discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Kickstarter was not successful... but it did help things...


From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: Kickstarter was not successful... but it did help things...
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 23:06:47 +0000

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:09, Doc O'Leary <droleary@7usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

> In article <mailman.10118.1387787201.10748.discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>,
> Richard Frith-Macdonald <richardfrithmacdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Dec 2013, at 17:36, Doc O'Leary <droleary@7usenet2013.subsume.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <mailman.9862.1387588676.10748.discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>,
>>> Germán Arias <germanandre@gmx.es> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Again with the stupid rush to implement things . . .
>>>> 
>>>> Remember that, in general, write free software is a hobby. Just to see
>>>> what happens.
>>> 
>>> That's no reason to abandon science.
>> 
>> This refrain seems to be a troll ...
> 
> My greatest crime here is that I'm being brutally honest.  And it 
> wouldn't be all that brutal if people simply listened.  If I've been 
> repeating myself enough to seem trollish, that's the reason.

Brutal => unscientific
Honest?  It's OK to be honestly mistaken, but when you ignore evidence, that's 
self deception.

>> the person seeming to abandon science 
>> here is YOU.  You keep talking about how people are being unscientific and 
>> how you are scientific, but have presented nothing to support that idea, 
>> giving the appearance that you believe that being 'scientific' means 
>> agreeing 
>> with you.
> 
> You do know that *is* the way of science, right?

No, agreeing with you for no reason is called 'faith' ... pretty much the 
opposite of science.

> There is evidence, and 
> I respect that reality in stating my position, so it is not enough to 
> simply disagree with me.  If I am wrong, show me my mistake and I will 
> fix it.

You say 'There is evidence' ... but as I said, you have failed top present it.
It would therefore be unreasonable for people to accept that you are being 
scientific about things.
Your mistake here is to favour insults (troll) rather than make suggestions for 
improvements.

>> Take for instance your false assertion that the GNUstep project is hostile 
>> to 
>> OSX users.  A better (ie generally tried, tested, proven more efficient) 
>> than 
>> the negative approach would have been to take note of the preponderance of 
>> evidence that it's osx friendly, and propose ways of making it even 
>> friendlier.  Buried in this thread is the suggestion that OSX users find it 
>> hard to get started;  it's a good point.
>> Perhaps we should have a prominent bit on the website saying that OSX users 
>> can most easily use gnustep for cross-platform development by installing a 
>> virtual machine on their OSX system ... this is so obvious to us old-timers 
>> that we don't notice that it might need to be stated.  To make it easier we 
>> might supply a VM image, eg debian,  for a freely available virtualisation 
>> engine that works on OSX (perhaps you have the skills to provide that?).
> 
> This is amusing, because you start with saying my assertion (actually a 
> conclusion for me) is false,

Well, it may be a conclusion for you, but you state it as an assertion, and if 
you arrived at the conclusion it was despite all the evidence to the contrary 
(stated aims on the web pages, majority of comments on mailing lists, the 
amount of work put in to OSX compatibility etc).

> and then you go on to demonstrate that it 
> is, in fact, true!  Again, you'd do well to *start* with the evidence, 
> as I have, to work out the conclusion.  But do go on pretending that I 
> am the one who has abandoned science.

You clearly have.  You ignore all the evidence (including the evidence that 
people are willing to look at ways to try to keep on improving things), and 
cite the admission that the world is not perfect as proof of your case.  That's 
cherry picking the evidence, and unscientific behavior in the highest degree.

>> You have raised a few good points, in this discussion, and while it's true 
>> that they've all been discussed before, that doesn't mean that re-raising 
>> them is not worthwhile.  You have ideas to offer, so why not offer them in a 
>> spirit of positive criticism?
> 
> I do.  The negativity, with great irony, is entirely brought in by those 
> who demand positivity.  And so, over time, things stagnate and have 
> become toxic.  I *am* the one pushing for positive change, and the 
> push-back I get in return is incredibly sad.

If you see it that way, why not do something to fix it?  Work to improve things 
rather than trolling.

>> There's a fairly clear statement of what GNUstep is (implied goal) on the 
>> website (the overview at the top of the home page and the first link from 
>> the 
>> page!), yet you keep saying there needs to be discussion and agreement on a 
>> goal.
> 
> Indeed.  As I have said, what exists now is dated and unhelpful.  There 
> seem to be no use cases behind the design, and no measure of conversion.  
> It seems there is widespread acknowledgement that it is a known problem.  
> What I'm *not* seeing is any desire to address it.

I have lost track of the number of times people have asked you to help in this 
thread.  If there's no desire to improve things, why would anyone have bothered?

>> Possibly you didn't read it, possibly you did but are trolling, but I guess 
>> most likely you just don't like that statement.  That's legitimate enough 
>> (I'm no longer sure I like it myself), so you could seek to point out the 
>> advantages of modifying/improving that in some way.  Surely that would be 
>> more effective than saying there is no goal.
> 
> All evidence points to a different conclusion.

Again with the failure to cite any evidence.  In support of the position that 
positive/reward attitudes work better, you could look at much psychological 
research (or for that matter probably read any modern popular child rearing or 
management books informed by that research).
I recently read Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' ... which is kind of 
peripheral, but even so covers a bit of it.
 
>> In general, providing positive criticism has been scientifically proven to 
>> work best (natural psychological resistance means that an attempt at neutral 
>> is effectively negative).
>> 
>> Go on, you know you can be scientific ... embrace a positive attitude :-)
> 
> Again, I have.  I did not receive a positive response.  The demonstrated 
> best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma is tit-for-tat.  The 
> cycle will be broken when someone inside GNUstep wises up and moves in a 
> positive direction.

On the contrary, most of the comment you've had has been pretty friendly and 
positive, especially considering the way your emails come across.
Lots of people are doing useful stuff ... why not join in and contribute 
something?
I suggested putting together a VM to make it easier for people to get started 
... is that not something you could do?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]