Your remarks on the Wiki

[Kyle Lahnakoski]

Tom Novelli wrote:

 >The reason I got involved in Tunes again was to decide whether I 
should take
 >it seriously.  It's really a dozen different people with their own 
projects
 >who can't agree on anything.  If we could all face up to that reality and
 >put aside our animosity, this could be a good forum -- the mailing lists,
 >cliki, project hosting.  The computing field is much too immature for 
people
 >to agree on any grand visions.
 >
This is a good point that Tom makes.  I further believe that these dozen 
people need not work on a single project, but rather use the Tunes site 
as a forum for sharing ideas.  If Tunes administrators do not want to do 
this, then I propose http://panaceaos.org/ as an alternate.


Brian T Rice wrote:

 >What should I do? Let people talk about their various ideas and call it
 >TUNES just because they can't tell the difference?

Yes, this is a great idea.  People that strive to build Tunes are 
building Tunes in their own minds, so I see no reason to lay road blocks 
on the path to their goal by saying they are not building Tunes.  A 
plethora of people working on disparate projects, each calling 
themselves Tunes makes it obvious that none really are.  Each Tunes 
project will be evaluated based on its results.


 > That's been happening
 >for years, and it never gained Fare, or anyone else, anything!
 >
Maybe not anything in terms of great ideas, but certainly it was gaining 
community.  It takes time to build a community, and a community needs 
motivation and discussion to grow.  I surmise that the old Tunes 
community was still too young to show it's true potential by the time it 
was taken over by Brian.  The current Tunes community is still at step 
one terms of community development.


 > You can
 >make more interesting systems by /not/ paying attention to our project and
 >simply following the links to research elsewhere, which is what people who
 >use the Review project do, and they rarely bother to join the mailing list
 >
Research papers are not the place to learn new concepts.  Research 
papers are records of discovery meant to prove ideas, and the ideas are 
usually quite simple.  If the reader does not require the proof the 
paper provides then he only needs few paragraphs of tutorial instead.  

References to research papers are admirable; some people may want to 
delve deeper into a particular concept.  But these references are not 
helpful for discussion because the essential ideas are diluted in a sea 
of "useless" (read proof) text.


 >and pretend that they know what's right for TUNES. I did that for 4-5
 >years before I even bothered sending anyone here even an e-mail.
 >
IMHO discussion with Fare, and other members, would have reduced this 
time.  Working/learning on your own is not efficient, there are many 
misunderstandings that a paper does not address, but a human can clear 
up in only a few minutes.

 >But it's really /not/ my vision, it's Fare's. I didn't spend years
 >studying my ideas; I was studying /his/.

No, it *was* Fare's vision.  Now Tunes is *your* vision, specifically 
*your* interpretation of Fare's vision.

 >This forum wouldn't have attracted the people involved without /him/

And I am sure we all agree with that.  I had written a piece before 
about how wonderful Fare's writings were at attracting people to the 
Tunes cause.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Lahnakoski                                       kyle@arcavia.com
(416) 892-7784                                    Arcavia Software Ltd