[SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports

[Vizion]

On Monday 17 October 2005 11:56,  the author Jan Grant contributed to the 
dialogue on-
 Re: [SUGGEST] Reform eclipse and eclipse related ports: 

>On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Vizion wrote:
>> You guys just do not get it.
>>
>> I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up
>> with technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather
>> than on behalf of people that use them.
>
>This is an open-source project; patches speak louder than words. There
>is a process outlined in the porters' handbook (that I've pointed you at
>before) for getting ports system rejigs to even be considered.
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-c
>ategories.html#PROPOSING-CATEGORIES
>
>(Given the ability of existing tools to search for ports in "half-assed"
>virtual categories, I think you overstate your case.)
>

Sorry but those who think this way  do not get it..

You cut out a highly significant part of my posting so I repeat it in full.

>> I have spent over 45 five years in the computer industry and am fed up with
>>technologists who think in terms of their precious systems rather than on
>>behalf of people that use them.

Your response :
> patches speak louder than words.

Gives additional weight to my words. You are reinforcing my point. The 
division between the perceptions of a technological old guard and the emrging 
needs of a new breed of users whose attitudes come from a user's appreciation 
of the extra-technological implications of technological changes. I would 
argue that the technologist is always one step behind the consumer in 
appreciating the realworld potential of the products of technology.
 
I saw microsoft meteoric rise just because those who were providing patches 
and code in the **ix fraternity would not listen to the demands of system 
users. The technologist who thought in terms of system did not heed the needs 
of users. 

The problem can be both identified and summarized by the notion of that 
technological competence needs non-technological direction if it is going to 
be produce results that are socially sustainable. 

I would appreciate it if, in the light of the history of modern day computing, 
you would not so obviously seek to belittle the voices of those who do not 
see things through an internal FreeBSD methodolgical filter.


>>You do not get it that the ports systems, as currently configured, is  out 
>>of date as far as the newly emerging framework centric applications model 
>>as against the traditional application centric model.

Framework centric applications need their own hierarchy so that plugins can be 
managed within the hierarchy. So my comment:

>>We now need a category /ports/eclipse and not this ridiculous scattering
 >>arounf the system or some half hearted 'virtual' solution that gets in the
 >>way of a real framework centric solution.

Was, I feel, more apt than your response:
>(Given the ability of existing tools to search for ports in "half-assed"
>virtual categories, I think you overstate your case.)

Which shows again how those who think that way do not get it.
 
The issue is not about searching it is about having a hierarchy that works for 
a framework centric processing model!

Your response:
>There is a process outlined in the porters' handbook (that I've pointed you 
> at before) for getting ports system rejigs to even be considered.

Shows again do not get it. You do not think about user you are thinking about 
users can be made to work with current internal regulatory processes. This 
approach can be seen as somewhat condescending.

The user does not want to be embroiled in the process of determining how user 
needs are to be met or weighed down by a bureaucracy that was devised to meet 
yesterday's problems. Those who maintain/create the bureaucracy need to find 
ways of usig their accumulated wisdom to help recreate and reconfigure rather 
than demand that others jump through hoops. 

It was the failure of the **ix community to modify its relationship to its 
users that led to the rise of the poorer technology of microsoft.  

Those of us within the Freebsd community need to grasp the fact that the 
future of comuting applications lies increasingly in common framework centric 
approaches to processing that encompass common developmental and application 
interfaces. hence division by application type (which is how ports are 
categorized) is not the way to go.

>>I am sick to death of hearing the same old appeal based on "mot making an
>> exception" which really means "I want to bury my head in the sand" and 
>>stick to the old ways of doing things.

>>And before anyone tells me -- yes I am angry.
And will probably stay angry until some of the old guard begin to get it and 
not just in this area.
I do not want FreeBSD to finish up as just another carrier for Linux 
applications. It is not enough to satisfy our existing user base. It is not 
enough to stick to the ways things have been done in the past.

The ports system is fantastic BUT it is now showing its age. 

The freedsd docs system is incredibly good but it does not provide context 
driven help.

The freebsd install system is good but it does not have a user ventric 
installation process.

The configuration system needs a web interface.

If all our energies go towards increasing system functionality rather then 
identifying how we can catching up on user convenience then in the battle for 
tomorrow's users we will lose out to competition.

Will will finish up satisfying our technological impulses and losing touch 
with our potential place in tomorrow's world

My two pennorth

david

-- 
40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters.
English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus.
 Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after 
completing engineroom refit.