Mark Mielke wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Unless you are going to *pay* for it - you do realize that the best
>>> way to get it implemented, would be to open up the source code, and
>>> give it a try yourself?
>>>
Because users possibly want to do that - use it? Some of us have better
things to do than go
through the learning curve of how the internals of a non-trivial system
work. Does that really
mean its unreasonable to voice an opinion of what would make the system
more useful?
>>
> Offensive is relative. I find it offensive when people demand things
> on one of the many mailing lists I read without providing anything to
> the community.
>
If your view of the community is that it should be insular and closed to
those who can't or won't be developers, then fine. But taking that
attitude will pretty much guarantee that your system will never amount
to more than a hill of beans.
One of the major problems with open source as a whole is that you get
this 'fix it yourself or pay for it' business which provides no way to
spread the cost over many users who would all have something to gain -
but none of whom can justify footing the bill for the entire
development. Most of us are in that position as users, even if we do
have skills that would enable us to help - we have our own issues to
deal with. Buying support isn't the answer - its not support that's
needed, after all, so much as an ability to buy a share of influence
over a roadmap..
Do you want ensure that only the very rich in cash or time can have any
influence? You're going the right way about it with your attitude,
which appears deliberately user-hostile.
What do you want?
James