Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > I am not interested in Free Software as in 'free beer', I
> > am interested
> > as in 'free speech'.  And FWIW I'm on the MIT/BSD side of
> > the debate.
>
> The primary motivation for much free software *is* FSF-style
> idealism.

True.  And I can't stand those people.

> It is
> not reasonable to expect to reap the benefits of this idealism while
> contradicting its values.

Nonsense.  Read again: "I am on the MIT/BSD side of the debate," as are
MANY open source projects.

> All I hear is "gimme, gimme" when non-free software
> developers ask for MIT/BSD
> and LGPL licenses.  I am a non-free software developer
> myself, so don't think I don't see from that perspective.

Idealists think the programmer is supposed to contribute massive amounts
of time and money for the betterment of all mankind.  (Remember, time ==
money.)  Pragmatists think the individual should contribute very little,
and that the value of Open Source should come from the collective
accumulation of very small contributions.  To a pragmatist, this is
economically rational.  We think the idealists are extremely silly
people with way too much time (and hence money) on their hands.  Views
change a lot when you're blowing your own money, not someone else's.

> > > When you look to other languages: There are often
> > > commercial interests
> > > behind ports to Windows (e.g. ActiveState). I don't think
> > > the O'Caml market is ready for such a thing.
> >
> > Things don't get ready by waiting around for others to act.
> > People who want to get it ready, are what get it ready.
>
> Well said.  It is telling that there is noone who wants to
> get it ready, considering Windows' market share.

Get what ready, OCaml package managers that work on Windows?  I
certainly want to get it ready, but it's a question of rational labor
contributions.

A far better strategy for me, for now, is to put my attention into The
Nebula Device.  It has a very nice Windows build procedure that has
nothing to do with OCaml, and it doesn't employ a bunch of open source
dependencies needing package management.  Even if it did, it's got
plenty of Windows-centric slave labor behind it.  Simply put, for 3D
game stuff, it is a more effective organizational body than anything the
OCaml world has to offer.  (BSD project BTW. ;-)

Adding OCaml to Nebula is a modest project.  My pressing need for OCaml
package management only comes *after* undertaking that project.  And who
knows, maybe I'll mostly be writing original code than bothering with
anyone else's crufty code.  I don't know where future game projects will
lead me.

So, if nobody else is interested in OCaml package management on Windows
for now, don't be surprised that I don't volunteer to be the first upon
the sacrificial altar.  I only do things on an as-needed basis.  I'd be
happy to help if others have similar needs though.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners