> I wish Kenneth would have contributed to an existed project for once.
Yes, he does.
He wishes Kenneth was not the same as the existing Kenneth. He emphasizes this with the "for once".
Kenneth went his own way with Requests, and everyone is better off for it. You do not want a guy with that track record abandoning his work patterns.
I say, let the man be.
Whining about "fracturing" in open source ignores those important things which makes progress possible; conflict, competition, and triumph.
I see the original comment as being little more than a "yeah, it's nice, but you know, we already formed a committee and working group to do this thing".
The way Kennet went is "the API is everything". Well, for requests, yes. But for maya, his API is in now way an improvment for existing tech, so we don't gain much. But there is such a thing as having too many choices, and yes, him working on this project instead of the other one will have an impact : dividing attentions, publicity, everything, tutorials, everything.
> him working on this project instead of the other one will have an impact : dividing attentions, publicity, everything, tutorials, everything.
First of all, lets acknowledge that nobody really has the right to tell Kenneth what he should do.
Having "too" many choices is merely a symptom of not having the best choice. Remember back when Google hadn't won the search engine war? Imagine someone had told the google-guys that they should just contribute to DogPile or AskJeeves? How backwards would those guys seem?
And it isn't a choice of him working on his project, or some existing one. The choice is him working on this project or not at all. And given that he has a proven track record at producing brilliant stuff when he goes his own way, we would all be better off letting him get on with it.
> First of all, lets acknowledge that nobody really has the right to tell Kenneth what he should do.
No. Just because somebody is good at what he does doesn't shield him magically from critics. As lib users, we have opinions and they matters.
> Having "too" many choices is merely a symptom of not having the best choice.
No, it's the symptom of not having a standard yet. The nice alternative arrived in the last 2 years, and didn't win the war yet. But they exist. And right now they ARE better than datetime and maya.
But but you are twisting my words here, because I never told him what to do, I just express my wish he would do overwise. Which is totally fine.
> Imagine someone had told the google-guys that they should just contribute to DogPile or AskJeeves?
DogPile or Askjeeves where neither "good" nor opensource. Propriotary software are _absolutly_ not the same. And they brought something on the table, which maya does not.
> And it isn't a choice of him working on his project, or some existing one. The choice is him working on this project or not at all.
This is a supposition, not backed up by anything.
> And given that he has a proven track record at producing brilliant stuff when he goes his own way, we would all be better off letting him get on with it.
Just because somebody does something great doesn't mean he can't do something that isn't. And even if maya enventually becomes the best possible implementation. Event if I'm wrong. So what ? Open source is a collective efforts, you need the opinions of your peer to make decisions. Or else what's the point ?
> No. Just because somebody is good at what he does doesn't shield him magically from critics. As lib users, we have opinions and they matters.
You have an opinion, but it doesn't necessarily matter. You don't own Kenneth and have no right to instruct him. That's the point. Presuming to tell him what to do is almost as bad.
> No, it's the symptom of not having a standard yet.
Where do you imagine "standards" come from? Surely the BEST choice should win and become the standard, right?
> DogPile or Askjeeves where neither "good" nor opensource.
Not being "good" is the point. They were not in contravention of any "standard". They were not good, so they died.
Not being "opensource", well that's just your irrelevant fetish. The source being open does not mean you can arrogantly denounce the work patterns of your betters.
> This is a supposition, not backed up by anything.
It is backed up by his history of actions and accomplishments.
> Just because somebody does something great doesn't mean he can't do something that isn't.
It means he has earned the right not to be scolded by the dogs eating his table scraps.
> Open source is a collective efforts, you need the opinions of your peer to make decisions.
Utter crap. Open source is a collection of individual efforts. There is no such thing as "collective effort".
It really looks as if that is just something you tell yourself so you can feel as if you are "contributing". And that's pretty sad.
Yes, he does.
He wishes Kenneth was not the same as the existing Kenneth. He emphasizes this with the "for once".
Kenneth went his own way with Requests, and everyone is better off for it. You do not want a guy with that track record abandoning his work patterns.
I say, let the man be.
Whining about "fracturing" in open source ignores those important things which makes progress possible; conflict, competition, and triumph.
I see the original comment as being little more than a "yeah, it's nice, but you know, we already formed a committee and working group to do this thing".