I had a response to make to a comment this evening, but Ron Stewart beat me to it, saying pretty much what I'd've said, except better. And more politely. I wasn't going to bother being polite.
'ere' 't'is.
It's in response to Dom's comment, which was a slightly befuddling reaction to my article this morning, "Questions for Railo". Dom's post seemed to take offence at the fact I delivered inconvenient information, and I have an opinion which is contrary to the zeitgeist. And that I have derided some of the less coherent reaction I've been seeing. Which is odd, cos he's read this blog before.
Anyway, I was gonna reply after work, but I've been trumped by Ron who's written what I would have said (like I said above).
@Dominic: I'm not one for putting words in Adam's mouth (seems dangerous to me) but I too was a little surprised by how some people responded either on Twitter or in the comments on the Google Groups posting in a manner that either
(a) seemed (to me) to lose sight of what I thought was the primary basis for the disagreement between 4FTI and the people behind the Lucee project: some sort of contractual agreement regarding IP rights, or
(b) automatically assumed that the entity behind the post was automatically wrong, without grounds for their position, some sort of bad guy, or out specifically to harm the Lucee project (they may be any or all of those things... or they may not be).
There's a great deal about all of this that we on the outside simply don't know at this point in time, and to automatically assume that the entity behind the post on the Railo blog has no basis for their position and/or for addressing what they perceive as a grievance or breach of contract through litigation is probably unwise. The claims made by the entity behind the blog post on the Railo site may be without merit... or they may not be. We just don't know.
As I posted on Twitter, the underlying disagreement between the two sides in this case is troubling to me (I used the word "disturbing" in my tweet) because it, at best, will likely be a distraction for continued development of the Lucee project until it is resolved. I also noted that that the cynical part of me was sort of expecting this given the protracted silence from the Railo side since the Lucee project began... given what we had publically heard about financial backing for and commitment to the long-term future of CFML through Railo, it seemed quite likely to me that the entities backing Railo would be quiet that long if they were trying to figure out what this meant for their investment and their future... maybe I was reading too much into the silence. I think we now have some idea of where they stand.
I saw some of the reaction as a surprising rush to judgment, given how little any of us know about the circumstances behind the principals leaving the Railo side, any contractual agreements they may or may not have had with the Railo side, conversations that may have occurred between the two sides since they left the Railo project as they two sides may or may not have attempted to come to some sort of agreement on points of dispute. I don't think we know enough at this point to start talking about who's right, wrong, good, bad, or anything else in this case.
Does all of this help the CFML community? Or Railo? Or Lucee? No, almost certainly not... but neither does our jumping to conclusions about "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" in situations where we aren't currently--and may never be--privy to all of the relevant facts.
I think Adam is/was doing the same thing to the CFML community that he often does with the vendors: taking them to task for what he sees as questionable reasoning. I don't see his position as "pandering" or even an extreme case of playing the devil's advocate. But that's just my perspective...
I'm curious about the answers to some of the questions he's posed here (particularly the forward-looking ones), and to see how this plays out.
