Re: IRC w/ Joseph

[Aaron Turner <aturner@linuxkb.org>]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Jason Pincin wrote:

> Well - Greetings Team,
> 
> As people might imagine - I completely disagree on just about ALL the
> things touched on here.  I'll address each in turn, and then give my
> overall comments at the bottom.

Yeah, we don't agree again!  Gawd, that agreeing all the time got so
tiring. :-)
 
> > concerns like "release early, release often".  I think we need to get more
> > into that mode.  Let the community know we're still alive.  Releasing the
> > source code too.  
> 
> Very good point.  What we need to remember is that we are a FREAKING
> web site!!!!  There is a HUGE differance between a web site, and an
> application someone downloads and installs.  For one, we are FORCING

Reality is that we are an application that just happens to run on our
server over a web browser.  We're much more than just a website.  The old
rules don't really apply.  Besides, why can't we play by or own rules? The
whole point of this project was that we could make our own rules.  I
haven't worked for 100's of hours in my free time in the last 18 months so
I could play by other people's rules.  I get enough of that at work.

> the upgrade... people don't have a choice, if something breaks,
> everyone is SOL.  In the application world, you don't have top

Well nobody can really use the site now because we don't even have the
basic functionality yet.  We're freaking ALPHA.  No one expects it to work
right.  The fact it works at all is by definition a minor miricle.

> download it - youy can just keep chuggin along, and the guys willing
> to test, debug, etc will download the newest stuff, help debug it, and
> do all the other things that make open source work.  
> 
> I like the staging model.  You don't see the top places like FM and /.
> and whatever else constantly shoving new, untested features into the
> site and hosing people.  

You mention /. and FM.  There is a big difference between us and them.
Those sites (and those like them) are fully developed sites with a large
existing user base- ie. nothing like us.  They don't need to increase
mindshare or let people know "we're still alive".  Their needs are
different than ours, hence they do and should play by different rules.

If you don't like making www the playground then let's publicize dev.
We're not getting enough hits on Yukon to even matter.  I doubt that we'll
bring dev to it's knees.  And even if we do, we can cross that bridge when
we get there.

> > I'm really not convinced that anyone is going to download our code looking
> > for a security bug.  And even if they did, they'd be more likely to send
> > us a patch to fix it than try to exploit it.  We're just not that big of a
> > target to warrent an attack of this nature.  And if people are still
> > worried, there's nothing preventing us from doing a nightly cronjob to
> 
> Well then don't be concerned about it.  I am.  Dan is, I believe thats
> enough of a concern to make it valid.  

Fine.  Then do nightly dumps of the DB so if someone does run this dreded
exploit of yours we can easily fix things.  This excuse is so FREAKING
LAME.  It's not like it gives them root on our web server.  Shit, new
versions of the Linux kernel ships at times with PUBLICIZED vulnerabilties
(the last few weeks as a matter of fact).  Much greater risk and impact.
What are you so afraid of? Someone downloads the code an posts a notice to
BugTraq?

If it was so important to you as you say, you'd fix it.  Yes I know, "But
to fix it will be a LOT of work and I'd rather work on more
important/visible things."  So I'll tell you what.  I'll make you a deal.  
We release the source code, and I'll learn PHP.  That way you can worry
about the dreded security bug and I can help out on the front.  
 
> What you are getting at here is immediate release of our software.
> Please, point out to me a BIG linux Open Source site out there today
> that has code in CVS.  C'mon.  Just one.  Other than the brilliant Mr.
> Cheek.

Hmmm.... how many web sites release their source code at all?  I know of
two.  /. and SourceForge.  Freshmeat, LWN, and LinuxToday don't. 99+% of
websites don't.  So from what I know, 33% of websites that have released
their code, keep their code in a public CVS repository (Cheek).  
Furthermore 66% of websites have their code available via CVS (the second
one would be SourceForge).

> When your talking about a "service" instead of an
> "application" I think the rules change a bit.  I think that the trends
> being set by other open source web sites would serve us well enough,
> at least in the beginning.  These guys package up the source at
> regular intervals (when they deem it functional) and release it.
> Nothing wrong with that.

Sure, nothing wrong with that.  But we're not even there yet.  You talk
about it "serve us well enough in the beginning"- well, HELLO!  We've been
working on this project for 18 months now.  We're WAY past the
"beginning".  Get us there sooner rather than later, and I'll stop harping
on this issue.

> > I'm not really concerned if we push something into production that is
> > broken or doesn't work completely yet.  We can put notes about "this new
> 
> I am concerned.  See comments above.  In addition to that, this is a
> service, a web site, something that anyone and there brother can
> EASILY see.  They don't have to be running Linux to look at us.  They
> don't have to be running Linux to form an opinion of us.  We're going
> to be attempting to appeal to non-linux audiences as well as Linux
> audiences... and some of those people will just be LOOKING for reasons
> to talk us down.  I don't want to give them any.

Well dude, wake up.  People are already talking.  They're saying, "Look at
this web site that is taking so slow to do anything."  Our sponsors say
it, and from what Cheek indicated, they're not the only ones.  I don't
blame them.
 
> > Showing that we're hard at work, will only increase people's awareness of
> > our project and increase our mindshare.
> 
> Increasing mindshare is important.  But I think there are other ways
> to go about it than Cheek's grand vision.

Ok.  Enlighten me then.  If you have an alternate plan, let me know.  If
what we're currently doing though is your plan to get people all excited
about us, then well... it doesn't seem to be working so maybe we should
try something else.

> > I also noticed that Joe seems to be interested in working on the areas
> > that we need the most help in.  It's almost too good to be true.  Even if
> > he's not a rocket scientist in PHP, Jason's objects should make it easy
> > for him to do good work.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not talking trash about Joe joining up.  If
> he wants to get on board and help out, thats fine.

I know.

> BUT - if he is going to set stipulations as to his helping us such as
> "i don't want to waste my time on anything that won't have something
> in 6 months"... and I'm not arguing whether or not he's justified in
> saying that... what I'm saying is I don't care what he "demands".  

Well, personally, I'd like to be somewhere in 6 months.  I'd like to see a
plan that we can all agree to rather than playing it by ear as we have
been.

> I don't like his gung-ho "my way or the high-way" attitude.  You may
> not have noticed too much of it in the conversation yesterday - but
> it's there.  

Dude, you are so over-reacting.  Everything he asked for were completely
reasonable.  The fact that they are prerequisites for him helping us
shouldn't be surprising.  If anything it indicates that if he joins us
he'll do real work rather than sitting there complaining like a little
girl like so many of our failed developers.  I like the fact he's asking
hard questions.

> I really don't look forward to working with him.  Everytime I talk to
> him he says or does something to cause me to dis-like him less.  Thats
> my opinion, and I'm entitled to it :).

Yes, everyone is entitled to be wrong- even you. :)  Regarless of who is
right/wrong though... if he does join, you're going to have to let the
past be just that, or you're going to run him out and waste all of our
time.  Shit, I would of thought by now that I get on your nerves far more
than he does. :-P

> > I've been saying for quite some time now that we need more people, I think
> > we found that.
> 
> I'm not so sure.  I'm going to get him what he asked for, and go from
> there.  I'm not closing any doors - but I'm not sold as to the
> "perfect fit" of it all.  I'm kinda leaning the other way.  

--
Aaron Turner, Core Developer       http://vodka.linuxkb.org/~aturner/
Linux Knowledge Base Organization  http://www.linuxkb.org/
Because world domination requires quality open documentation.
aka: aturner@vicinity.com, aturner@pobox.com, ion_beam_head@ashtech.net
The difference between `Unstable' and `Usable' is only two characters: NT