A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

Jeff Cutsinger seaslug@tunes.org
Wed Nov 12 20:47:02 2003

> John Newman <jmn381@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Aleric wrote:
> > 
> > > On a similar vein, I'd like to be able, when viewing
> > > the GUI an 
> > > application has presented, to do something like
> > > "shift + right click" on 
> > > a button to get a menu of programming actions - such
> > > as opening up the 
> > > source code for the action handler for the button
> > > and so on.
> > 
> > Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about.  Just
> > right-click, menu pops down, one of the options is
> > "source folder" or something like that.  Any and every
> > object in any and every program can be toggled in the
> > same way--from the backround, to the buttons, to the
> > icons, to the address barsl, etc.

I know you guys get pissed off at water for being a jerk, but this is a good
instance of just *why* he does.
You guys (aleric, newman, mdupont, some others on this list) just don't do
your homework.
This kind of stuff has been around *forever* (which, in computer terms, means
about 20 years). In addition, it was done in more interesting ways. Examples:
lisp machines, smalltalk, self, forth. This is not revolutionary, it's old
stuff that the computer industry has forgotten.
c'mon. I took about 2 minutes to dig up these links.
So you guys come on this list proclaiming poorly rethought old ideas as if
they are revolutionary, water gets angry and tells you like it is, and
everyone gets mad at *him*.

(OK, there are other good reasons to be mad at water. But there are a lot of
good reasons to be *pleased* with water too, and no one seems to acknowledge this)

do you even read tunes.org? do you read the cliki? when you have a thought
that is somewhat interesting, do you take at least a minute to see if someone
else has done something similar, perhaps better than you would have done?
>From what I've read, you certainly don't seem to.
I'm certainly not perfect in this regard myself. But when I don't *know*
something, I keep my mouth *shut*. I don't annoy others with my ignorance (not
much, at least). You'll notice I don't talk a lot. I used to talk more. Now, I
know how little I know. Get on tunes.org. read it for a while. How much makes
sense to you? Do you think this is because it is poorly written? Partially it
is. But people like Fare, Armin, Massimo, and yes, water, get most of it. If
you don't, it's not that the website has a problem.
It's that you are:
1. Stupid, or
2. Ignorant, or
3. Both.
I am classified under 3, and I know it. I don't get most of tunes.org.
But I keep my mouth shut. Except for now, of course, because you've pissed me off.

And before you go whining about how it's so hard to learn about Tunes, keep in
mind that it is still being *formulated*. It's still in the design phase.
This is, for such a (truly) revolutionary project like Tunes, the most
difficult part. Once everything that makes Tunes Tunes is written down
precisely, then it gets easy. heck, it's really already done at some level (If
you don't get this, this is more evidence of your placement in one of the
three above categories). If you are having a difficult time understanding
Tunes, then honestly, you can't contribute much at this point. Spend your time
learning, watch the interesting stuff that will happen (once you stop choking
the life out of this project) and consider yourself lucky to be here seeing
these geniuses shape our future. Oh, and shut your mouth.

Let me put it this way. I'm stupid and ignorant, and your e-mails were still
revolting to me. If someone truly smart and informed comes along, imagine what
they look like to that person! And that person may have had something
interesting and useful to contribute to Tunes.
So please stop being an embarrassment to this project. Please!

(I would have done that in s-exp but it wouldn't have made much sense now
would it have?)