"Dead" is just a word

In the last couple of days it's been a lot of blogging and discution about the future of Mach-ii. I wont make the jump to deep into the discution, but I've made some observartions.

The discutions was fired of from Peter Farrels posts "Is Mach-ii dead", and the follow up "Mach-ii is dead". I think Peter voiced some really valuable concerns in his posts, but it seems like Peters use of the word "dead" blinded people from the content of the posts. Peter wrote what he did out of care and concern for a framework he's invested a lot of time and energy on. Was his use of the word dead wrong? Maybe. But Peter just put words to what I know that many have been thinking, and the objects of his concern is what should have speared the follow up discution rather than the dead/alive debate.

One other observation I've made is that many has picked up this as a Mach-ii vs Model-Glue discution. While there is some relevance in that discution as well, I feel it's gotten out of proportions. Luckily Joe made a post  that let the air a little out of that baloon.

To wrap it up I'd like to say that I think that all that has blogged/discussed the topic has made valid points, but that the focus on the issues might have come out a bit wrong/skewed.

A similar discution was going on in the Mach-ii mail list several months ago, but after it silenced down all was back to normal. I fear that it will be a week or two and the same will happen this time around as well. Now - I've not got any solutions to offer (and so actually should have just shut up ), but I hope something will come out of it this time. I've seen several suggestions around the other blogs.

So is Mach-ii "dead"? I would say no. Turning the table though - is it alive?