Re: Open Source menu system

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:21:20PM -0400, jt wrote: (quoting someone else)
> | A troll is someone who provides no value to the list, but merely shows up
> | to instigate arguments.

I suggest you check the Jargon File's definition of troll, at
http://www.catb.org/esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html:

troll

 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group  alt.folklore.urban] To utter a  posting on
Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post
itself. Derives from the phrase trolling for newbies which in turn comes
from mainstream trolling , a style of fishing in which one trails bait
through a likely spot hoping for a bite.  The well-constructed troll is a
post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even
more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy
and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for
the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who  chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion
list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a
discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real
interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter
flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no
redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form
of life on the net, as in, Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.  Compare kook.

By that definition, someone who posts arguments they believe in, no matter
how obnoxiously or repetitively, is not a troll. This is something of a
personal issue for me, as I get accused of trolling when I advance arguments
that do not follow the common FSF orthodoxy on Slashdot.

> This almost invariably happens when someone cannot defend their logic.  My
> point stands, unless somebody other than you can correct it:  Open Source is
> a con game (and you say *I'm* playing games...???)!!!  As a
> pseudo-programming methodology, it provides little to no benefits that
> aren't available with commercial source production.

"With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is the way Eric Raymond puts
it, and I completely agree. My experience managing an Open Source project
bears this out. Hercules would be nowhere near the program it is - fast,
powerful, stable, featureful - if it were not Open Source.

No other production metaphor has this ability. If the source code is not
open, then you cannot enlist the aid of others freely to find and fix bugs.

> And your response sort-a shows my point.  People devoted to "Open" Source
> are rather "closed minded", in this respect.  Not ALL respects, mind you,
> but this one.  Everybody has blind spots, of course.

Don't tar us all with the same brush. We're not all rabid Stallmanite "Free
Software uber alles!" radicals.