Re: Documentation..

Anatoly Techtonik wrote:

Well, I agreed with you and with Open Source, but for community I've got a negative feeling. Not on the every person in particular - there is a lot of good people I see - but on the direction this community takes. Started from FiDONet, then TikiWiki, University, some projects on SF I finally ended here to find some answers on the way from the robotics and automatic control to sociological synergy. I've started from QA. There are two kind of processes - natural ones and artificial. Open Source is natural. CS, QA, rules are artificial. Every artificial process limits freedom for natural process. Hence every artificial process must have a strong basis. You can't even form a justification for those, who freedom you want to restrict, but you are nevertheless creating QA. Instead of making a strong basis you use so-called democracy to vote and then let decide this QA what they will do. It doesn't even matters that smb. just wasn't able to understand what for he will vote and therefore he didn't. You've got a majority - 7 out of 200. I don't know about you, but I can't call this equity. One voice was against. It is much more far from a "strong basis".

Uhm you are very much confused about opensource. We have a community, even if you dont feel part of it you are probably already part of it (in a twisted sort of way). However we dont make gurantees about a community. All we say is that our source is open. So thats all the freedom you have. Quite alot of you ask me. Now if you dont like our community then the source is still free and so are you. The term opensource project just says that we are working on opensource software it does not mean that we have no rules. The point being: fork if you want. Thats the freedom of opensource. If you do a good job in your fork I might even switch to your variatition of PEAR. regards, Lukas