[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de>
 To:  "Giobbi, Ryan" <rgiobbi at AGOC dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch, Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option?
 Date:  Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:09:53 +0100
Am Mittwoch, den 30.11.2005, 20:54 -0500 schrieb Giobbi, Ryan:
> In all seriousness, let me explain something.  Open source works when
> people contribute what they want to see in a project.  It *DOES NOT*
> work when people do nothing but bitch, moan and complain about what
> they want and don't do anything about it.  Want uPNP?  Make an image
> with support that works, and submit the code to Manuel and/or the dev
> list. Obviously from past threads, those of us that contribute
> couldn't give a shit less if uPNP is supported or not.  The other
> alternative is to offer up $X for whoever can implement uPNP.  If X is
> sufficiently large, someone will do it.  This isn't a whining
> competition with the winner getting whatever feature they want.
> If it doesn't make it into the base system, I would gladly host the
> uPNP-enabled images on my site, and link to them from the
> documentation, so the effort wouldn't be for naught.
> sorry, tired as hell of this and similar crap that people want to moan
> about but do nothing to resolve.

Thanks, Chris (or Ryan?). Exactly what I'm thinking of it.


 copyleft(c) by |           People disagree with me. I just ignore them.
 Peter Allgeyer |   _-_     -- Linus Torvalds, regarding the use of C++
                | 0(o_o)0   for the Linux kernel