From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, SUBJECT_EXCESS_QP autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2765BC6C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:04:08 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AswMAIbrn0dDWxLC/2dsb2JhbACBWI8pnyU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,277,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6741880" Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 14:04:08 +0100 Received: from kuba.bertec.net (kuba.bertec.net [192.168.2.16]) by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DD7CDFAF for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:04:07 -0500 (EST) From: Kuba Ober To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: The OCaml Community (aka back from =?utf-8?q?the=09Developer?= Days) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:04:06 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) References: <1201439362.6302.15.camel@Blefuscu> <1201614300.24248.23.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> In-Reply-To: <1201614300.24248.23.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801300804.06946.ober.14@osu.edu> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 cheers:01 merit:98 caml-list:01 constructive:03 balanced:04 aka:04 profits:94 discussion:06 osu:07 i'm:09 reasonably:09 sense:10 doesn't:12 economics:12 > Sorry for the direct language, but you provoked it. It is a pity to lose > Jane Street as supporter of GODI. If you still want to enter into a > constructive dialog, I'm open to it. I think that Markus's post was reasonably well balanced, and he presented a humble view from his experience. It didn't look like bashing nor flamethrowing to me. The facts in question can be disputed, but they really have nothing to do about who profits from what and who pays for what. Let's leave the economics out of the merit discussion -- doesn't that only make sense? Cheers, Kuba