expedient counterpart, because they have time to make patches
according to what the clients have seen as being the problems.

Fare, I also think that your comments of the kind XYZ sucks, would
be much more constructive if they were followed by 'I could give
many reasons for this, but here is one: ...'.
Vulture did that very well on a recent (latest?) post here.

Paul