results of ports re-engineering survey

[Ade Lovett]

On Dec 12, 2007, at 01:38 , Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> First of all excuse my language but I have about had it with certain
> people...

Presumably that would be me.

> where the *HELL* do you get the idea that I am attempting to
> get other people to do the heavy lifting or have you not learned a
> single f***'ing thing from the last 30 years of software engineering
> (i.e. involve the user from the very beginning)..

And you've involved, at best, 1% of the user base.  More likely  
0.01%.  Do we need to talk statistics again?


> I said right in the f***'ing disclaimer that this is not an attempt  
> to get permission from
> anyone to do anything and/or any type of project plan as of yet it is
> *ONLY* an attempt to define the problem so that a good (instead of one
> I "think" is good) solution can be designed....

I have yet to see any coherent definition that a problem even exists.   
That's not to say the current situation is perfect, it certainly  
isn't.  Those of "us" that have dealt with the ports tree for any  
length of time are well aware of its shortcomings.  We're also well  
aware that making anything but baby-step changes along a larger path  
is destined to failure.

Now, if y'all have concrete and plausible solutions for actual  
problems, we're all ears.  But in the meantime, it's just another re- 
run of "this sucks, it can be done better", without any concrete  
*proof* of the latter.

We *know* it can be done better.  We *know* the scaling limits of the  
current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still  
works.

If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty  
of.  Code talks.

-aDe