Re: ![not OT] Release Date of Woody?
On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 04:23:16AM +0100, Jan Martin Mathiassen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:52:27PM -0500, xsdg wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 02:25:58AM +0100, Jan Martin Mathiassen wrote:
> > > if it isn't useful, then it sucks, and it won't be included in debian. also,
> > > why create something that isn't useful to us? it's just a waste of time...
> > Would a 30-year-old programmer create childrens' software to use it?
>
> he might not use it in a day-to-day situation... he might instead be
> creating it for *his* kids. thus, he doesn't use it himself, but his kids
> are.
But the programmer might not, and when this is the case, the programmer most likely has other forms of motivation. I'm not trying to disprove this form of motivation, I'm just saying that it's not always present...
>
> btw, what's with the weird examples?
I think that they're quite pertinent...but that's only MHO...
>
> > >
> > > > > 2) we get peer recognition for a job well done.
> > > > Not always
> > >
> > > well, then either the job done sucks, or the package is very new... or
> > > highly specialized.
> > True, but this still _might_ not be an incentive...
>
> i'm not sure what track you're on right about now, but uh.. when wouldn't
> peer recognition for a job well done be an incentive? granted, it might not
> be the *only* incentive, but unless <insert person here> is weird, having a
> lot of people say "good job, man! i LOVE your util!" will make said person
> feel *good* about what he did, and entice him into doing more of the same.
When people do charity, they might do it to make themselves feel good, but they won't always get a pat on the back. Similarly, in Debian, people might do stuff simply to get it working, or for some other reason, and not necessarily to become recognized.
>
> > >
> > > > > 3) it's FUN, goddammit.
> > > > _Definitely not always
> > >
> > > then what the *fuck* is the point of doing it? if it's not fun, there's no
> > > drive. if there's no drive, quality suffers. if quality suffers, things
> > > start to suck. bad. if things start to suck, the point of even bothering is
> > > gone.
>
> > I'm not sure about you, but I don't find hours and hours of debugging fun, yet I do it.
>
> that depends a lot on my mood. sometimes i find it fun, sometimes i find it
> hideously fucking boring... yes, debugging is mostly boring, whereas
> programming in and of itself is fun. owning a huge, gorgeous garden is also
> fun, yet it's hideously boring to maintain.. the maintenance is needed to
> keep a somewhat neat garden... and the same goes for programs.
>
> you can't run around all the time and expect *everything* to be fun. you'll
> be horribly disappointed.
My point exactly...
--xsdg
--
___________________________________________________
/ Hildebrant's Principle: If you don't know where \
\ you are going, any road will get you there. /
/ http://xsdg.hypermart.net|xsdg@softhome.net \
\___________________________________________________/
Reply to: