[Server-devel] let's write a compiler!

[Toby Knudsen]

Hi David,

I wanted to respond, but I have to run out to play tennis at the
moment.  If you give it a good read you'll probably see that we agree
more than we disagree.  I wouldn't trouble a technical person with the
organizational task of what I would work on or what is a firm
agreement and scope of my work.  [Organizational issue] I'm used to
being held to high account for this type of thing and I'm trying to
understand how OLPC does things.  I appreciate that you responded to
my message after a month and it's silly that I can't start a paragraph
with the English word "From".

Still, I have a lot of conviction that OLPC will radically change
things for the better and I'll remain a friend and admirer regardless.

Cheers,
Toby

P.S.
Contact me (optional) if you are interested in commenting on the ETRM
before 7/20 so that a certain companies greed and interference with
State business may be treated appropriately.  Spread the word.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/07/02/openxml/index.php
Massachusetts adds Open XML to open formats list

On 7/10/07, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 18:24 -0400, Toby Knudsen wrote:
> > On 7/3/07, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> > > Hm, the archive of this post at
> > > http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/server-devel/2007-June/000041.html
> > > is broken -- most of the text is missing, and the In-Reply-To: header
> > > specified in the mailto: link at the top of the page is broken.
> >
> > Right.  Maybe your server made an error precisely once...
>
> No, I don't think it happened just once -- I think the server makes the
> Message-Id: error every time, and will probably truncate every mail
> containing a line starting 'From ' too.
>
> > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:06 -0400, Toby Knudsen wrote:
> > When designing software other libraries may be required than those
> > included in Redhat's builds.
>
> You mean Fedora builds, I believe. And yes, we already do add our own
> packages to the Fedora package set where we need to.
>
> >  It's a fine operating system, but many folks hooked on it never dare
> > upgrade their libraries and don't know what's broken when they do.
>
> This is true of many folks who use _any_ coherent and self-consistent
> distribution and then start trying to diverge from it. That's why such
> divergence is generally a thing to be avoided except where it's
> absolutely necessary.
>
> >  I would say to anyone with a project of significant scope or
> > requirements beyond those that quite general: manage your own software
> > dependencies.
>
> I think you're very much mistaken in that. In the userspace
> distribution, we should strive to keep as close to our chosen upstream
> as possible -- just as we do with the kernel. There is no point in
> reinventing the wheel just for the sake of it, and forking a
> distribution entirely of our own.
>
> > I appreciate that you responded to my post.
>
> Well, the subject of your post doesn't exactly encourage anyone to read
> it or reply to it. There are a lot of strange ideas out there, and
> writing a new compiler is far from the most sensible of them. I'm not
> entirely sure how that relates to the content of your email, in fact.
>
> >  I've not been there for
> > some time and (apparently) am not sufficiently resourceful enough to
> > figure out how to work with you.  I'm worn out trying to figure out
> > how to work on your school server and there's no design document.
>
> Trying to 'figure out how to work on [the] school server' seems like a
> rather quixotic task right now, since the school server doesn't exist
> yet -- not even in a coherent design form. Be patient -- when we
> actually _have_ a design, a 'design document' will be sure to follow.
> What part, exactly, were you interested in?
>
> > Many things seem to [happen?] verbally at OLPC and I haven't found that to
> > be constructive previously.
>
> Yes; assuming that I interpreted you correctly, I'm inclined to agree.
> That's one of the reasons I've spent so much time in Boston recently.
>
> >  By my account, I offered skilled labor at no cost and I can't see
> > that OLPC is interested or focused enough to make use of my time.
>
> If you're offering labour on the server alone, then I think it would be
> more accurate to say we're not _ready_ to make use of your time. If
> you're willing to work on other issues, I'm sure your skills would be
> more than welcome.
>
> >  Just trying to figure that much out became tedious and I don't feel
> > that I'm welcome at the office.  Do volunteers require an appointment,
> > do we walk in?
>
> Walk in and do what, precisely? Distract someone from their task to
> explain to you what our plans for the server are, despite the fact that
> we don't actually _have_ a plan which is sufficiently coherent to be
> explained yet? Do you think this is a productive use of time? How many
> people should do this each day? Just you? 10 people? 100 people?
>
> We're currently exploring the ways in which the server will act as a
> 'mesh portal' and provide IPv6 routing. Very little of the higher-level
> stuff has even been discussed, as far as I'm aware. The most useful
> thing you can do right now, if you're desperate for a server-related
> task, is either test all the software on the laptop to make sure it
> works correctly in an IPv6-only environment, or look at implementing
> something akin to NAT-PT which will allow TCP connections to Legacy IP
> addresses.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
>