Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz From: wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Status of 386BSD 0.1 Message-ID: <13vqhnINNhc4@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 15 Jul 92 00:12:39 GMT References: <58775@mimsy.umd.edu> <13v74tINNdni@agate.berkeley.edu> <58843@mimsy.umd.edu> Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association Lines: 210 NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu >In article <58843@mimsy.umd.edu> jds@cs.umd.edu (James da Silva) writes: >I wrote: >>>cgd@agate.berkeley.edu (Chris G. Demetriou) writes: >>>>Now it's a matter of killing the last of the show-stoppers, and >>>>getting it out the door... >>> >>>Actually, it looks like a classic case of having to kill the engineer to >>>get it out the door. (as the saying goes :-) >>> >>>Bill, let your baby go. Look at it this way, you're not releasing an >>>alpha-quality system, you're gaining 1000 beta-testers. :-) > >wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes: >>Lynne Jolitz responds (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) :-): >> >> [very acidic, sarcastic response as Lynne lets off some steam] Funny, a number of people have already written me telling me I let you off too easily. And if you can't take a bit of sarcasm, perhaps you had better be more careful when posting to netnews. You put your foot in your mouth. All I did is make you chomp down on it. And if it hurts your pride a bit now, you had better thank your lucky stars that I did it in a humorous way. At least you have a bit of your foot left (well, maybe not from your following posting). >Sigh. You have misunderstood my message, Lynne. Let me explain: the >expression "we'll have to kill the engineer to get the product out the >door" does not imply any animosity towards the engineer. Oh yes. Of course. How could anyone possibly mistake this comment for anything less than a kind-hearted attempt to "help" us. Of course, perhaps insulting people is meant as a motivator. Ahh, yes -- that's it. Negative reinforcement. Brilliant. >On the contrary, >it means that he/she is a perfectionist and will resist releasing the >product indefinitely because there is always one more bug to fix or >enhancement to make. Perfectionist? One more bug? In BSD? Running on the PC? Ha ha ha. You have made my day. I haven't laughed like this in quite a while. ONLY ONE BUG? ADDING NEW ENHANCEMENTS? You must be dreaming. Either that, or you have never done a real release. >Thus my second paragraph, which says that instead of >worrying about every last bug, you could take advantage of all the people >on the net who would be willing to give 386BSD a spin, bugs and all, and >who may provide valuable bug fixes and enhancements to accelerate the >maturity of 386BSD. We've got a number of contributors, and they know who they are. We've also got a number of beta siters (you know who you are as well). We are shooting for a stable release, not a bug-free or FINISHED one. There is plenty more to do, and everyone will have a crack at it. At least, I hope people will do more. There's so much more to be done, and these releases are just a beginning. However, due to the *large* number of 386BSD sites (est. 100,000+) and the fact that it is being used by a number of key research groups, we run into every imaginable configuration problem. We have learned from hard experience that if we screw up on an early release we will hear from them toot-sweet. It is irresponsible to handle releases cavalierly. It's not a matter of perfectionism -- just a matter of responsibility. If you are feeling impatient, I'm sorry -- you're just going to have to hold your horses a bit longer like everyone else. Of course, the sources and lots of changes are available on the net. You can always make your own release, can't you? >Now that I've explained my poor wit at greater length, I hope you see that >my note was intended as sympathetic and encouraging, not disparaging or >critical. I'd take your word for it, but what you go on to say doesn't mesh with these words. All I can make from it is the wounded pride of someone who doesn't have the courtesy to talk to me directly from the beginning and discuss 0.1 in detail, flames on the net (twice) and then has to react to salve his wounded pride. We may be working our asses off on this release, but get one thing straight. We're not doing this release for you! We're doing it for all those people who asked us to continue and sent in software, hardware and money to try and make it better. These people are actually trying to work with us, talk to us about the situation, trade code with us, incorporate/suggest additions/features. They do not go off half-cocked and belly-ache about the situation. They try to make it better and not worse. They offer to help! >That having been said, I'll let off some of steam of my own: >First, I (and I suspect others) have trouble understanding why you would >wish to make 0.1 perfect. Holding onto it for so long just makes more work >for you and stagnates external contributions, as everyone else is holding >their breath (and their tapes) wondering if this or that is fixed or added >in 0.1, which after all is coming out any day now. Compare and contrast >the traffic here with that in comp.os.linux, which is bursting at the seams >with a seemingly exponential number of contributions. Yes, but 386BSD is much larger. The distribution sets are now 120 MBytes (yes, we have sets) uncompressed. The kernel supports a greater number of device drivers and networking. Also, the PC is not the most flexible of animals to work with, and getting ideosyncratic configurations to work reliably is a big chore. I know you probably will think this is just an excuse and dismiss it. So be it. But that's the way it is. Also, as I stated earlier, we have too many key sites to fool around with release-of-the-day. This is not a "junk" release. Perfection, trivial bugs, and adding new features are the least of our worries right now. >Second, why must you respond to every little criticism (real, or in the my >case, misconstrued) with propaganda about how wonderful you are and >invective about how injured you are? Give us a break, please. Oh, poor baby. Still sore about my little message back there? Funny, I didn't say anything about how "wonderful" we are. In fact, I talked about how wonderfully supportive, encouraging and enthusiastic you are, didn't I? As the good book says, "Do unto others, but one better." >people have contributed software to the world; even I have. You are not >the first, and you will not be the last. Larry Wall, Linus Torvalds and >Bruce Evans, to name just a few that come immediately to mind, have all >burned a lot of midnight oil to make significant contributions to the world >of free software, yet they seem able to greet the day with good humor and >to shrug off criticisms. What? You didn't notice I was answering in a humorous manner? Or perhaps the humor wasn't to your taste. Left a bit of a sour taste in your mouth? Well, crow is never tasty. BTW, two of the three people you cite have contributed to 386BSD, and they have been great to deal with. >No one has asked you to give up your life for this project. If it is >really driving you to the point where it is no longer fun, has brought you >to financial ruin, is affecting your children and family life, then for >your own sakes, STOP! Given your knee-jerk reactions to several postings >here, I suspect your nerves _are_ frayed to the breaking. Either release >the software as is or just put it aside, and go home and hug your kids. >Take them on a vacation. Do _something_ different. I really do mean this >in a sympathetic and supportive manner. Believe me. We will kick this release out the door and then get back to the book. We continue this due to the support and encouragement of a number of key people. And we want to see this used. But as I said in an earlier message, everything worthwhile has a cost. And everyone pays. Really, though, I can't figure out what your concern is. What's the point of all this ? To get out the release faster? My spending time responding to this drivel means less time spent on real work, so that doesn't help. Why is it that you seem to be saying or implying things that you don't know -- can't know anything about? Are you just mouthing someone else's opinion? If so, let him come out of the shadows. I don't know you at all. You obviously haven't tried to contact me. You're not actively involved with 386BSD users and testers. Your not part of the group that's pulling 386BSD together, or supporting it in other ways, or making your needs known for the next release and waiting patiently. Yet you seem to want to have an "in-your-face" confrontation about something that through your actions clearly should mean absolutely nothing to you. What is your problem? It's funny, really. Only last week, another person was complaining that I never respond enough on netnews (I usually send direct email to inquiries), and that I let too many comments go by without setting them straight. Well, you can't please all the people all time. >Writing free software should be done for the fun of it, and for the >satisfaction of knowing you have done something that is useful to others. >I know I have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) my tiny contributions. If >you are doing it because you have a chip on your shoulder, or because you >are expecting glory and undying gratitude, you are doing it for the wrong >reasons. Glory? Undying gratitude? You've got to be kidding. After dealing with people like you, who needs glory? When asked, I have simply been honest about the situation. No delusions here. No grand and glorious ideology. No "glory" -- just a lot of hard work on the odd chance that perhaps, just perhaps, it will work out for the best. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but that's the way it is. I'm not going to sugar-coat the truth for you or anyone else. As to the chip on the shoulder, look to the monkey on your back right now. I didn't start this debate -- you did. I didn't start insulting people -- you did. And I could have responded to your earlier letter in a much more direct way, instead of a pointedly humorous one. I held back then. I have no incentive to so now, however. But frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what else you say anymore. I've got a *tape* to cut. Right now. :-) Lynne Jolitz. ljolitz@cardio.ucsf.edu