New Project Coordinator Introduction

[RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2]

> I realize I haven't been too friendly at people, which is exactly why I
> asked Beholder to help out.  Please give him a chance.  I am sorry for how
> terrible you feel about the project, I didn't realize it was as bad as
> that.
> 
What should I think of the members of a project which refuses to scale the
wall of concepts which this project is all about?  This goal is not a
product, it's the realization of a paradigm within people.  This project is
practically the transcendence of Zen itself!  You must truly "Think
Different" in order to give birth to anything deserving the name Tunes (or
whatever).

> Derogatory of whom?
> 
Of all of us.  Of our idea.  I see it as derogatory that the best way that
we can sum up our idea is with "Useful, Not Expedient".  Let's forget even
that the word "System" is totally mis-applied.  Just the distinguishment
between useful and expedient doesn't suggest anything.  It's vacuous.  It's
not suggestive of anything.  This project, in order to appeal to the average
person, needs a flavor, maybe several flavors.  I see a possible development
outcome as several products all of which are "Tunes (or whatever) products",
not Tunes (or whatever) themselves, with each of them having their own
strengths and weaknesses.  These would serve as starting points for
development in key areas where it will have its first impact.

> I agree the page is not for novices, and I'd like
> it to be better.  There is simply so much information I'm not sure where
> to start.  
> 
Factor out the noise!  Your own philosophy begs that you analyze the
development from this perspective.

> There is no establishment, and I am offended at being thrown into that
> category.  Fare and I *are* flexible and open to ideas, although somehow
> that isn't very clear to most people.
> 
The only thing clear to me is that you're flexible to lots and lots of slow
conceptual development, as you chase your goal Around In Circles.  Have you
not heard of the maxim that constantly mixing in novice workers spoils the
work?  The group is far too loose.  I have absolutely no idea how many
people are on the list or what backgrounds any of them have.  Most of them,
no doubt, I would find quite unhelpful.  You need some way of organizing
this discussion and its results beyond its current capabilities, such as
restricting the topic of conversation quite drastically, by things like
screening posts in real-time.

> What do you mean by going public?  Don't you think the project's goals,
> and organization should be clarified first (even to its own members)?  How
> can we meet a greater number of people without being self aware first?
> Most importantly, what audience do you wish to reach?  (A computing system
> that is better for everybody?  Hey, that means EVERYBODY is our audience!)
> 
I already have developed my own ideas to such an extent that explaining them
all to you would only be redundant.  "Going public" refers to promoting the
prototype within the Linux development community, in order to flesh out the
system.  What would follow would consist totally in a progressive
introduction to the system, and simultaneously an "advertising" campaign.
Furthermore, by "our audience", I refer to whom we speak directly as the
development progresses, not the eventual target audience as you suggest.

> Implications of the project?  I rather think I am aware.  Propagating them
> how?  I think a working system is the best and only means of propagation
> we need.  The alternative is just words, which are hollow.   (Hollow words
> like telling everyone we meet TUNES is great, but not being able to back
> up our claims.  This is not the same as well-thought-out and organized
> documents explaining our ideas; those I encourage.)
> 
No.  Even this project could fail miserably after it achieves sustainability
as an OS-alternative.  Everything then will depend on social dynamics, which
will change radically as this product is built.

> But I resist hurriedness in developing ideas.  I really think you
> underestimate the time and effort needed to develop concepts that are as
> complex as those needed by the tunes system. 
> 
I've only underestimated the time and effort required to explain the ideas
that I have to others.  The only reason my own ideas' development has taken
such time is due to the fact that no one believes in me enough to help me
out of the financial hell-hole that is my life.  To say nothing of the
inordinate amount of time that the Navy steals from me.

> * Commercial effort-  Wha?  Tell me more.
> Most especially I think most people are concerned about licensing
> policies.  I believe companies should make money from selling service
> (such as warranties, technical support, custom configurations,
> documentation, training, and so on)
> 
Services, not software.  The ability to drive this system to its maximum
potential will vary quite wildly from person to person, and I see the
availability of persons who can use this system well as a valuable commodity
to its acceptance by the masses, not to mention a good argument to make to
companies for eliminating their IS divisions.  (As in, "how would you like
to replace your hulk of a system with many people in its employ with one
person at a terminal servicing a system with better performance that never
fails?" instead of the abstract argument, "our system is more useful".)  The
commercial development will consist only in providing services for the
software.

> * Advertising - I really despise companies who advertise vaporware.  But
> advertising our forum of discussion is all right.
> 
Neither.  I refer to gaining support for the extension of this system onto
proprietary fields.  And I refuse to advertise vaporware.  I simply have a
strong confidence in my ability to correctly define the system so that the
code should follow quickly.  I obviously have TOO strong a confidence that I
can transmit my ideas and enthusiasm to others.

> * Academic discussion - I like this idea.  Let's talk more about ways to
> find researchers in areas related to TUNES and work together with them.
> Again, there are so many areas that are related, that I don't know where
> to start.
> 
Arrow logic!  Shape-category theory!  Linguistics!  Combinatorics!
Topology!  Non-linear control theory!  I doubt any of them will listen to
me, just as all the other people which I have contacted seem to refuse the
notion of supporting taking their research in my ideas' direction.  Perhaps
you will have better luck.  I can give you references (e-mail addresses) if
you wish.

> If I may be blunt (as you were in your message), your messages are really
> hard to understand.  The language you use is more academic than I am used
> to.  I'm sure poor reception does not reflect a grudge anyone holds
> against you, but maybe their lack of vocabulary and experience in fields
> of theory which you are discussing.  I'm sorry if I didn't bring this up
> before!  I did warn you that not many people do reply to posts, and you
> have said it was helpful to write your ideas, even if it did not make
> sense to me.
> 
I thought that I could inspire you all!  I am wrong in that.  I am also
SELF-educated, because I have had to sustain and develop my queer ideas in
the face of a world on the verge of total mind-control addiction.  I have so
exercised my mind in the direction of non-monotonic thinking that I know
that much of what I say sounds like rambling.  So, you do not experience the
outpouring of academic thought, as you suppose.  You experience something on
the order of the output of Nietzsche.