Re: [OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: community spirit

[Zenaan Harkness]

>     Thomas> To the degree that /my/ design approaches can be said to
>     Thomas> represent those of a larger community and/or a specific
>     Thomas> and plausible design mentality -- my team has been
>     Thomas> consistent very, very badly outspent and out-promoted,
>     Thomas> often disrupted, often ripped off, often treated quite
>     Thomas> rudely: we never stood a fair chance to compete.
> 
> As far as I can tell from public utterances, yours and others', you've
> never tried to compete on the established field of play.  Instead,
> you've refused to play by the rules, and left the game.  The action is

Spearheading development of arch is "leaving the game"?!?

> up to you, but proceeding to bitch about not having access to the
> resources available in the game is childish.

Crap. Tom made an (unfortunately emotionally presented) observation - an
accurate observation. He did make one mistake though, kinda implying the
game is already over ("we never stood a fair chance"); clearly the game
is far from over.

>     Thomas> Where does that leave such willfully ignorant execs in my
>     Thomas> moral calculus?
> 
> Well, since you ask: it should leave them _outside_ of the _moral_
> calculus.

Tada! ... The problem presenteth itself.

> In the case in point, if you believe that what "such execs" are doing
> is harmful and immoral, you should become an entrepreneur and acquire
> the resources needed to do something about it.  That's what rms did;
> that's why rms is justly considered a great man.  If you don't, well,
> then you share the moral responsibility for the debacle you predict.

So Tom is not being an entrepreneur in his development, in his work
building arch/tla, in establishing this community, in maxing out all his
credit lines, in living on the edge, in persevering for month after
month, in short, putting his actions where his principles lie?

You're clearly missing reality today sorry...