Re: what i've learned, and explanation.

[Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>]

tom@tomd.org writes:

> Anyway, like I said, I think it comes down to that basic question:
> What do you believe?  Do you believe everyone is entitled to a free,
> stable OS regardless of their ability to contribute to it, or should
> Linux always be something that is only usable if you have the time
> and skills necessary?

Other important questions are:

* Specifically, _what_ are people entitled to?  Are they entitled to
  demand that I spend my time catering to their needs?  Are they
  entitled to be rude while doing it?  Are they entitled to be rude in
  demanding that I spend my time catering to them when they have no
  plans of contributing in any way?

* Are there any people who are entirely without ability to contribute?
  A good, clear bug report is just as valuable as code, because it can
  point out where things are going wrong.  A user who is completely
  new to an application can point out things which are overly obtuse,
  or gaps in the manual.  Cookies or a kind word are also valuable
  contributions (especially with lots of chocolate chips).

If someone is willing to contribute, but completely unable to (if
that's possible), I would feel no qualms about helping them in any way
I could.  Someone who is able to contribute in some way, but
unwilling, will get passed over by me (or maybe flamed if I'm in a bad
mood).

So I believe that Linux should be not be limited by time or skills,
but should be limited by attitude.  (Or maybe not even
attitude... just that help and energies won't be directed at people
who are obnoxious.)  I think that's entirely reasonable.

-- 
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Life is not for everyone.