Your remarks on the Wiki
Sat Apr 19 18:07:02 2003
Kyle Lahnakoski <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> [...] 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.
A few points:
1.) This is a horrible idea in general. Simply having several unrelated
projects, intended to share ideas, will undoubtedly end up with tons of
(unnecessarily) duplicated effort.
2.) Erm, TUNES is a project- why should we change TUNES just because some
people can't agree with its vision?
3.) There are already several branch projects on the TUNES site, such as
Tril's own max, slate, Brian Templeton's IAM, etc, which are intended to
explore different areas of TUNES, hopefully without so much duplicated effort.
> 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.
I see plenty of reasons, three of which I've already listed. Another great
reason is to avoid confusion in two ways, one being name clash/confusion. If
there are seven TUNES projects, how do you know which is which? Witness the
uproar the Firebird project made over mozilla.org's decision to steal their
name. They don't want their name stolen, and neither do we. Another is, what
makes a TUNES a TUNES? Is the only requirement that it be TUNES in the mind of
the author? If so, i'll give you $1,000,000(in my mind) for only $1,000(in the
united states government's mind).
> A plethora of people working on disparate projects, each calling
> themselves Tunes makes it obvious that none really are.
I don't see that your logic here. Arbitrarily taking the above Firebird
project example, if i make a new Firebird project, and claim that my project
fulfills its goals, how does this suddenly make the original not really Firebird?
> >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.
I think it's pretty clear that if Fare disagreed with Brian on a given point,
everyone would take Fare's side, probably even Brian. I have yet to see this