lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert engels <>
Subject Re: Filesystem based bitset
Date Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:06:31 GMT
Your exactly right. Playing well with others has trumped actual  
production and quality. You can see the mess that's gotten us in all  
sorts of areas.

Luckily there are entrepreneurs and other managers/owners that value  
quality first, and let feelings get repaired over beers or not at all.

Your approach is exactly what destroyed the Columbia and their lives  
- politics over substance.

All of the half-baked "engineering" that is discussed on this list is  
a joke.  This list is a place people go to have their egos stroked -  
regardless of what they're saying actually makes any sense.

You should work in Germany sometime - they would laugh at you for  
your attitude !

On Jan 9, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:

> Robert.
> * no one is forcing you to be on this mailing list.
> * next time you look for a job, and your prospective employer  
> 'googles' you, they are going to find this anti-social behavior.  
> "playing well with others" is usually a key employment criteria  
> people look for. (as well as being super-smart like you are).
> Other people have asked you politely to tone it down, but you  
> persist on showing how stupid most of the people on this list are.
> Why not leave the stupid people alone (they have already shown they  
> don't understand your finer points) , and go somewhere where you  
> are more appreciated, or better yet.. prove them wrong and build it  
> your way. I'm sure you convince your peers who are forcing you to  
> use such a feeble-minded project that your approach would work  
> better for them.
> I've even created a space for you on Google-Code for you to show  
> them:-
> Sincerely
> Ian.
> robert engels wrote:
>> I have better things to do than read a 10,000 word incident that  
>> discusses about 100 different topics under the generic heading  
>> "Further steps towards flexible indexing" in order to answer a  
>> simple question.
>> You are a moron.  And I don't mean that in a offensive way - I am  
>> using the secondary definition.
>> Main Entry: *mo·ron *
>> Pronunciation:\ˈmȯr-ˌän\
>> Function:noun
>> Etymology: irregular from Greek /mōros/ foolish, stupid
>> Date: 1910
>> *1*/usually offensive/ *:* a mildly mentally retarded person
>> *2**:* a very stupid person
>> On Jan 9, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 03:42:35PM -0600, robert engels wrote:
>>>> If your index can fit in the IO cache, you should using a  
>>>> completely  different implementation...
>>>> You should be writing a sequential transaction log for add/ 
>>>> update/ delete operations, and storing the entire index in  
>>>> memory  (RAMDirectory) - with periodic background flushes of the  
>>>> log.
>>> That'll work too.
>>>> If you are running multiple processes (in KS), who is invoking  
>>>> them  (inetd or similar?), if not, and users are on the system,  
>>>> you can't  control what will happen with the IO cache...
>>> See LUCENE-1458.
>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:  
>>> <>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:  
>>> <>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message