🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <225BC2D4H0009C401H@p.froehlich.amc.cube.net>, 
p.froehlich@amc.cube.net (Peter Froehlich) writes:
> 
>> While it is true that ETH is not a software house, on the other hand 
>> some improvement over the present status should be possible. I hope 
>> you are giving some thought to this issue.
> 
>    I  think  an "Integrate V3 and V4 to V5" project would be a good subject
> for  multiple  diploma (senior) thesis candidates.  It would be an exercise
> in software engineering ("legacy code integration").
> 
>    Many  ETH  thesis subjects seem to involve "making something new", which
> sure  is  fun,  but  not  very  realistic  given  the commercial/industrial
> situation.   Maybe  someone  at the ETH (a certain research assistant?  :-)
> could initiate such a project.

They do not think of themselves as being providers "for the market", 
and therefore they always refused to make any such commitments. 
That is funny, because on the other hand they invested lots of effort 
into making terrific systems that we know. They just do not want to 
take on any sort of expressed obligation. I think this is understandable.

There is another point, though:

IMHO, ETH to a large extent misses the opportunity of disseminating 
their ideas into at least one pariticular channel: that of the R&D
organizations other than computer science. This is what I meant by 
"put your ideas on desktops of many people". If you lookup the list 
of organizations posting to this newsgroup, you will probably agree 
that "we" are situated in very interesting places, where "we" could
potentially become the seeds of change. I mean, "we" can use the Oberon 
System in practice and dissiminate its ideas through practical 
demonstration. And we try to, otherwise some of us would not have been here.
However, sometimes ETH does not make this task easy, e.g., when they 
forget about backward compatiblity and such. Sometimes they seem to be 
creating stumbling blocks just for the fun of it. 

The whole idea of my many postings can be boiled down to just two points:

1. Please notice you have a potentially influential international audience 
   for your ideas. "We" can be looked upon not as an annoying crowd, 
   but rather as a carrier through which your ideas can infiltrate the places
   which you cannot reach yourself.

2. This can happen only through practical applications of your software.
   Please make developing such applications easier, by not creating 
   unnecessary stumbling blocks in the first place. 

Now one can ask if the "stumbling blocks" I am talking about are really 
unnecessary, or maybe they are unavoidable price for novel research?
I guess one can argue both ways. Further, one can ask if ETH should 
dissiminate its ideas by means other than writing papers and presenting 
at conferences? One can ask how effective is the channel I indicated?
These are all legitimate and difficult questions. I wonder if anybody 
is thinking of all this? 

I know that some ETH associates tend to dismiss the whole problem 
as nonexistent. I have received an e-mail from ETH saying "we are the 
givers, you are the takers, stop complaining". Another e-mail from 
a former ETH associate said "Some read news, some make it." (This 
was in response to my observation that Oberon "funding fathers" 
do not participate in this newsgroup.) IMHO, the attitude conveyed 
by such messages is guaranteed to backfire. I hope this is not the 
prevailing attitude at the Oberon headquarters.

Wojtek