ad

[michael]

Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:07:45AM -0800, prad wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:11:48 -0700
>> Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I don't recall anyone saying "I'm with such-and-such a FreeBSD
>>> development team, and these are the reasons we aren't going to do
>>> anything about that at this time:".
>>>
>>>       
>> i don't either, but these development teams do exist:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/projects/index.html
>> and so does a mechanism for initiating projects:
>> "If you feel that a project is missing, please send the URL and a short
>> description (3-10 lines) to www at FreeBSD.org."
>>     
>
> That is a much, much better response to questions about improving
> desktop-oriented functionality than the sort of thing I've been seeing
> lately from certain anti-lots-of-stuff people on this list:
>
>   because linux got exactly that way and it sucks now.
>
> That's not what I'd call a productive response, nor is it well supported.
> It doesn't serve as a viable argument -- it's just obstinate refusal to
> entertain the idea that functionality isn't bad just because its most
> obvious use is desktop-oriented.
>
>
>   
>> and i guess as tyson explained there needs to be a balancing of limited
>> resources.
>>     
>
> There must always be such a balance -- but I don't see how that in any
> way prevents us from discussing whether the resources exist.
>
>
>   
>>> On the other hand, their statements *do* imply that *my* position is
>>> illegitimate in some way
>>>
>>>       
>> i don't think so. it's more along the lines of "we don't need this in
>> light of the priorities". 
>>     
>
> Actually, it's more like this:
>
>   because linux got exactly that way and it sucks now.
>
>
>   
>> however, i do think michael powell makes a
>> very good point about "setting a very dangerous precedent" by ending up
>> allowing "third parties to have the ability to dictate to the devs
>> what code goes into FreeBSD?"
>>     
>
> I don't think anything I said suggests we let third parties dictate
> anything.  Please point out where I suggested such a thing.  We just need
> to make sure that we don't confuse "listening to suggestions and
> discussing their viability, and their technical pros and cons," with
> "taking orders from MS Windows users."
>
>
>   
>>> Some people don't know that, and are basically told to go
>>> away by some people when they bring it up.  Still other people
>>> suggest alternate approaches to fixing the problem, and are also
>>> basically told to go away, when a more appropriate response would be
>>> to say "I think you should talk to the people at the swfdec and gnash
>>> projects about that," in most cases.
>>>
>>>       
>> ok so here's a solution. whenever someone tells people to go away (i
>> don't think it has been done quite that way, but i see little point in
>> going into that here), surely others can point to those who are in the
>> appropriate projects. that way you have the choice of pursuing the
>> matter or seeking an alternative os. 
>>     
>
> Maybe not "quite that way", but the implication has, at times, been
> unmistakable.
>
> Of course, if someone points people at the appropriate venue for
> discussing something *after* someone else has said "FOAD", it may already
> be too late.  My preference would be for people who don't have something
> productive to say, who only want to scare people away, to keep it to
> themselves.
>
>   

after reading all these posts, i've still come up with this answer after 
looking ..
"freebsd - the power to serve"

the motto isn't "the power to serve and run Far Cry"