Re: TASC (The Apple Soft Compiler)

[las@cbgbcs.cb.lucent.com (Larry A Shurr)]

I'm not certain whether or not I -- or even anyone -- can say anything
constructive on this issue, but...

In article <3363363E.410D@kcbbs.gen.nz>,
Devlin Sakey  <yngwie@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>I don't want to turn this into a tit for tat argument, so as before,
>this is not a stab at Doktor DynaSoar's or anyone's opinion...

Nor I.  This thread seems to have avoided devolving into a useless
argument thus far, and we might as well keep it that way.

>Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
>> Could be, and certainly we'd like it to be, but to say should presumes
>> to tell the owner of something that they do not control their own
>> property.

>By refusing to allow sale or public domain access of any kind, I'm under
>the opinion that these people are too goddamn lazy to address the issue.
>[etc...]

>On something like this where revenue loss is not really an issue, and
>I'm not really depriving anyone of anything. [etc...]
>
>I'm a firm beleiver in the fact that there are cases where the law does
>not address the issue of common good, and this is very prolific in cases
>where bureaucracy causes inaction. (Government? - MS? Damn near the same
>thing in this industry. However that's an issue for another forum.)

[There's more discussion, of course, but I think -- hope -- this is a 
sufficient referent]

For what it's worth, I was reminded of something a former supervisor said
long ago when someone asked him whether or not we could take on outside
consulting assignments.  He told us there were two options.  One was to
ask permission, almost certainly resulting in an interminable delay
because, in the absence of a well-defined and legally-sanctioned policy,
the true answer at each level of management would be "don't know,"
resulting in a progressive referral of responsibility up the management
ladder, until one of several things happens: 1) some manager simply says
"stop wasting my time and don't ever do that again," 2) some manager
simply sits on the request because #1 has happened previously, 3) it
stalls at some level where it is perceived as irrelevant noise, 4) someone
decides it would have to be referred to the legal department which would
cost money for the research which nobody will pay for, 5) someone makes an
arbitrary and safe decision of "no", or 6) something else I haven't
thought of (clearly, he did not expect a "yes" answer).  The second option
was to go ahead and simply not tell anyone, but I can't recommend that in
this case.

Since it's Microsoft, #1 or #2 might apply in this case.  I can just hear
Bill Gates, if it got that far, saying "Revenue! Schmevenu!  We don't
support obsolete junk!"  On the other hand, Microsoft might have a
well-defined and possibly legally-sanctioned policy which might even be
"Revenue!  Schmevenu!  We don't support obsolete junk!"

Point 1 is that asking permission is an attempt to activate a system which
will resist making a decision.  Point 2 is that, if made, the decision may
be both unfavorable and illogical.

This is not an argument against making TASC available (why would I oppose
that?) but an observation on corporate behavior.  It doesn't have to be
Bill Gates or his corporation; any large corporation is likely to behave
the same way.  'Course, I could be wrong, but it doesn't look like it from
what I've seen.  It also may be unhelpful, because it does not, by itself,
suggest a successful avenue for getting permission, but maybe someone will
think of something.

Regards,
Larry
-- 
Larry A. Shurr (las@cbgbcs.cb.lucent.com or lshurr@freenet.columbus.oh.us)
A Keane consultant on assignment at Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories
Innovations, but not officially representing the views of either company.