John Andrews, in his forums, under Site News, posted an item titled "Future of DSL". He would be sure that the maximum number of users would surely read his post. Well, it wasn't much to do about ithe future of Damnsmall Linux but rather an attack on me personally. Since John immediately locked his single attack post and removed attribution of my contributions. I want to answer John Andrews post here point by point.
John Andrews wrote:
If John were actually aware of the state of DSL, he would know that murgaLUA had grown to be too slow and bloated. And there were many complaints in the forums. Better yet, actually download and try to use DSL v4.3 versus v4.4
John Andrews wrote:
This is simply not true. What is true, is that I was given some of the contributions and Google ad generated revenue. And that did not initially occur.
In fact when it did start, It was profit sharing. I would on occasion receive NOTHING. When I would inquire about it, I was told that John had to pay his store employees first before sharing any profits. Sometimes, the excuse was "I needed all the profits to re-stock the store".
I let it go. I was NOT in it for the money. It was obvious that John's website stating all monies are for the development of Damnsmall Linux was simply not true.
Much later as John abandoned any duties regarding DSL, I wrote and stated that we have a royalty payment setup. I believe the Google Ad revenue was based on my work, my unique innovations that kept users coming to the site. I again asked John to participate in DSL on an equal basis with me, and there was no answer to participate, but our agreement was changed to a royalty agreement based on donations and Google Ads. John kept all monies from the store operations and shared equally with the royalty agreement.
John's last royalty payment was for September 2008. Yet I continued to publish new releases through Nov 18, 2008. On a royalty basis, John should continue to pay, as my work is still bringing in users to DSL. John Andrew's exiled me from the project. I did not choose to stop work on DSL or abandon the userbase. I was stripped of any access to support "my work" because Andrew's wanted to punish me from hosting my newest project elsewhere. When I found out that John removed attribution and stripped me, I tried to take the high road with my Logout Post but instead Andrews does his faux "Future of DSL" attack post
Did Pearson Education stop royalty payments on the recently released DSL Book, just because I have a new project? Of course not.
John Andrews wrote:
Royalties don't stop when the work stops. They are for published work. Besides I didn't stop working on DSL. I continued to publish DSL until I was exiled. Royalty payments don't cover other new endeavors that I might wish to create. John's story simply does not line up. April?? Yet the Murga incident occurred on June 18. This only further demonstrates how John was a non participant in regards to DSL.
I was trying many things to come up with a new base. I was looking at Finnix, Lenny, and Debian Live. It was in April that I started to choose software that was to become tiny core, months before the Murga incident.
John Andrews wrote:
This is so bogus, I have to laugh! Most all of the Lua/FLTK scripts were written my me. And they were written in flua, well before murgaLua. When I introduced murgaLua into DSL, I would still write to be as independent of murgaLua as possible. Only one script, mikshaw's extension browser, was using Murga specific code. It would have been easy to go back to flua by using flua scripts from prior releases.
Or it would have been very simple to fall back to DSL v4.3 and standard murgaLua and, from the change log, re implement those "minor bug fixes". His statement is simply another excuse.
And one more thing, at the Scale 6x conference, I told John that there is just not much more I can do with a 2.4 kernel based system.
And while I am on the subject of the Murga incident, let me just say..... the very essence of GPL code is so that one has access to the source, and may recompile and use said code. As long as no attribution is removed. In the case of murgaLua, none, nothing, Nada, was removed as to murga's attribution. When he, Murga, failed to show that such was removed, he changed his argument, to point out that his intended use of murgaLua is from the command line. When run as an interpreter from the command line, John Murga's copyrights are displayed. Funny, that was never mentioned or required before.
And I am sure that, used solely as an interpreter, is not the standard method of deployment for many other sites as well.
DSL never in any of its use of murgaLua required being run from the command line.
The recompilation of murgaLua to make it a callable library, which is standard for most of Lua, made murgaLua run much faster as well as being much smaller. Try the downloads and see for yourself.
Even that did not compare to the brutality of John Andrew's single attack and besmirchment post regarding me, and then immediately locking the post. A single attack post. No other posts allowed. Actually, there were some posts the DSL user base that did follow up on John's posts, but John immediately deleted them.
The Murga incident was another "speed bump" and not the derailment of my involvement with DSL.
What I find the most petty of all, is that John Andrews removed the link to my personal website on all references to me and linked it to his besmirchment post.
Also, my posts in the DSL Blog, where all I wrote... was deleted. And what others were constructing, a list of all customizations of DSL showing mostly my name as the creator of said innovation... were deleted.
The user base of DSL knows who made DSL climb the ladder to be a very successful distribution, regardless of these deletions.
And lastly about code use. The code in Tiny Core is what I wrote over five years. I have all of my logs and composition books showing day by day what I was working on and when it was implemented, and I have released it all as GPL licensed, so anyone may use it.