From: "David Davies" <david@intadev.com>
> On Sunday, 9 September 2001 10:25 AM
> Michael Turner Wrote:
>
> >> Paul Lester quoted something I
> >> wrote in his recent posting, but he never, anywhere,
> >> says I was attacking anybody. Indeed, in the
> >> post he responded to, I said that I didn't know the
> >> real points of the case, so I wouldn't comment.
>
> I'm very sorry Michael but I did absolutely NOT have you in mind when I
> wrote this article AT ALL. In fact I did not even realise that you were
> one of the people associated with rumours concerning Layer8.
I am not, to my knowledge, associated with any rumors concerning
Layer8.
I might have my *opinions* about this family of companies, and
people associated with them, but those are clearly distinguished
from passed-on stories that bear on their business interests.
Now, David, please ask me about those rumors that I have stopped
beating my wife. I'm absolutely incensed about these. After all,
why would I stop?
> My purpose is only to create a positive mindset concerning the
> iMode/Mobile market generally
Given that it's a 98% Japanese phenomenon, and will live or
die on its merits if and when exported, why don't you bend
your efforts toward something you're likely to have some
impact on, rather than on largely-inconsequential 'dissent'?
> and I do not believe that the rumours
> concerning Linc/Layer8 are a good thing for the industry.
I'm mostly outside this loop, all I know is what I read in
the papers. If I hear mindless prattle, I pass it on to cooler
heads in the person's more immediate circle, who have
certainly already been exposed to it, and ask "why is
he/she saying this? Shouldn't there be more verification?"
Or I say nothing.
If you'd like to know something about how I treat rumors related
to this collection of companies, please e-mail Juergen Specht,
Sam Joseph, or Thomas O'Dowd. Privately.
The strongest language I can remember using in this connection
was about Japan Inc being "on the ropes". Private communication,
to Sam Joseph. Nothing about Layer8.
"On the ropes" -- is this scurrilous? Well, this was after I read, in the
Japan Times, that Japan Inc had just let go something like 40% of its
staff. "On the ropes" is not "down for the count", much less
"KOed", please note. Lots of fighters come back off the ropes
and win. Even from off the mat. Metaphors are inaccurate by
their very nature, but this one fits, to my mind.
Is this relevant to a certain other discussion here? Yes.
To confess a slight bias: not least among the reasons I have
sided so strongly with Daniel's case (and against your let's-
all-be-pollyannas rhetoric) is that you feel free to characterize
Daniel's coverage as "consistently negative", despite not reading,
or maybe just conveniently not remembering, a WHOLE ISSUE
that was largely positive about this scene. And you do it right
when he's been socked with one of the hardest blows a guy
can get in his career.
(I assume, anyway; can anyone point me to a Japan Times retraction?)
> As to your attack on IntaBiz.
> What can I say, we are working as hard as we can to get a first release,
> but we are a small company with no VC and we have only limited resources
> for speculative projects.
Short-handed, eh? Then, hey-- release the source code. Under an
open source license. That's what open source is. Not just -- and
certainly no longer -- an IPO buzzword.
> I have a certain level of functionality that I hope to obtain before we
> release IntaBiz as OS and I'm not satisfied yet. (hey at least we're
> trying!)
I have no idea whether you are or not. I have no idea whether
there's even a "we". Release the source code, and maybe you'll
have some credibility. Until then, construct future-tense sentences
in open-source oblivion (plenty of it at places like SourceForge.)
(See below.)
> I'm 100% sure that nothing on our site is contradictory to the true
> situation
English brush-up time, evidently.
Quotes from your site:
"Developed as an Open Source platform and distributed free, ..."
Past tense. So where's your distribution? If it's distributed free,
why can't I download it?
Contradiction.
"Via the Internet, Int@Biz provides the functions ...."
Present tense. Well, I'm on the Internet. You don't give
me a way to access these functions.
Contradiction.
"Int@Biz and related products are not sold to the end user.
Instead, they are marketed to the host market...."
Present tense. Yeah, you're marketing, that's true, but it looks
like vaporware at this point.
Want to convince me otherwise?
Release the source.
I could go on, but you must see my point. You have
brochureware, here. That's all I see. You don't have
open source until the source is open, with clearly
spelled out license terms.
Until you do, you shouldn't say that you do, if you want the
respect of open source developers. And you'll need their
respect, at the very least, to reach the level of quality any
such product will require.
> or our objectives and I have no idea why it has upset you.
I dunno, maybe some kind of neurotic integrity fixation. :-/
> If your were interested in the project why did you not inquire directly
> to the address on the site
People running real open source projects have long e-mail queues,
and they prioritize the messages that offer patches. So I hate to
bother them. Unless they are personal friends. Then I *really*
hate to bother them.
I didn't inquire directly to your site as an open source site because
it isn't one. That's self-evident, its claims notwithstanding.
> I'd be happy to have your contribution.
Brilliant play to the crowd, David.
And such a wonderfully conciliatory note to strike, given
that you've grouped me with those terrible rumor-mongers
right at the beginning of your post. Despite no substantiation.
And substantiation is quite a big deal to you, if I understand
what you've written correctly.
-michael turner
leap@gol.com
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Sun Sep 9 19:13:17 2001