Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
OS2Guy"@gmail.com © The OS/2 Guy ©
In our continuing efforts to keep OS/2 Warp 4.52 alive with new, fresh
and up-to-date software, OS/2 users will be offered a native OS/2
version of Open Office version 2.0.
OS/2 users will be able to download OpenOffice version 1.1.5 first.
This is a nice update over the previously released 1.1.4 version. The
fixes and updates for the v1.1.5 version can be found at
http://download.openoffice.org/1.1.5/release_notes_1.1.5.html
Open Office v1.1.5 will provide the ability for OS/2 users to exchange
documents with a variety of other products, including the expected Open
Office version 2.0. The Open Office version 2.0 should be available to
OS/2 users during the first quarter of 2006, testing is now underway.
The first releases of Open Office version 2.) will not including WPS
integration but WPS integration will be included in further updates. To
ensure the OS/2 user continues to receive native applications, Open
Officer version 2.0 will be a native OS/2 suite of applications.
You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
currently own earlier versions of OO such as 1.1.4 you will be able to
purchase the new OO v2.0 suite for $30. There was much effort made to
get this $30 reduced even more without success.
Open Office v1.1.5 and v2.0 will require the use of the InnoTek Font
Engine/2 and the InnoTek Runtime/2, both free to personal users from
InnoTek.
I wish to thank all of those OS/2 users who helped back this native OS/2
Open Office v2.0 suite. We worked hard, invested heavily, and should
end up with a fine product to add value to our current Warp 4.52
operating systems.
--
Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
email: OS2...@Gmail.com OR eCS...@Gmail.com
Herbert Rosenau
OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> says "Thank you" to Serenity Systems and
eComStation:
He forgot to say:
You would order OpenOffice 1.1.5 and 2.0 by mensys and any eComStation
reseller as it proves that eComStation gots saled so often that it is
of high interest for Serenity Systems and mensys to build a native
OpenOffice version for eComStation and OS/2 proving that Timmy Martini
aka Larry Alon Chavet is nothing than a dumbass, fudster liar and
tries to destoy OS/2 and its community.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
Bob St.John
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:52:20 UTC, © The OS/2 Guy © <";
> OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> says "Thank you" to Serenity Systems and
> eComStation:
>
>
>
>>Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
>
> He forgot to say:
<snip>
It's not important, Herbert. He's out there shilling for Serenity
Systems International and Mensys. It's his way of apologizing, I guess.
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems International
OS2Guy"@gmail.com © The OS/2 Guy ©
In our continuing efforts to keep OS/2 Warp 4.52 alive with new,
fresh and up-to-date software, OS/2 users will be offered a native
OS/2 version of Open Office version 2.0.
OS/2 users will be able to download OpenOffice version 1.1.5 first.
This is a nice update over the previously released 1.1.4 version.
The fixes and updates for the v1.1.5 version can be found at
http://download.openoffice.org/1.1.5/release_notes_1.1.5.html
Open Office v1.1.5 will provide the ability for OS/2 users to exchange
documents with a variety of other products, including the expected
Open Office version 2.0. The Open Office version 2.0 should be
available to OS/2 users during the first quarter of 2006, testing is
now underway.
The first releases of Open Office version 2.) will not including WPS
integration but WPS integration will be included in further updates.
To ensure the OS/2 user continues to receive native applications,
Open Office version 2.0 will be a native OS/2 suite of applications.
You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite.
If you currently own earlier versions of OO such as 1.1.4 you will be
able to purchase the new OO v2.0 suite for $30. There was much
effort made to get this $30 reduced even more without success.
Open Office v1.1.5 and v2.0 will require the use of the InnoTek
Font Engine/2 and the InnoTek Runtime/2, both free to personal
users from InnoTek.
I wish to thank all of those OS/2 users who helped back this native
OS/2 Open Office v2.0 suite. We worked hard, invested heavily,
and should end up with a fine product to add value to our current
Warp 4.52 operating systems.
--
leto...@nospam.net
Give it up booby. You have a history here of not doing the right thing
until pressured in public. Operating your business illegally is one. TM
getting you to do something with open office is another. -- Your lack of
ethics and preformance is why IBM fired you.
In <436d1678$0$1761$8b46...@news.nationwide.net>, on 11/05/2005
OS2Guy"@gmail.com © The OS/2 Guy ©
> Give it up booby. You have a history here of not doing the right thing
> until pressured in public. Operating your business illegally is one. TM
> getting you to do something with open office is another. -- Your lack of
> ethics and preformance is why IBM fired you.
This is true but what is also true is the fact that Serenity has little
to do
with the financial support of a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0. That cost
is being borne by the buyer and by those of us who have ponied up
substantial funds.
What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means. It is,
by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
WPS integrations.
Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
of eCS Lusers.
Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
of all of OS/2's native features.
Bob St.John
reposting of the SSI announcement and your support of SSI and Mensys.
But stick with the announcement text, which is true and accurate.
Frankly, all that reposting was unnecessary.
© The OS/2 Guy © wrote:
> leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> Give it up booby. You have a history here of not doing the right thing
>> until pressured in public. Operating your business illegally is one. TM
>> getting you to do something with open office is another. -- Your lack of
>> ethics and preformance is why IBM fired you.
>
>
> This is true but what is also true is the fact that Serenity has little
> to do
> with the financial support of a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0. That cost
> is being borne by the buyer and by those of us who have ponied up
> substantial funds.
The complete extent of the truth in your entire posting is here. That is
that costs are ultimately borne by the user. Revenue pays for continued
investment in products. There is no funding, other than that provided by
SSI, directly.
>
> What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
> he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
> can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
> leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
> of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
There is no non-disclosure. If there was, you couldn't sign, anyway,
because I would insist on verifiable identities .. which leaves sock
puppets out. iow, no "Tim Martin".
> This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means. It is,
> by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
> for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
> upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
> WPS integrations.
This is OO.org for eComStation and IBM OS/2 users. But I doubt anyone in
IBM is even aware. IBM has a rather strictly enforced policy not to
"prolong" the use of OS/2. IBM would would not support this project.
>
> Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
> is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
> of eCS Lusers.
>
> Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
> impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
> Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
> that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
> coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
The "deal" was brokered by Serenity, Mensys, and the developer resource,
only.
>
> So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
> their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
> OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
> Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
> of all of OS/2's native features.
And SSI remains grateful to the OS/2 community for its support of all
its products, including the Product of the Year awards for the
eComStation releases. The best release is entering the chute, now.
Martin T
The OS/2 Guy © <"; OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
: Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
[ snip ]
: You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
Good news for OS/2 (it really needed an up to date Office suit), but isn't
OpenOffice supposed to be free (as in both available source code, and also free
to use as in "free beer"), with StarOffice being the full commercial application
package *1 with included support from Sun?
The price also seems different? StarOffice being about $70 for electronic
license, and $100 for retail package with printed manual (both prices valid for
software installed up to 5 machines) *2.
*1 http://www.sun.com/software/star/openoffice/docs/SO_Comparison_OOo.pdf
*2 http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice/competitive_view.jsp
martin
--
Martin Törnsten - http://martin.tornsten.com/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Bob St.John
> Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:52:20 -0500 received comm from ©
> The OS/2 Guy © <"; OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> : Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
>
> [ snip ]
>
> : You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
>
> Good news for OS/2 (it really needed an up to date Office suit), but isn't
> OpenOffice supposed to be free
Well, "Tim" isn't really making an official announcement. The actual
announcement refers to a support agreement for $49. As part of the
support agreement, users would received the OpenOffice.org distributions
tested and support on eComStation and IBM OS/2.
Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their own".
Martin T
"Bob St.John" <sere...@augustmail.com> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
Sounds good if as good and easy to use as the free Windows and Linux versions of
OpenOffice, but (and this is maybe just me a bit sceptical) what's in it in the
rather strange wording "download OpenOffice.org"?
As I understand it, it means "will be free to download the native OS/2
OpenOffice 2.0 application from OpenOffice.org", but I just curious if something
else is hidden here except the lack of dedicated phone support and such?
Bob St.John
<snip>
: Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
own".
>
> Sounds good if as good and easy to use as the free Windows and Linux versions of
> OpenOffice, but (and this is maybe just me a bit sceptical) what's in it in the
> rather strange wording "download OpenOffice.org"?
>
> As I understand it, it means "will be free to download the native OS/2
> OpenOffice 2.0 application from OpenOffice.org", but I just curious if something
> else is hidden here except the lack of dedicated phone support and such?
It will not be the same as the distribution which comes with the support
agreement. But it is too early to say precisely what the differences
will be.
The eCS Guy
> Geez .. give it rest. Some folks may appreciate your continued
> reposting of the SSI announcement and your support of SSI and Mensys.
> But stick with the announcement text, which is true and accurate.
> Frankly, all that reposting was unnecessary.
I didn't see a posting of the SSI announcement authored by
Dr. Martin, can you point it out to all of us? What I saw was
a posting from Dr. Martin announcing a native OS/2 version
of Open Office v.2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 users. There is no
mention of SSI or eComStation in his announcement at all.
> © The OS/2 Guy © wrote:
>
>> leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>> Give it up booby. You have a history here of not doing the right thing
>>> until pressured in public. Operating your business illegally is one. TM
>>> getting you to do something with open office is another. -- Your
>>> lack of
>>> ethics and preformance is why IBM fired you.
>>
>> This is true but what is also true is the fact that Serenity has
>> little to do
>> with the financial support of a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0. That cost
>> is being borne by the buyer and by those of us who have ponied up
>> substantial funds.
>
> The complete extent of the truth in your entire posting is here. That is
> that costs are ultimately borne by the user. Revenue pays for continued
> investment in products. There is no funding, other than that provided by
> SSI, directly.
From what I read SSI is not providing any funding. The entire cost
is to be paid for by OS/2 users. All that SSI, i.e., you, Bob St. John,
has done is made the same announcement Dr. Martin made except
you made it to your own eCS customers. Were can I go on the SSI
website and buy "your" version of OO. v2.0 for OS/2?
>> What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
>> he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
>> can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
>> leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
>> of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
>
> There is no non-disclosure. If there was, you couldn't sign, anyway,
> because I would insist on verifiable identities .. which leaves sock
> puppets out. iow, no "Tim Martin".
I don't think you would have any authority to make such a demand.
It is IBM who is granting the right for the port of OOo v2.0 over to
OS/2. It is IBM's OS/2 code that is to be used. Serenity aka SSI
aka Bob St. John has no OS/2 code to speak of to offer to anyone.
>> This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means. It is,
>> by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
>> for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
>> upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
>> WPS integrations.
>
> This is OO.org for eComStation and IBM OS/2 users. But I doubt anyone in
> IBM is even aware. IBM has a rather strictly enforced policy not to
> "prolong" the use of OS/2. IBM would would not support this project.
What we know is the port is to be a native OS/2 port, not a native
eComStation port. And such a port would require IBM's approval.
People can't steal IBM's OS/2 code.
>> Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
>> is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
>> of eCS Lusers.
>>
>> Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
>> impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
>> Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
>> that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
>> coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
>
> The "deal" was brokered by Serenity, Mensys, and the developer resource,
> only.
There is no proof of that other then your personal say so. Dr. Martin
says differently. Who is the developer resource that is hidden by
the non-disclosure agreement Dr. Martin mentions? Can you tell us
that or is it forbidden for you to do so by the non-disclosure agreement?
Are you even part of the native OOo v2.0 agreement?
>> So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
>> their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
>> OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
>> Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
>> of all of OS/2's native features.
>
> And SSI remains grateful to the OS/2 community for its support of all
> its products, including the Product of the Year awards for the
> eComStation releases. The best release is entering the chute, now.
But you've been telling people the same thing for seven years and
few of us have bought into your claims. Those of us that have, have
dropped eCS and returned to OS/2 Warp 4.52 because it works.
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> Give it up booby. You have a history here of not doing the right thing
>> until pressured in public. Operating your business illegally is one. TM
>> getting you to do something with open office is another. -- Your lack of
>> ethics and preformance is why IBM fired you.
>
>
> This is true
You mean it is true that Bob St. John was released from his employment
with IBM?
but what is also true is the fact that Serenity has little
> to do
> with the financial support of a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0. That cost
> is being borne by the buyer and by those of us who have ponied up
> substantial funds.
That's how I read it too. I paid for OOo v1.1 and OOl v1.1.4 for a total
of $70 ($40 for v1.1 and 30 more for 1.1.4). Neither one of them ever
worked. If I were to buy v2.0 I'd have to pay another $30 for a grand
total of $100 for what is supposed to be a 'free' suite of applications.
The very same suite of applications that _are_ offered to Windows
and Linux users for free. Those guys don't pay anything to get it.
> What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
> he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
> can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
> leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
> of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
I asked him to name the people who will be the developers or
programmers. I'm still waiting for his answer.
> This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means.
I didn't think it was. If it is a native OS/2 version of OOo v2.0
then it would be using IBM's OS/2 code. It will probably have
problems running on an eCS system.
It is,
> by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
> for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
> upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
> WPS integrations.
You mean it will _look_ like an OS/2 application? That would
be cool!
> Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
> is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
> of eCS Lusers.
I asked Bob about this too. If Serenity were any part of this deal
then why can't I buy it on the Serenity web site? I'll bet I will be
able to buy it at BMT, huh?
> Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
> impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
> Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
> that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
> coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
They have done the same thing before so it isn't a big surprise.
I was glad to see your announement, Tim.
> So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
> their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
> OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
> Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
> of all of OS/2's native features.
You are very welcome. I will wait until the suite is actually delivered
and read some of the real reviews before I hand over more money.
I'm getting pretty tired of paying for 'half baked' software and for
software from vendors who disappear as quickly as they appeared.
Thanks again, Tim.
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
So Dr. Martin is right then, that it will cost the OS/2 user $50 and it
won't
be available for free download on the OpenOffice.org site?
Why do you keep dismissing his announcements and then turn around
and confirm what he says in those announcements?
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> Martin T wrote:
>
>> Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:52:20 -0500 received
>> comm from ©
>> The OS/2 Guy © <"; OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>>
>> : Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>
>> : You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
>> Good news for OS/2 (it really needed an up to date Office suit), but
>> isn't
>> OpenOffice supposed to be free
>
>
> Well, "Tim" isn't really making an official announcement.
His announcement is just as official as yours is, except his announcement
is directed to OS/2 users.
The actual
> announcement refers to a support agreement for $49. As part of the
> support agreement, users would received the OpenOffice.org distributions
> tested and support on eComStation and IBM OS/2.
Dr. Martin said the cost was $50. You are confirming that. What you aren't
saying is that the OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 is native eCS but native OS/2.
So it isn't really designed for eCS users but for OS/2 users.
> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their own".
What does that mean? Will the native OS/2 version of Open Office be
available
for download at the OpenOffice.org web site? THAT would be great because
there is no mention of OS/2 there at all.
The eCS Guy
Jeroen Besse
> Bob St.John wrote:
>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>> own".
>
> What does that mean?
Download at no charge: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.0/source.html
"roll their own": compile it to an OS/2 binary (e.g with GCC).
Alternatively:
Download at no charge a build for some OS (e.g. Windows), and create an
environment (e.g. ODIN) to run it in.
If you don't want to do either of those (compile it yourself or create
an environment for an existing build), you can pay someone to do it for you.
Bob St.John
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
>> Martin T wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> : Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll
>> their own".
>>
>>>
>>> Sounds good if as good and easy to use as the free Windows and Linux
>>> versions of
>>> OpenOffice, but (and this is maybe just me a bit sceptical) what's in
>>> it in the
>>> rather strange wording "download OpenOffice.org"?
>>>
>>> As I understand it, it means "will be free to download the native OS/2
>>> OpenOffice 2.0 application from OpenOffice.org", but I just curious
>>> if something
>>> else is hidden here except the lack of dedicated phone support and such?
>>
>>
>>
>> It will not be the same as the distribution which comes with the
>> support agreement. But it is too early to say precisely what the
>> differences will be.
>
>
> So Dr. Martin is right then, that it will cost the OS/2 user $50 and it
> won't
> be available for free download on the OpenOffice.org site?
What won't be available? The support agreement? No, that must be
purchased. However, users can still download OpenOffice.org from the
OpenOffice.org web site.
> Why do you keep dismissing his announcements and then turn around
> and confirm what he says in those announcements?
Execuse me? "Tim Martin" said users should expect to pay $50 for the
OpenOffice.org suite for eComStation and IBM OS/2. That would seem to
refer to the SSI Support Agreement. I see nothing else which discusses
providing a distribution of the software for $50 or any other price.
Maybe you should ask "Tim Martin" for more details. Such, where this
item may be purchased .. who is selling it .. things you would expect in
an "announcement".
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Syetems International
Bob St.John
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
>> Martin T wrote:
>>
>>> Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:52:20 -0500 received
>>> comm from ©
>>> The OS/2 Guy © <"; OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>>>
>>> : Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
>>>
>>> [ snip ]
>>>
>>> : You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
>>> Good news for OS/2 (it really needed an up to date Office suit), but
>>> isn't
>>> OpenOffice supposed to be free
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, "Tim" isn't really making an official announcement.
>
>
> His announcement is just as official as yours is, except his announcement
> is directed to OS/2 users.
Lol .. really. Then where would one go to purchase what "Tim Martin" has
announced ..or download it for free.
>
> The actual
>
>> announcement refers to a support agreement for $49. As part of the
>> support agreement, users would received the OpenOffice.org
>> distributions tested and support on eComStation and IBM OS/2.
>
>
> Dr. Martin said the cost was $50. You are confirming that.
That would be the cost of the SSI support agreement. Is that what "Tim
Martin" announced? If so, than "Tim Martin" would be alluding to the SSI
announcement.
> What you
> aren't
> saying is that the OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 is native eCS but native OS/2.
> So it isn't really designed for eCS users but for OS/2 users.
Where did I ever say anything was designed for eComStatoin users ... and
not OS/2 users?
>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>> own".
>
>
> What does that mean? Will the native OS/2 version of Open Office be
> available
> for download at the OpenOffice.org web site? THAT would be great because
> there is no mention of OS/2 there at all.
Gee .. perhaps you should check with "Tim Martin" .. see if he knows.
Bob St.John
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
>> Geez .. give it rest. Some folks may appreciate your continued
>> reposting of the SSI announcement and your support of SSI and Mensys.
>> But stick with the announcement text, which is true and accurate.
>> Frankly, all that reposting was unnecessary.
>
>
> I didn't see a posting of the SSI announcement authored by
> Dr. Martin, can you point it out to all of us? What I saw was
> a posting from Dr. Martin announcing a native OS/2 version
> of Open Office v.2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 users. There is no
> mention of SSI or eComStation in his announcement at all.
And is the native OS/2 version of OpenOffice.org V2 for OS/2 Warp 4.52
mentioned by "Tim Martin" in some way different from that which will be
distributed through the SSI support agreement? If so, in what way and
how would one acquire it?
<snip>
> From what I read SSI is not providing any funding. The entire cost
> is to be paid for by OS/2 users.
Well, you can't believe everything you read, can you? The project is
entirely funded by SSI and SSI, alone. Now .. how will OS/2 users pay
the cost?
> All that SSI, i.e., you, Bob St. John,
> has done is made the same announcement Dr. Martin made except
> you made it to your own eCS customers. Were can I go on the SSI
> website and buy "your" version of OO. v2.0 for OS/2?
The SSI distribution will be made available through the support
agreement. This can be purchased on-line from Mensys. And all users,
OS/2 users, Linux, Windows ..are welcome to order it.
>
>>> What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
>>> he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
>>> can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
>>> leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
>>> of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
>>
>>
>> There is no non-disclosure. If there was, you couldn't sign, anyway,
>> because I would insist on verifiable identities .. which leaves sock
>> puppets out. iow, no "Tim Martin".
>
>
> I don't think you would have any authority to make such a demand.
> It is IBM who is granting the right for the port of OOo v2.0 over to
> OS/2. It is IBM's OS/2 code that is to be used. Serenity aka SSI
> aka Bob St. John has no OS/2 code to speak of to offer to anyone.
This doesn't even make sense. First, who are the parties signing the
NDAs to which "Tim Martin" refers? I have no clue and no one involved in
this project has signed any NDAs.
Next, no code is required from IBM. Why would it be? Third, you have no
idea what agreements SSI has with IBM.
>
>>> This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means. It is,
>>> by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
>>> for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
>>> upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
>>> WPS integrations.
>>
>>
>> This is OO.org for eComStation and IBM OS/2 users. But I doubt anyone
>> in IBM is even aware. IBM has a rather strictly enforced policy not to
>> "prolong" the use of OS/2. IBM would would not support this project.
>
>
> What we know is the port is to be a native OS/2 port, not a native
> eComStation port. And such a port would require IBM's approval.
> People can't steal IBM's OS/2 code.
Why would IBM need to approve? What IBM code is being used? Does IBM
need to approve ISV applications? No. So, what are you saying? Do you know?
>
>>> Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
>>> is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
>>> of eCS Lusers.
>>>
>>> Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
>>> impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
>>> Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
>>> that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
>>> coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
>>
>>
>> The "deal" was brokered by Serenity, Mensys, and the developer
>> resource, only.
>
>
> There is no proof of that other then your personal say so. Dr. Martin
> says differently. Who is the developer resource that is hidden by
> the non-disclosure agreement Dr. Martin mentions? Can you tell us
> that or is it forbidden for you to do so by the non-disclosure agreement?
> Are you even part of the native OOo v2.0 agreement?
Why not ask "Tim Martin" .. oh! Wait!! He can't say .. he says he
signed an NDA!! .. No, wait . he didn't say he signed an NDA . .he said
I signed and NDA! .. No, that's not right because I haven't signed an
NDA regarding this project. And neither did the developer resource. So
.. who signed the NDA? Better ask "Tim Martin"! No! Wait! He can't say
because he signed an NDA, didn't he!?!? I dunno .. ask him, yourself.
>
>>> So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
>>> their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
>>> OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
>>> Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
>>> of all of OS/2's native features.
>>
>>
>> And SSI remains grateful to the OS/2 community for its support of all
>> its products, including the Product of the Year awards for the
>> eComStation releases. The best release is entering the chute, now.
>
>
> But you've been telling people the same thing for seven years and
> few of us have bought into your claims. Those of us that have, have
> dropped eCS and returned to OS/2 Warp 4.52 because it works.
Enough people have bought into the claim to keep the product going. And
soon, IBM withdraws IBM OS/2 Warp .. all versions. But eComStation will
continue. Isn't that great!
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>>> own".
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> Download at no charge: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.0/source.html
> "roll their own": compile it to an OS/2 binary (e.g with GCC).
Why doesn't someone in the OS/2 community do this and make it
available to all of us for free? It sounds pretty simple.
> Alternatively:
> Download at no charge a build for some OS (e.g. Windows), and create an
> environment (e.g. ODIN) to run it in.
What's the point? Just to be able to say we are running OOo under
OS/2 in a Windows environment?
> If you don't want to do either of those (compile it yourself or create
> an environment for an existing build), you can pay someone to do it for
> you.
Is that the $50 version Dr. Martin is talking about? Why are they
charging so much? How is that fair?
I think of it this way. I paid $40 something for v1.1.1. Then I paid
another
$30 something for v1.1.4.
If I had just waited for the native OS/2 version of OOo v2.0 for $50 I would
have saved $20.
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>> Martin T wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> : Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll
>>> their own".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good if as good and easy to use as the free Windows and Linux
>>>> versions of
>>>> OpenOffice, but (and this is maybe just me a bit sceptical) what's
>>>> in it in the
>>>> rather strange wording "download OpenOffice.org"?
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, it means "will be free to download the native OS/2
>>>> OpenOffice 2.0 application from OpenOffice.org", but I just curious
>>>> if something
>>>> else is hidden here except the lack of dedicated phone support and
>>>> such?
>>>
>>> It will not be the same as the distribution which comes with the
>>> support agreement. But it is too early to say precisely what the
>>> differences will be.
>>
>> So Dr. Martin is right then, that it will cost the OS/2 user $50 and
>> it won't
>> be available for free download on the OpenOffice.org site?
>
> What won't be available?
A native OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 on the OpenOffice.org site.
Will it or won't it be able there?
> The support agreement?
Why would the OpenOffice.org site offer a support agreement?
> No, that must be
> purchased.
That's the $50 charge Dr. Martin is talking about, right?
> However, users can still download OpenOffice.org from the
> OpenOffice.org web site.
Will it be a native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0? You haven't
answered that question at all.
>> Why do you keep dismissing his announcements and then turn around
>> and confirm what he says in those announcements?
>
> Execuse me? "Tim Martin" said users should expect to pay $50 for the
> OpenOffice.org suite for eComStation and IBM OS/2.
He didn't say anything about eComStation. He said OS/2 Warp 4.52.
You just said above that a native OS/2 version of Open Office for
OS/2 could be "purchased". Instead of calling it Open Office v2.0
for OS/2 you have called it "support agreement". Or are you telling
me that the purchase of "support agreement" will not get the buyer
a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0? Which is it?
> That would seem to
> refer to the SSI Support Agreement. I see nothing else which discusses
> providing a distribution of the software for $50 or any other price.
I don't see an "SSI Support Agreement" just a "support agreement".
Would I go to the SSI website to get the SSI Support Agreement
(and why would I want to do that when I can get the native OS/2
version of Open Office v2.0 for Os/2 Warp 4.52 elsewhere?)?
> Maybe you should ask "Tim Martin" for more details. Such, where this
> item may be purchased .. who is selling it .. things you would expect in
> an "announcement".
So what you are saying is that the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user cannot buy
the native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0 because there is no such
thing but there is a $50 support agreement that can be purchased
somewhere on the 'Net?
I'm sure Dr. Martin will provide more information as the information
becomes available to him or am I mistaken and a native OS/2
version of Open Office for OS/2 v.20 is available today?
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>> Martin T wrote:
>>>
>>>> Captain's log. On StarDate Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:52:20 -0500 received
>>>> comm from ©
>>>> The OS/2 Guy © <"; OS2Guy"@Gmail.com;> on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>>>>
>>>> : Announce: Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 !
>>>>
>>>> [ snip ]
>>>>
>>>> : You can expect to pay a $50 price for the upcoming OO suite. If you
>>>> Good news for OS/2 (it really needed an up to date Office suit), but
>>>> isn't
>>>> OpenOffice supposed to be free
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, "Tim" isn't really making an official announcement.
>>
>>
>>
>> His announcement is just as official as yours is, except his announcement
>> is directed to OS/2 users.
>
>
> Lol .. really. Then where would one go to purchase what "Tim Martin" has
> announced ..or download it for free.
Yes, really. Dr. Martin is making an announcement, he's not offering
it for sale. Your announcement does the same thing. You (SSI) aren't
selling Open Office for OS/2 v2.0 on your web site - or do I have that
wrong? You both say a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2
v.20 will cost $50.
The only difference I see between the two of you is that Dr. Martin's
announcement is aimed at OS/2 users while your announcement
is aimed at your eComstation customers.
>> The actual
>>
>>> announcement refers to a support agreement for $49. As part of the
>>> support agreement, users would received the OpenOffice.org
>>> distributions tested and support on eComStation and IBM OS/2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Martin said the cost was $50. You are confirming that.
>
> That would be the cost of the SSI support agreement. Is that what "Tim
> Martin" announced? If so, than "Tim Martin" would be alluding to the SSI
> announcement.
Dr. Martin said the cost would be $50. Will the buyer get a native
OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 or won't they? If I'm an
eCS customer am I supposed to go to the SSI site and buy a
support agreement and if I do, will the SSI support agreement
give me a copy of the OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2?
Where is the SSI site?
>> What you aren't
>> saying is that the OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 is native eCS but native
>> OS/2.
>> So it isn't really designed for eCS users but for OS/2 users.
>
> Where did I ever say anything was designed for eComStatoin users ... and
> not OS/2 users?
Then why are you even mentioning eComstation at all if it is a native
OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2?
>>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>>> own".
>>
>> What does that mean? Will the native OS/2 version of Open Office be
>> available
>> for download at the OpenOffice.org web site? THAT would be great because
>> there is no mention of OS/2 there at all.
>
> Gee .. perhaps you should check with "Tim Martin" .. see if he knows.
Dr. Martin didn't say anything about a 'free' native version of an
OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 but you did. You said
the OS/2 user could go to the OpenOffice.org web site and download
OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their own".
My question to you, once again, will the native OS/2 version of
Open Office be available for download at the OpenOffice.org web site?
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>> Geez .. give it rest. Some folks may appreciate your continued
>>> reposting of the SSI announcement and your support of SSI and Mensys.
>>> But stick with the announcement text, which is true and accurate.
>>> Frankly, all that reposting was unnecessary.
>>
>> I didn't see a posting of the SSI announcement authored by
>> Dr. Martin, can you point it out to all of us? What I saw was
>> a posting from Dr. Martin announcing a native OS/2 version
>> of Open Office v.2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 users. There is no
>> mention of SSI or eComStation in his announcement at all.
>
> And is the native OS/2 version of OpenOffice.org V2 for OS/2 Warp 4.52
> mentioned by "Tim Martin" in some way different from that which will be
> distributed through the SSI support agreement? If so, in what way and
> how would one acquire it?
> <snip>
I don't know because I can't find an SSI website or any mention
of an SSI support agreement? Where is the SSI website and
where is the SSI support agreement mentioned or talked about
on that website?
Dr. Martin says the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a
native OS/2 version of Open Office version 2.0 for OS/2 for $50?
>> From what I read SSI is not providing any funding. The entire cost
>> is to be paid for by OS/2 users.
>
> Well, you can't believe everything you read, can you?
You want me to believe there is an SSI website and on that website
you are selling an "SSI support agreement". I can't find such a
website so I don't have much faith in what you say.
OTOH, Dr. Martin has been around here for years and he has always
provided valuable OS/2 information. He has credibility here and
when he says the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user can buy a native OS/2 version
of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 I believe him.
Are you telling us all, here and now, that a native OS/2 version
of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 will not be available to OS/2
Warp 4.52 users?
> The project is
> entirely funded by SSI and SSI, alone. Now .. how will OS/2 users pay
> the cost?
If that were true then why would you charge your customers $50 for
a free product? Where can I find the SSI website and read about
this funding venture?
>> All that SSI, i.e., you, Bob St. John,
>> has done is made the same announcement Dr. Martin made except
>> you made it to your own eCS customers. Were can I go on the SSI
>> website and buy "your" version of OO. v2.0 for OS/2?
>
> The SSI distribution will be made available through the support
> agreement. This can be purchased on-line from Mensys. And all users,
> OS/2 users, Linux, Windows ..are welcome to order it.
So what you are saying is that there really is no SSI web site selling
an SSI support agreement and that you are claiming there is a
support agreement on another website that can be purchased.
How much is that support agreement and how does it differ from
your support agreement?
>>>> What Booby isn't telling anyone is the truth behind the deal NOR is
>>>> he telling anyone who the developers/programmers will be. He
>>>> can't for two reasons: Non-disclosure agreements and if it were to
>>>> leak out exactly who the actual people behind the development
>>>> of OO v2.0 were, 'ol Boob would be red-faced.
>>>
>>> There is no non-disclosure. If there was, you couldn't sign, anyway,
>>> because I would insist on verifiable identities .. which leaves sock
>>> puppets out. iow, no "Tim Martin".
>>
>> I don't think you would have any authority to make such a demand.
>> It is IBM who is granting the right for the port of OOo v2.0 over to
>> OS/2. It is IBM's OS/2 code that is to be used. Serenity aka SSI
>> aka Bob St. John has no OS/2 code to speak of to offer to anyone.
>
>
> This doesn't even make sense. First, who are the parties signing the
> NDAs to which "Tim Martin" refers? I have no clue and no one involved in
> this project has signed any NDAs.
Then who is the developer/programmer who is going to make this
native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 ? Why is
it such a big secret?
> Next, no code is required from IBM. Why would it be? Third, you have no
> idea what agreements SSI has with IBM.
The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
IBM would have to give their ok to do so. You can't steal IBM's
OS/2 code, we all know that. Wait, maybe you are saying this
SSI place has an agreement with IBM to steal the WPS OS/2
source code and use it, is that what you are saying?
>>>> This is not an OpenOffice for eComStation by any means. It is,
>>>> by direct command of IBM, a native OS/2 OpenOffice v2.0
>>>> for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user. Integrating the WPS into this
>>>> upcoming native version requires IBM's okay to include those
>>>> WPS integrations.
>>>
>>> This is OO.org for eComStation and IBM OS/2 users. But I doubt anyone
>>> in IBM is even aware. IBM has a rather strictly enforced policy not
>>> to "prolong" the use of OS/2. IBM would would not support this project.
>>
>> What we know is the port is to be a native OS/2 port, not a native
>> eComStation port. And such a port would require IBM's approval.
>> People can't steal IBM's OS/2 code.
>
> Why would IBM need to approve? What IBM code is being used? Does IBM
> need to approve ISV applications? No. So, what are you saying? Do you
> know?
I don't think you know what you are saying. Tonight you have said
that SSI was selling a support agreement but you can't provide an
SSI website where a person could review the support agreement.
You won't tell us if your support agreement means you get a free
copy of a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0
only that it costs $49.
Dr. Martin says OS/2 Warp 4.52 users will be able to purchase
a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 for
$50. True or not true?
>>>> Serenity is not selling OpenOffice v2.0. The support contract
>>>> is available to every OS/2 user and not restricted to the handful
>>>> of eCS Lusers.
>>>>
>>>> Herbutt doesn't mention any of that because they want to give the
>>>> impression that this is a deal Serenity brokered. It isn't at all.
>>>> Serenity is trying to take the lead and make the indirect claim
>>>> that they had a great deal to do with it but the port is actually
>>>> coming from pressure from the OS/2 community alone.
>>>
>>> The "deal" was brokered by Serenity, Mensys, and the developer
>>> resource, only.
>>
>> There is no proof of that other then your personal say so. Dr. Martin
>> says differently. Who is the developer resource that is hidden by
>> the non-disclosure agreement Dr. Martin mentions? Can you tell us
>> that or is it forbidden for you to do so by the non-disclosure agreement?
>> Are you even part of the native OOo v2.0 agreement?
>
>
> Why not ask "Tim Martin" .. oh! Wait!! He can't say .. he says he
> signed an NDA!! .. No, wait . he didn't say he signed an NDA . .he said
> I signed and NDA! .. No, that's not right because I haven't signed an
> NDA regarding this project. And neither did the developer resource. So
> .. who signed the NDA? Better ask "Tim Martin"! No! Wait! He can't say
> because he signed an NDA, didn't he!?!? I dunno .. ask him, yourself.
Dr. Martin never said he signed an NDA at all. You are making that
up. Dr. Martin said you wouldn't reveal the names of the developers/
programms for a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0
because an NDA had been signed.
You make up things and then go nuts trying to explain them.
>>>> So "Timmy" says thanks to the OS/2 Warp 4.52 users for thumbing
>>>> their noses at eCS and demanding the native updated port. Our
>>>> OpenOffice v2.0 will outshine those OO releases for Windows and
>>>> Linux because ours will be native OS/2 and will take advantage
>>>> of all of OS/2's native features.
>>>
>>> And SSI remains grateful to the OS/2 community for its support of all
>>> its products, including the Product of the Year awards for the
>>> eComStation releases. The best release is entering the chute, now.
>>
>> But you've been telling people the same thing for seven years and
>> few of us have bought into your claims. Those of us that have, have
>> dropped eCS and returned to OS/2 Warp 4.52 because it works.
>
> Enough people have bought into the claim to keep the product going. And
> soon, IBM withdraws IBM OS/2 Warp .. all versions. But eComStation will
> continue. Isn't that great!
I don't know if that is true or not, none of us do. Just as none of us know
if OS/2 will be here tomorrow or will be taken off the shelf and trashed.
I think you have to tell people that eComstation will continue but we all
know that without OS/2 there really is no eComstation. If you can't get
IBM to give you the source code to OS/2 so you can improve or change
OS/2 then you'll be forced to continue to pile all kinds of stuff on top of
eComstation. That will breed in more instability and problems for the
eComstation customer.
OTOH, ff the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user can buy a native OS/2 version
of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 and not buy eComstation then their
really is no future for eComstation. Dr. Martin says we can and that's
good enough for me. :-)
The eCS Guy
Steve Wendt
> I don't know because I can't find an SSI website or any mention
> of an SSI support agreement? Where is the SSI website and
> where is the SSI support agreement mentioned or talked about
> on that website?
http://www.ecomstation.com/openoffice.phtml
> Dr. Martin says the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a
> native OS/2 version of Open Office version 2.0 for OS/2 for $50?
That's what it says on the URL referenced.
> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
> Dr. Martin said you wouldn't reveal the names of the developers/
> programms for a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0
I'm a little curious about this myself, but I don't think it makes all
that much difference.
> Just as none of us know if OS/2 will be here tomorrow
> or will be taken off the shelf and trashed.
IBM has made their intentions pretty clear.
Erick Andrews
"Dr. Martin says"? "Dr. Martin says"?
What? Are we playing "1-2-3 Red Light" now?
Or maybe Simple Simon?
--
Best,
Erick Andrews
delete bogus to reply
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> I don't know because I can't find an SSI website or any mention
>> of an SSI support agreement? Where is the SSI website and
>> where is the SSI support agreement mentioned or talked about
>> on that website?
>
>
> http://www.ecomstation.com/openoffice.phtml
>
>> Dr. Martin says the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a
>> native OS/2 version of Open Office version 2.0 for OS/2 for $50?
>
>
> That's what it says on the URL referenced.
The url above refers to OS/2 Warp 4.52 and eComstation.
Will there be a separate release of Open Office v2.0 for
eComstation or will the eComstation user just buy the very
same OS/2 Warp 4.52 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0?
>> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>
> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
I'm not a programmer but I've never seen the WPS on any other
operating system but OS/2. IBM owns OS/2 so why wouldn't
they own the WPS source code? Or did they make that open
source?
>> Dr. Martin said you wouldn't reveal the names of the developers/
>> programms for a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0
>
> I'm a little curious about this myself, but I don't think it makes all
> that much difference.
I'm curious because Dr. Martin said Serenity wouldn't want the
name of the developers or programmers to be known because
the eCS users wouldn't like it (or something along those lines).
>> Just as none of us know if OS/2 will be here tomorrow or will be taken
>> off the shelf and trashed.
>
> IBM has made their intentions pretty clear.
Which makes any future of eComstation just as empty other then
to pile on free programs and claim eComstation is the [empty]
future of OS/2. If it is free to eComstation then it is free to OS/2
there is no point to eComstation.
The eCS Guy
Steve Wendt
> Will there be a separate release of Open Office v2.0 for
> eComstation or will the eComstation user just buy the very
> same OS/2 Warp 4.52 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0?
Why would it be any different?
>>> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>>> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>>> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>>
>> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
>
> I'm not a programmer but I've never seen the WPS on any other
> operating system but OS/2. IBM owns OS/2 so why wouldn't
> they own the WPS source code? Or did they make that open
> source?
I wish it were open source, but it is not. The WPS is designed to be
enhanced by third-party programs, without needing the source code.
Projects like XWorkplace are an excellent example of that.
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Will there be a separate release of Open Office v2.0 for
>> eComstation or will the eComstation user just buy the very
>> same OS/2 Warp 4.52 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0?
>
> Why would it be any different?
Why wouldn't it be? Why is it called eComstation and not
OS/2 Warp 4.52? Why does eComstation have a "maintenance
tool" while OS/2 doesn't need one? Why would anyone promote
an OS/2 native suite of applications for anything other than OS/2
Warp 4.52?
You tell me.
>>>> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>>>> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>>>> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
>>
>>
>> I'm not a programmer but I've never seen the WPS on any other
>> operating system but OS/2. IBM owns OS/2 so why wouldn't
>> they own the WPS source code? Or did they make that open
>> source?
>
>
> I wish it were open source, but it is not. The WPS is designed to be
> enhanced by third-party programs, without needing the source code.
> Projects like XWorkplace are an excellent example of that.
So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
to tap into the WPS source code? Xworkplace has bugs, seems
admittedly incomplete, doesn't take full advantage of the WPS
and the author has either abandoned it or has stopped working
on it. Is this because IBM won't give him access to important WPS
source code? Are these problems indicative of all programs that
try to tap into the WPS and can we expect the same with an OS/2
native version of Open Office v2.0? Will the developers or programmers
of OO v2.0 for OS/2 abandon or stop improving it when they can't
gain access to OS/2 WPS source code?
The eCS Guy
Steve Wendt
> So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
> to tap into the WPS source code?
It doesn't "tap into" the source code. As I said, the WPS was designed
to be extended by others. No permission from IBM necessary.
> Xworkplace has bugs,
What doesn't?
> doesn't take full advantage of the WPS
Oh? You don't even seem to know what the WPS is.
> the author has either abandoned it or has stopped working on it.
The last release wasn't even from the original author - one of the
benefits of open source.
Bob St.John
Why are you asking me? Why not ask "Tim Martin"? You seem comfortable
with his statement and position, not mine. So .. ask him. And ask him
when, too.
>> The support agreement?
>
>
> Why would the OpenOffice.org site offer a support agreement?
Again, "Tim Martin" referred to paying $50 for the OpenOffice.org office
suite. I don't know where that comes from, do you? I said that SSI will
be offering s support agreement. As part of that agreement, users will
receive distributions of OpenOffice.org which were designed and tested
to run on eComStation and IBM OS/2. That is part of the SSI announcement.
Now ... if that is not what "Tim Martin" is referring to, why don't you
ask him what he is referring to, because, I don't know.
>
>> No, that must be purchased.
>
>
> That's the $50 charge Dr. Martin is talking about, right?
One would think so. That is the only fee that I have seen and it comes
from the SSI announcement. But .. if you want to know what "Tim Martin"
is talking about .. ask him, not me.
>
>> However, users can still download OpenOffice.org from the
>> OpenOffice.org web site.
>
>
> Will it be a native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0? You haven't
> answered that question at all.
Again, why ask me? Why not ask "Tim Martin", as you have accepted his
position that SSI is a marginal player at best. So, why ask me? The fact
is, SSI will be distibuting OpenOffice.org which has been designed and
tested on eComStation and IBM OS/2. "Tim Martin" claims to have made a
significant investment in the development of a suite for OS/2 4.52 ..
ask him when that will be available on the OpenOffice.org site.
SSI will be focusing on our support agreement.
>
>>> Why do you keep dismissing his announcements and then turn around
>>> and confirm what he says in those announcements?
>>
>>
>> Execuse me? "Tim Martin" said users should expect to pay $50 for the
>> OpenOffice.org suite for eComStation and IBM OS/2.
>
>
> He didn't say anything about eComStation. He said OS/2 Warp 4.52.
Fine. Then you need to get more information from him about.
> You just said above that a native OS/2 version of Open Office for
> OS/2 could be "purchased". Instead of calling it Open Office v2.0
> for OS/2 you have called it "support agreement". Or are you telling
> me that the purchase of "support agreement" will not get the buyer
> a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0? Which is it?
Read the text above. It's clear from the postings and the original SSI
announcement.
>> That would seem to refer to the SSI Support Agreement. I see nothing
>> else which discusses providing a distribution of the software for $50
>> or any other price.
>
>
> I don't see an "SSI Support Agreement" just a "support agreement".
> Would I go to the SSI website to get the SSI Support Agreement
> (and why would I want to do that when I can get the native OS/2
> version of Open Office v2.0 for Os/2 Warp 4.52 elsewhere?)?
Then you are covered. Don't get the support agreement.
>> Maybe you should ask "Tim Martin" for more details. Such, where this
>> item may be purchased .. who is selling it .. things you would expect
>> in an "announcement".
>
>
> So what you are saying is that the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user cannot buy
> the native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0 because there is no such
> thing but there is a $50 support agreement that can be purchased
> somewhere on the 'Net?
I said you need to find out from "Tim Martin" what he is talking about.
You can read the SSI announcement. I believe it is clear.
>
> I'm sure Dr. Martin will provide more information as the information
> becomes available to him or am I mistaken and a native OS/2
> version of Open Office for OS/2 v.20 is available today?
Great. Well, then .. you will get more information from "Tim Martin" as
it becomes available to him. For folks who want information now, they
can read the SSI announcement.
Bob St.John
<snip>
>
> Yes, really. Dr. Martin is making an announcement, he's not offering
> it for sale. Your announcement does the same thing. You (SSI) aren't
> selling Open Office for OS/2 v2.0 on your web site - or do I have that
> wrong? You both say a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2
> v.20 will cost $50.
Please read the announcement. It clearly states what is for sale and how
much.
> The only difference I see between the two of you is that Dr. Martin's
> announcement is aimed at OS/2 users while your announcement
> is aimed at your eComstation customers.
Really? Great. Then it would seem that "Tim Martin" is advocating that
OS/2 user should purchase our support agreement. Very nice.
>
>>> The actual
>>>
>>>> announcement refers to a support agreement for $49. As part of the
>>>> support agreement, users would received the OpenOffice.org
>>>> distributions tested and support on eComStation and IBM OS/2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Martin said the cost was $50. You are confirming that.
>>
>>
>> That would be the cost of the SSI support agreement. Is that what "Tim
>> Martin" announced? If so, than "Tim Martin" would be alluding to the
>> SSI announcement.
>
>
> Dr. Martin said the cost would be $50. Will the buyer get a native
> OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 or won't they? If I'm an
> eCS customer am I supposed to go to the SSI site and buy a
> support agreement and if I do, will the SSI support agreement
> give me a copy of the OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2?
> Where is the SSI site?
From the Department of Reduncancy Department, read the announcement.
>
>>> What you aren't
>>> saying is that the OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 is native eCS but native
>>> OS/2.
>>> So it isn't really designed for eCS users but for OS/2 users.
>>
>>
>> Where did I ever say anything was designed for eComStatoin users ...
>> and not OS/2 users?
>
>
> Then why are you even mentioning eComstation at all if it is a native
> OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2?
Why not? After all, in a few short weeks, folks won't be able to buy
OS/2 .. but they will be able to buy eComStation. That alone is
justification for pointed it out.
>>>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>>>> own".
>>>
>>>
>>> What does that mean? Will the native OS/2 version of Open Office be
>>> available
>>> for download at the OpenOffice.org web site? THAT would be great
>>> because
>>> there is no mention of OS/2 there at all.
>>
>>
>> Gee .. perhaps you should check with "Tim Martin" .. see if he knows.
>
>
>
> Dr. Martin didn't say anything about a 'free' native version of an
> OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 for OS/2 but you did.
No, I didn't.
> You said
> the OS/2 user could go to the OpenOffice.org web site and download
> OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their own".
Correct.
>
> My question to you, once again, will the native OS/2 version of
> Open Office be available for download at the OpenOffice.org web site?
Once again, ask "Tim Martin". I have nothing to do with OpenOffice.org site.
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
>> to tap into the WPS source code?
>
>
> It doesn't "tap into" the source code. As I said, the WPS was designed
> to be extended by others. No permission from IBM necessary.
Then why was it abandoned or stopped? It is incomplete and if the WPS
can be extended by others what is preventing the author from completing it?
>
>> Xworkplace has bugs,
>
> What doesn't?
A lot of things. That doesn't explain why the author has stopped
fixing the bugs. Is it because he can't get access to the WPS
source code from IBM?
>> doesn't take full advantage of the WPS
>
> Oh? You don't even seem to know what the WPS is.
I don't need to know what the WPS is. All I need to do is
read what others, who do know about these things, write
and complain about. XWorkplace is incomplete. Are we
to expect Open Office for OS/2 v2.0 to follow the same
path and if that is likely to happen, why should anyone
pay $50 for it?
>> the author has either abandoned it or has stopped working on it.
>
> The last release wasn't even from the original author - one of the
> benefits of open source.
So you're saying the author abandoned or gave his source code
away to the public? We know that IBM hasn't done that with OS/2.
If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
and to take more advantage of the WPS? Is it because IBM
won't release to them OS/2 source code?
Here's what I'm reading so far:
There is currently no native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0.
If we can find an SSI website we can pay $49 for a support
contract that doesn't guarantee us a copy of a native OS/2
version of Open Office v2.0. If we pay Mensys $50 we can
eventually get a copy of a native OS/2 version of Open Office
v2.0 but it won't have WPS integration. Later on somel unidentified
developer/programmer will use a third party program to add WPS
features but those features may be buggy or incomplete.
With all those problems why would anyone want to pre-pay for
a suite of applications that may or may not work while the
Windows or Linux users don't have to pay for anything and
they get the Suite of applications today just for the download?
The eCS Guy
Jeroen Besse
> Jeroen Besse wrote:
>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>>
>>>> Users can still download OpenOffice.org at no charge and "roll their
>>>> own".
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> Download at no charge: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.0/source.html
>> "roll their own": compile it to an OS/2 binary (e.g with GCC).
>
> Why doesn't someone in the OS/2 community do this and make it
> available to all of us for free? It sounds pretty simple.
Anyone is free to do that. Even you. Go for it. You'll find out whether
it's easy or not. If you find out tah it's not easy, you'll understand
why the SSI offering (doing the build for you if you can't do it
yourself) is of value.
>> Alternatively:
>> Download at no charge a build for some OS (e.g. Windows), and create
>> an environment (e.g. ODIN) to run it in.
>
> What's the point? Just to be able to say we are running OOo under
> OS/2 in a Windows environment?
It's not about telling whether you're using a Windows environment; it's
about being able to do the things you need to do. If it works, it works.
I have java, acrobat reader and previous versions of OOo working that way.
>> If you don't want to do either of those (compile it yourself or create
>> an environment for an existing build), you can pay someone to do it
>> for you.
>
> Is that the $50 version Dr. Martin is talking about? Why are they
> charging so much? How is that fair?
Maybe. Ask "Dr. Martin" what he has to offer. SSI has a clear offer,
available through Mensys. "Dr. Martin", however, has given no indication
as to where to obtain it. If you want to know more about that one, ask
"Dr. Martin".
> I think of it this way. I paid $40 something for v1.1.1. Then I paid
> another
> $30 something for v1.1.4.
On behalf of Mensys and SSI: thanks for the sponsoring. 1.1.4 was a free
upgrade to 1.1.1 users.
> If I had just waited for the native OS/2 version of OOo v2.0 for $50 I
> would
> have saved $20.
Not so, there is an upgrade offering from 1.1.4 to 2.0, for $29. So you
CAN save those $20. Of course, you're free to sponsor both Mensys and
SSI again by going for the full thing. ;-)
--
Best regards,
Jeroen Besse
http://rblcheck.besse.nl/
(to contact me: the nospam address actually exists)
Luc Van Bogaert
wrote:
> > The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
> > native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
> > IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>
> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
No suprise for someone who has difficulty installing a program object
on his Desktop :-) And he's still searching the web for the meaning of
GCC.... what a loser!
--
Luc Van Bogaert
Via ProNews/2 & eComStation
http://www.os2world.com/os2ecs
Jan Danielsson
>>> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>>> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>>> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>>
>> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
>
> I'm not a programmer but I've never seen the WPS on any other
> operating system but OS/2. IBM owns OS/2 so why wouldn't
> they own the WPS source code? Or did they make that open
> source?
You are right: You are not a programmer.
Relevant words for you to look up: Toolkit, SDK, API.
--
Kind Regards,
Jan Danielsson
Te audire non possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
Mike Ruskai
<eCS...@Gmail.com> dribble thusly:
>I'm curious because Dr. Martin said Serenity wouldn't want the
I try to avoid reading Chauvet-generated junk, but this kind of caught
my attention.
Am I the only one who can avoid laughing only through numb disbelief
that Timmy now claims to have a doctorate?
--
- Mike
Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.
Menno
Mike Ruskai wrote:
> On or about Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:38:18 -0500 did The eCS Guy
> <eCS...@Gmail.com> dribble thusly:
>
> >I'm curious because Dr. Martin said Serenity wouldn't want the
>
> I try to avoid reading Chauvet-generated junk, but this kind of caught
> my attention.
>
> Am I the only one who can avoid laughing only through numb disbelief
> that Timmy now claims to have a doctorate?
Old news... He's now not only claiming to have a doctorate, but also to
be the driving force behind the upcoming Open Office 2.0 port to OS/2.
This despite the fact that he had to have explained to him what GCC is.
He's never told us what his subject is, though. According to His
Doctorship this is because people would ridicule him if he did. I fail
to see in what way this would be different from the current situation,
but then I've long since given up trying to find reason in his thought
processes.
I think he's in the "amusing" phase of the cycle again.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Mark Dodel
<eand...@bogusstar.net> wrote:
-> "Dr. Martin says"? "Dr. Martin says"?
->
-> What? Are we playing "1-2-3 Red Light" now?
->
-> Or maybe Simple Simon?
->
Shouldn't that be "simpleton martin"?
Mark
--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel
http://www.os2voice.org
Warpstock 2005, Hershey, PA, Oct 6-9, 2005 - http://www.warpstock.org
The eCS Guy
I'm asking _you_ because _you_ claimed you and you alone brokered
this so-called "deal". You said OS/2 users could download Open Office
v2.0 and "roll their own" then added "It will not be the same as the
distribution which comes with the support agreement. But it is too early
to say precisely what the differences will be."
Dr. Martin didn't say that - _you_ did.
So why do you refuse to answer the question only you can answer?
Will a native OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 be available on the
OpenOffice.org site?
>>> The support agreement?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would the OpenOffice.org site offer a support agreement?
>
>
> Again, "Tim Martin" referred to paying $50 for the OpenOffice.org office
> suite. I don't know where that comes from, do you? I said that SSI will
> be offering s support agreement. As part of that agreement, users will
> receive distributions of OpenOffice.org which were designed and tested
> to run on eComStation and IBM OS/2. That is part of the SSI announcement.
So what you are admitting here is that SSI is selling a support agreement
for $49 except, so far, there is no SSI site to buy this support agreement
from. AND, the buyer takes their chances on ever seeing a native version
of Open Office v2.0 or any updated version for that matter if they buy the
support agreement from you.
That is what I read you saying.
Dr. Martin has announced a native version of Open Office v2.0 will
be available in the near future for just $50 to all OS/2/ Warp 4.52
users.
What would be better for the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user? To buy your
"support agreement" that doesn't guarantee anything for the $49
you want or waiting until a native version of Open Office v2.0 is
available and paying $50 for it?
> Now ... if that is not what "Tim Martin" is referring to, why don't you
> ask him what he is referring to, because, I don't know.
Dr. Martin said nothing about buying a "support agreement" from
SSI. Dr. Martin is an OS/2 user and not an eComstation user so
I don't think he would be telling OS/2 users to buy a "support
agreement" but I do think he would tell OS/2 users to wait until
an honest-to-goodness real native OS/2 Open Office v2.0 suite
is available to purchase. And that the suite will be available
sometime after the first of the new year.
>>> No, that must be purchased.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the $50 charge Dr. Martin is talking about, right?
>
>
> One would think so. That is the only fee that I have seen and it comes
> from the SSI announcement. But .. if you want to know what "Tim Martin"
> is talking about .. ask him, not me.
Where is the SSI website so we can see the SSI announcement
and buy the "support agreement" if we are interested?
>
>>
>>> However, users can still download OpenOffice.org from the
>>> OpenOffice.org web site.
>>
>>
>>
>> Will it be a native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0? You haven't
>> answered that question at all.
>
>
> Again, why ask me? Why not ask "Tim Martin", as you have accepted his
> position that SSI is a marginal player at best. So, why ask me? The fact
> is, SSI will be distibuting OpenOffice.org which has been designed and
> tested on eComStation and IBM OS/2. "Tim Martin" claims to have made a
> significant investment in the development of a suite for OS/2 4.52 ..
> ask him when that will be available on the OpenOffice.org site.
Again you just dodge a question you must know the answer to but you
don't want to tell us.
> SSI will be focusing on our support agreement.
Again, where is the SSI website so we can read the facts about
the support agreement?
>
>>
>>>> Why do you keep dismissing his announcements and then turn around
>>>> and confirm what he says in those announcements?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Execuse me? "Tim Martin" said users should expect to pay $50 for the
>>> OpenOffice.org suite for eComStation and IBM OS/2.
>>
>>
>>
>> He didn't say anything about eComStation. He said OS/2 Warp 4.52.
>
>
> Fine. Then you need to get more information from him about.
Are you telling us that there will be no native OS/2 version of
Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52?
>> You just said above that a native OS/2 version of Open Office for
>> OS/2 could be "purchased". Instead of calling it Open Office v2.0
>> for OS/2 you have called it "support agreement". Or are you telling
>> me that the purchase of "support agreement" will not get the buyer
>> a native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0? Which is it?
>
>
> Read the text above. It's clear from the postings and the original SSI
> announcement.
Okay. Where is the SSI website so I can read the announcement?
http://www.ssi.com is a Chinese (?) website and I can't find any
announcement.
>
>>> That would seem to refer to the SSI Support Agreement. I see nothing
>>> else which discusses providing a distribution of the software for $50
>>> or any other price.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see an "SSI Support Agreement" just a "support agreement".
>> Would I go to the SSI website to get the SSI Support Agreement
>> (and why would I want to do that when I can get the native OS/2
>> version of Open Office v2.0 for Os/2 Warp 4.52 elsewhere?)?
>
>
> Then you are covered. Don't get the support agreement.
Oh great. So you agree that I'll be able to get a native version
of Open Office v2.0 for OS/2 Warp 4.52 and I'll be able to do
so 'elsewhere'. Excellent. That's what Dr. Martin said too.
>
>>> Maybe you should ask "Tim Martin" for more details. Such, where this
>>> item may be purchased .. who is selling it .. things you would expect
>>> in an "announcement".
>>
>>
>>
>> So what you are saying is that the OS/2 Warp 4.52 user cannot buy
>> the native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0 because there is no such
>> thing but there is a $50 support agreement that can be purchased
>> somewhere on the 'Net?
>
>
> I said you need to find out from "Tim Martin" what he is talking about.
> You can read the SSI announcement. I believe it is clear.
See above. We can go around and around. It is obvious to all
readers that you are not going to be helpful here.
>
>>
>> I'm sure Dr. Martin will provide more information as the information
>> becomes available to him or am I mistaken and a native OS/2
>> version of Open Office for OS/2 v.20 is available today?
>
>
> Great. Well, then .. you will get more information from "Tim Martin" as
> it becomes available to him. For folks who want information now, they
> can read the SSI announcement.
Wait. You ignored the question. Is a native OS/2 version of Open
Office for OS/2 v2.0 available today? Would we buy it from SSI.com?
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 03:31:30 UTC, "Erick Andrews"
> <eand...@bogusstar.net> wrote:
>
> -> "Dr. Martin says"? "Dr. Martin says"?
> ->
> -> What? Are we playing "1-2-3 Red Light" now?
> ->
> -> Or maybe Simple Simon?
> ->
>
> Shouldn't that be "simpleton martin"?
>
> Mark
>
Mark, do you or don't you have his Sausalito residential
address? Yes or no would be the polite answer.
Thanks.
The eCS Guy
Steve Wendt
>> It doesn't "tap into" the source code. As I said, the WPS was
>> designed to be extended by others. No permission from IBM necessary.
>
> Then why was it abandoned or stopped?
Neither is true, as I already mentioned.
>>> Xworkplace has bugs,
>>
>> What doesn't?
>
> A lot of things.
Again, you make it clear that you know nothing about software development.
> I don't need to know what the WPS is. All I need to do is
> read what others, who do know about these things, write
> and complain about.
You're the one doing the complaining, and you don't even know what you
are complaining about. :)
>> The last release wasn't even from the original author - one of the
>> benefits of open source.
>
> So you're saying the author abandoned or gave his source code
> away to the public?
I already mentioned that it was open source.
> If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
> authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
They have.
Bob St.John
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>> A native OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 on the OpenOffice.org site.
>>> Will it or won't it be able there?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you asking me? Why not ask "Tim Martin"? You seem comfortable
>> with his statement and position, not mine. So .. ask him. And ask him
>> when, too.
>
>
> I'm asking _you_ because _you_ claimed you and you alone brokered
> this so-called "deal".
But "Tim Martin" claimed to broker the deal and you find him credible,
while I'm incredible. So .. ask him. Ask him how he plans to deliver the
native OS/2 version of OpenOffice.org v2 to the OS/2 4.52 users. I have
already explained our offering several times. Let's not become bores ..
oops. Too late.
I understand how pointless and futile it will be to get information of
import from "Tim Martin" on this topic. But you made your choice. For
actual information, please
seehttp://www.ecomstation.com/edp/mod/fileman/files/OpenOfficeAnnouncement.pdf
If you want to buy the support agreement ... go to http://www.mensys.nl.
Search on openoffice .. or just order product 670707 or 670715, which
ever is appropriate. I know you claim to have purchased the 1.l.1
version, but you also claimed to have paid $30 for what was a no charge
upgrade .. which I find a bit incredible.
Thank you,
Luc Van Bogaert
wrote:
> > If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
> > authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
>
> They have.
Even spelling it out to this guy just isn't enough to make him
understand. Did he ever go to school or something?
Mark Dodel
<yhp.ina...@fxlarg.or> wrote:
-> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:52:46 UTC, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org>
-> wrote:
->
-> > > If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
-> > > authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
-> >
-> > They have.
->
-> Even spelling it out to this guy just isn't enough to make him
-> understand. Did he ever go to school or something?
->
Larry probably ate a lot of paint chips as a child. What is truly
weird is it appears he still likes to snack on them in the evenings.
He probably went to public school (as did I, but I didn't munch on
paint chips). Here in the US over the past 40 years or so they have
what is called social promotion. So even someone like Larry that
obviously can't read, write or think on an age appropriate level is
promoted up and out of school.
The eCS Guy
> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>
>>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>
>>>> A native OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 on the OpenOffice.org site.
>>>> Will it or won't it be able there?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you asking me? Why not ask "Tim Martin"? You seem comfortable
>>> with his statement and position, not mine. So .. ask him. And ask him
>>> when, too.
>>
>> I'm asking _you_ because _you_ claimed you and you alone brokered
>> this so-called "deal".
>
>
> But "Tim Martin" claimed to broker the deal and you find him credible,
Now you're making up lies. This is why so many find Serenity, SSI, Bob
St. John
and eComStation have no credibility. When push comes to shove you lie.
I am happy to hear the OS/2 user will get a native version of Open Office
version 2.0 for just $50. God only knows what you are selling to your eCS
customers but if they are so naive to believe you then they deserve to
waste their money!
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 07:21:27 UTC, "Luc Van Bogaert"
> <yhp.ina...@fxlarg.or> wrote:
>
> -> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:52:46 UTC, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org>
> -> wrote:
> ->
> -> > > If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
> -> > > authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
> -> >
> -> > They have.
> ->
> -> Even spelling it out to this guy just isn't enough to make him
> -> understand. Did he ever go to school or something?
> ->
>
> Larry probably ate a lot of paint chips as a child. What is truly
> weird is it appears he still likes to snack on them in the evenings.
>
> He probably went to public school (as did I, but I didn't munch on
> paint chips). Here in the US over the past 40 years or so they have
> what is called social promotion. So even someone like Larry that
> obviously can't read, write or think on an age appropriate level is
> promoted up and out of school.
>
> Mark
Mark, you keep avoiding my previous posts so I'm going to keep
dogging you until you come forth with a yes or no.
You claim this guy "Larry" lives in Sausalito, California. My wife
and I spent more than two weeks there going through every public
record we could find and we checked with the Sheriff's Department
and the voting records. There is no "Chauvet" family or person
living in Sausalito.
You said you had his address. Please email me privately if you
are afraid to post it publicly. I don't think the individual is even
aware of your slanderous statements and I would like to bring
them to his attention. I believe you refuse to answer me because
you are fearful of a slander lawsuit. Is that the case?
The eCS Guy
Bob St.John
> Bob St.John wrote:
>
>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>
>>> Bob St.John wrote:
>>>
>>>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> A native OS/2 version of OpenOffice v2.0 on the OpenOffice.org site.
>>>>> Will it or won't it be able there?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you asking me? Why not ask "Tim Martin"? You seem
>>>> comfortable with his statement and position, not mine. So .. ask
>>>> him. And ask him when, too.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm asking _you_ because _you_ claimed you and you alone brokered
>>> this so-called "deal".
>>
>>
>>
>> But "Tim Martin" claimed to broker the deal and you find him credible,
>
>
> Now you're making up lies.
Oh? Then "Tim Martin" is *not* credible. I agree. Took you long enough
to wise up, though.
Regards,
Luc Van Bogaert
> You said you had his address. Please email me privately if you
> are afraid to post it publicly. I don't think the individual is even
> aware of your slanderous statements and I would like to bring
> them to his attention. I believe you refuse to answer me because
> you are fearful of a slander lawsuit. Is that the case?
Tell you what : go the the HUD offices in San Francisco and tell them
you want to talk to Larry Chauvet. They'll probably first laugh with
you, but if you insist that you still want to talk to Larry, you might
earn yourself a few weeks of vacation :-) That should be time enough
to make a decision on who's OpenOffice for OS/2 to buy : Serenity's
offering or the one crazy Timmy keeps trolling about...
Mat Nieuwenhoven
:>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:52:46 UTC, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org>
:>wrote:
:>
:>> > If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
:>> > authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
:>>
:>> They have.
:>
:>Even spelling it out to this guy just isn't enough to make him
:>understand. Did he ever go to school or something?
Maybe he has negative intelligence.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Erick Andrews
The polite answer is: Who cares!
Erick Andrews
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 07:21:27 UTC, "Luc Van Bogaert"
> <yhp.ina...@fxlarg.or> wrote:
>
> -> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:52:46 UTC, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org>
> -> wrote:
> ->
> -> > > If the Xworkplace source code is now free why haven't more
> -> > > authors picked up the slack and updated it to fix the problems
> -> >
> -> > They have.
> ->
> -> Even spelling it out to this guy just isn't enough to make him
> -> understand. Did he ever go to school or something?
> ->
>
> Larry probably ate a lot of paint chips as a child. What is truly
> weird is it appears he still likes to snack on them in the evenings.
>
> He probably went to public school (as did I, but I didn't munch on
> paint chips). Here in the US over the past 40 years or so they have
> what is called social promotion. So even someone like Larry that
> obviously can't read, write or think on an age appropriate level is
> promoted up and out of school.
>
> Mark
Mark--
ROTFLMAO!!!!
The eCS Guy
That's one for the books. You lie then you slam a credible OS/2 user.
No wonder so few have any respect for you or your product.
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
The claim made by Mark Dodel is that this "Larry" guy lives in
Sausalito. Do you know where in Sausalito he lives? You guys
have just picked a name out of a phone book and decided
to slander the person behind the name. I think he should be
aware of that and I'll bet he doesn't even know.
So what is his address in Sausalito, Luc? If you can't provide
that then we all know you guys have just made up all the crap
you say about him.
Serenity isn't offering a native version of Open Office v2.0
according to every public statement made by Bob St. John.
In fact, Bob St. John says you can buy a "security agreement"
from a ficticious website called SSI.com. Dr. Martin says the
OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a native version of
Open Office v2.0 for $50 after the first of the year. What
proof do you have that his statement isn't true?
I would believe Dr. Martin over Bob St. John, any time.
The eCS Guy
Jeroen Besse
> In fact, Bob St. John says you can buy a "security agreement"
> from a ficticious website called SSI.com.
Showing off your reading problems, again? Bob never mentioned "security
agreement" or "SSI.com".
The eCS Guy
I'm sorry, you're right. Bob claimed he was selling a "support
agreement" of some kind and we know that isn't the sale of
a native OS/2 version of Open Office v2.0. It seems to be a
'back door' approach to raising money based on a vague promise
of some kind - to maybe deliver something? Yes, that's a question
because I still don't know what his support agreement is supposed
to support He should add a 'money back guarantee' to his support
agreement if he wants it to have some credibility.
We are all still trying to find his website, SSI.com. He refers to
SSI repeatedly but the SSI.com website is a Chinese website
that does not list any type of support agreement. I don't read
Chinese and that may very well be his website but it isn't
registered to him according to the public records.
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes and allowing me to clarify.
BTW, since this is still the "Finding Larry" thread, do you have
this phantom Larry's residential address? I think it was Mark
Modell who said this Larry guy lived in Sausalito. If I can get
a home address for him I will print out many of the claims
and remarks made in these newsgroups about him and
present them to him. I think he would be surprised (and probably
a bit angered) that his name has been bantied about with such
malice.
The eCS Guy
Luc Van Bogaert
> So what is his address in Sausalito, Luc? If you can't provide
> that then we all know you guys have just made up all the crap
> you say about him.
As I suggested : go look him up at his San Francisco HUD Office and
ask him. Some of his posts to these newsgroups orginated there, so he
should be aware of something, shouldn't he?
> Dr. Martin says the
> OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a native version of
> Open Office v2.0 for $50 after the first of the year.
Great! You should ask the "doctor" where to buy it! And if you don't
like Serenity's offering, don't buy it.
> I would believe Dr. Martin over Bob St. John, any time.
Obviously.
The eCS Guy
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:31:06 UTC, The eCS Guy <eCS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So what is his address in Sausalito, Luc? If you can't provide
>>that then we all know you guys have just made up all the crap
>>you say about him.
>
>
> As I suggested : go look him up at his San Francisco HUD Office and
> ask him. Some of his posts to these newsgroups orginated there, so he
> should be aware of something, shouldn't he?
So you are afraid to tell us his address Luc? Is that it? Are you too
another known slanderer?
>>Dr. Martin says the
>>OS/2 Warp 4.52 user will be able to buy a native version of
>>Open Office v2.0 for $50 after the first of the year.
>
>
> Great! You should ask the "doctor" where to buy it! And if you don't
> like Serenity's offering, don't buy it.
I guess we all know we won't be able to buy anything at the
"SSI.com" Chinese website, huh?
>
>>I would believe Dr. Martin over Bob St. John, any time.
>
>
> Obviously.
>
Great. We are in agreement. Now give me this Larry guy's home
address in Sausalito. You said he lived there. I want to print out
your slanderous newsgroup messages and put them in his mail
box so he knows what you are saying.
The eCS Guy
Luc Van Bogaert
> So you are afraid to tell us his address Luc?
Why don't you go ask him his address at the San Francisco HUD office?
You already spent 2 weeks looking for it in Sausolito, without
success. You could have saved that time if you'd just gone to HUD. But
you still can...and it won't take you 2 weeks to find out what you
want to know.
> I guess we all know we won't be able to buy anything at the
> "SSI.com" Chinese website, huh?
I'm afraid you have made up a connection between ssi.com and OOo/2 in
your own mind, as this has never been posted here, or anywhere else,
and it simply doesn't exist. You seem to do stuff like that more then
occasionaly. Although your condition doesn't seem to trouble you, I'm
certain that you have noticed that it makes if difficult for other
people to go into discussion with you, as you just keep posting stuff
that... doesn't exist. OTOH you seem to ignore stuff that can easily
be verified, if you would just be able to read and comprehend what was
written. Are you even aware of the problem?
So, why don't you ask the "doctor" where to buy the OpenOffice/2 that
he keeps trolling about?
> You said he lived there.
I didn't. It must be that condition acting up again... If not, why
don't you point me to a relevant post...
The eCS Guy
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:55:37 UTC, The eCS Guy <eCS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So you are afraid to tell us his address Luc?
>
>
> Why don't you go ask him his address at the San Francisco HUD office?
Why would I do such a thing? I don't even know if he is the person
you keep claiming lives in Sausalito. As far as I know, he is just
a person who works for the HUD company and his name was
chosen at random or for some other reason. No one has ever
proven he is the same person who you claim lives in Sausalito.
> You already spent 2 weeks looking for it in Sausolito, without
> success. You could have saved that time if you'd just gone to HUD. But
> you still can...and it won't take you 2 weeks to find out what you
> want to know.
How could I have saved time by going to the HUD place? Do
you think they would give me the home address? I don't even
know if they are one and the same.
>>I guess we all know we won't be able to buy anything at the
>>"SSI.com" Chinese website, huh?
>
> I'm afraid you have made up a connection between ssi.com and OOo/2 in
> your own mind, as this has never been posted here, or anywhere else,
> and it simply doesn't exist.
No, you are dead wrong here. Bob St. John has repeatedly claimed
that SSI is offering a support agreement. He doesn't tell us what a
support agreement does but he does say SSI is offering it. What is
SSI but his own company but the SSI.com web site does not belong
to Bob St. John according to the records.
You seem to do stuff like that more then
> occasionaly. Although your condition doesn't seem to trouble you, I'm
> certain that you have noticed that it makes if difficult for other
> people to go into discussion with you, as you just keep posting stuff
> that... doesn't exist. OTOH you seem to ignore stuff that can easily
> be verified, if you would just be able to read and comprehend what was
> written. Are you even aware of the problem?
I'm fully cognizant of what is reported here. It has been clearly
established
that Bob St. John represents a company called SSI. Where is SSI located
on the world wide web? Would it not be logical to believe a company called
SSI would have a web site url called SSI.com? If not, why is Bob hiding his
company's support agreement and what does the agreement support other
than a cost of $49 for SSI?
> So, why don't you ask the "doctor" where to buy the OpenOffice/2 that
> he keeps trolling about?
Dr. Martin has made it abundantly clear that a native OS/2 version
of OpenOffice v2.0 will be available to every OS/2 Warp 4.52 during
the first quarter of 2006. It isn't available today so it can't be sold
anywhere until it is a real product. Trying to sell a fake product today
would be illegal but then, I could be wrong because I don't know
how they go about selling things in your country.
>>You said he lived there.
>
>
> I didn't. It must be that condition acting up again... If not, why
> don't you point me to a relevant post...
Check the subject line. You are the person "Finding Larry ....".
So where is he and what proof do you have that he is the
person that lives in Sausalito?
Best wishes to you,
The eCS Guy
Luc Van Bogaert
> > Why don't you go ask him his address at the San Francisco HUD office?
>
> Why would I do such a thing?
Obviously, to find out where the guy lives. You've been spamming these
newsgroups for weeks now by asking everyone for his address. So, go to
HUD and find out.... or isn't that your real purpose here, and are you
just spamming the newsgroup?
> I don't even know if he is the person
> you keep claiming lives in Sausalito.
No, it's you that keeps claiming he's in Sausalito. I'm trying to
help, and I suggest you go to HUD in San Francisco and ask Larry his
address, if that's what you want to know. I suspect you don't care
about the address, but are just out to keep posting spam.
> proven he is the same person who you claim lives in Sausalito.
No, that would be your claim. All I say is go to HUD and find out.
> Do you think they would give me the home address?
Maybe, if you ask friendly.
> No, you are dead wrong here. Bob St. John has repeatedly claimed
> that SSI is offering a support agreement.
Yes indeed. He has provided all the information about the offering in
his announcements : what the agreement covers, what it costs and where
to buy it.
> He doesn't tell us what a
> support agreement does
Sure he does. Just read the announcement on the web site, or in these
newsgroups.
> but he does say SSI is offering it.
Yes, that's right and some people have already bought it.
> What is SSI but his own company but the SSI.com web site does not belong
> to Bob St. John according to the records.
Why should it? It seems you're only acting dumb, as I just know that
no one can be as stupid as you're playing here. You silly guy :-)
> I'm fully cognizant of what is reported here.
Obviously not, as you are making it clear that you haven't read what's
in SSI's recent announcements. So, I take it you aren't aware of your
condition that causes you to read things that aren't there and to miss
clearly stated facts that can easily be verified. Have you saught help
for this condition?
> Would it not be logical to believe a company called
> SSI would have a web site url called SSI.com?
No. You've been using the Internet how long? If you are near an
education center, maybe it would be a good idea to find out if they
offer training courses about using the internet and stuff like that.
You obviously seem to be missing a lot of what's going on.
> If not, why is Bob hiding his company's support agreement
He's not hiding it. You are ignoring it. Where to buy has been
announced. A number of people have already bought it. Why haven't you
read the announcement?
> and what does the agreement support other
> than a cost of $49 for SSI?
That's all stated in SSI's recent announcements. Why haven't you read
those?
> Dr. Martin has made it abundantly clear that a native OS/2 version
> of OpenOffice v2.0 will be available to every OS/2 Warp 4.52 during
> the first quarter of 2006. It isn't available today so it can't be sold
> anywhere until it is a real product.
The "doctor" has made a big mistake by announcing vaporware. He's
hurting the OS/2 community by spreading false and misleading
information. Have you taken that up with him yet? You should asap.
Fortunately, there are company's like SSI that make an announcement
and make sure that the product is actually for sale.
> Trying to sell a fake product today
> would be illegal but then
Exactly! Better take this matter up with the "doctor", before people
start complaining about how the product he is offering is nothing but
vaporware and doesn't actually exist, as you have so clearly pointed
out above.
> > I didn't. It must be that condition acting up again... If not, why
> > don't you point me to a relevant post...
>
> Check the subject line. You are the person "Finding Larry ....".
No, you are. I'm just helping you to find him...
BTW : you seem to know very well why to remove "[FUD4]" in every reply
you post here. Why do you keep doing this? Are you out to spam these
newsgroups? Is that your real purpose here, other than seeking
attention?
Herbert Rosenau
> Steve Wendt wrote:
> > The eCS Guy wrote:
> >
> >> Will there be a separate release of Open Office v2.0 for
> >> eComstation or will the eComstation user just buy the very
> >> same OS/2 Warp 4.52 version of Open Office for OS/2 v2.0?
> >
> > Why would it be any different?
>
> Why wouldn't it be? Why is it called eComstation and not
> OS/2 Warp 4.52? Why does eComstation have a "maintenance
> tool" while OS/2 doesn't need one? Why would anyone promote
> an OS/2 native suite of applications for anything other than OS/2
> Warp 4.52?
>
> You tell me.
You has proven yourself to be too dumb to know what OEM is. Any
secondary hish scool pupil knows more about OEM than "Dr." Tim Martin.
What proves that Timmy Martinis has never gotten an Dr. title legally.
> >>>> The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
> >>>> native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
> >>>> IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You obviously have no clue about how the WPS works. :)
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not a programmer but I've never seen the WPS on any other
> >> operating system but OS/2. IBM owns OS/2 so why wouldn't
> >> they own the WPS source code? Or did they make that open
> >> source?
> >
> >
> > I wish it were open source, but it is not. The WPS is designed to be
> > enhanced by third-party programs, without needing the source code.
> > Projects like XWorkplace are an excellent example of that.
>
> So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
> to tap into the WPS source code?
Yeah, really. That is done by any enterprise for its internal
processes. Fact is thet IBM has given its OS/2 toolkit to developers
for free. And that toolkits (any version available for OS/2 2.x)
contains anything that a developer needs to extend the WPS to his own
choices. But the "OS/2 expert" who knows nothing about OS/2, naming
himself Tim Martin proves again that he knows nothing about OS/2.
Xworkplace has bugs, seems
> admittedly incomplete, doesn't take full advantage of the WPS
> and the author has either abandoned it or has stopped working
> on it.
Timmy Martini proving himself as liar again. e/XWP is after the last
upgrade absolutely errorfree, its developer is maintaining it well but
Timmy Martini is trying to bring its author in miscredit because he
does never like anybody who is aktively developing software for OS/2.
Is this because IBM won't give him access to important WPS
> source code?
IBM has given anybody anything needed to develop WPS extensions or
even simple VIO applications anything needed to do so for free - but
the fudster Timmy Martini does not like facts, so he ignores that.
Are these problems indicative of all programs that
> try to tap into the WPS and can we expect the same with an OS/2
> native version of Open Office v2.0? Will the developers or programmers
> of OO v2.0 for OS/2 abandon or stop improving it when they can't
> gain access to OS/2 WPS source code?
Sure, as the WPS is very, very complex there will be much bugs in the
first try like WPS itself had and has currently, XFolder, the
predecessor of XWP and XPW itself had had lots of bugs.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
Herbert Rosenau
<BUTth...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:
> On or about Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:38:18 -0500 did The eCS Guy
> <eCS...@Gmail.com> dribble thusly:
>
> >I'm curious because Dr. Martin said Serenity wouldn't want the
>
> I try to avoid reading Chauvet-generated junk, but this kind of caught
> my attention.
>
> Am I the only one who can avoid laughing only through numb disbelief
> that Timmy now claims to have a doctorate?
No, surely not. Look at the guest book at chauvet.com. This is where
Timmy Martini had found his doctor title. He payed a spammer for it.
By that, nobody has to pay or even ask for allowance to extend the WPS
in any manner he likes and one may even sell completely legally that
extension to anybody who is interested in. So myself has written some
extensions exclusive for some big enterprises like HP, Deutsche Bank,
DB, DBP, Daimler,.... without asking or even informing IBM about that.
Anybody with a bit brain will find a lot of such extension for free
download at hobbes, netlabs and so on. Many employess of many
enterprises, middle and low range companies have written WPS
extensions of any kind for theyr employers without asking IBM too. IBM
was forcing any developer to do so by giving anybody interested it the
OS/2 toolkit, containing anything needed to develop WPS extensions of
all kinds, for free.
So Timmy Martini has proven himself as liar again.
The eCS Guy
> Kevin K wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:56:14 UTC, "Menno" <fle...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Ruskai wrote:
>>>
>>>> On or about Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:38:18 -0500 did The eCS Guy
>>>> <eCS...@Gmail.com> dribble thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious because Dr. Martin said Serenity wouldn't want the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I try to avoid reading Chauvet-generated junk, but this kind of caught
>>>> my attention.
>>>>
>>>> Am I the only one who can avoid laughing only through numb disbelief
>>>> that Timmy now claims to have a doctorate?
>>>
>>> be the driving force behind the upcoming Open Office 2.0 port to OS/2.
>>> This despite the fact that he had to have explained to him what GCC is.
>>>
>>> He's never told us what his subject is, though. According to His
>>> Doctorship this is because people would ridicule him if he did. I fail
>>> to see in what way this would be different from the current situation,
>>> but then I've long since given up trying to find reason in his thought
>>> processes.
>>>
>>> I think he's in the "amusing" phase of the cycle again.
>>
>> I received an email offer a few weeks ago telling me how I can qualify
>> for a Doctorate degree based on life experience, no tests, classes,
>> books, or examinations required. This would explain his sudden
>> doctorate.
>
> You're assuming that he's had life experience.
Of course he's had life experiences - he uses OS/2! And he spent
eight years in college getting his doctorate!
The eCS Guy
adrian suri
OS/2 user?????????????????????
>
> Download at no charge: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.0/source.html
> "roll their own": compile it to an OS/2 binary (e.g with GCC).
>
> Alternatively:
> Download at no charge a build for some OS (e.g. Windows), and create an
> environment (e.g. ODIN) to run it in.
>
> If you don't want to do either of those (compile it yourself or create
> an environment for an existing build), you can pay someone to do it for
> you.
Jeroen Besse
>> Download at no charge: http://download.openoffice.org/2.0.0/source.html
>> "roll their own": compile it to an OS/2 binary (e.g with GCC).
>>
>
> OK this links to the download page for 1.1.5 but how does ot help an
> OS/2 user?????????????????????
You can compile it yourself.
If you can't do that, there are still the possibilities left as I
mentioned here:
>> Alternatively:
>> Download at no charge a build for some OS (e.g. Windows), and create an
>> environment (e.g. ODIN) to run it in.
>>
>> If you don't want to do either of those (compile it yourself or create
>> an environment for an existing build), you can pay someone to do it for
>> you.
I think that there are extremely few people who can get the source
compiled for OS/2. I won't even try it.
That's why (IMHO) the SSI offer is worth the money: they'll deliver the
compiled version. Since OOo is Open Source, SSI is required to also
provide the source; that part is already been taken care of with the
link above! So the source is free, you pay SSI for the compiling and
testing. You are free to do the compiling and testing yourself...
(Exact limitations on what SSI may do with the source and under what
restrictions they can deliver a binary depend on the specific license. I
haven't looked into the gory details. But you probably can find that
license on the OOo website.)
--
Best regards,
Jeroen Besse
http://rblcheck.besse.nl/
(to contact me: the nospam address actually exists)
Mike Ross
wrote:
<huge snips>
>The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
No they wouldn't. You don't know how WPS works - it's an interface, an
API essentially. You write for it, you don't take it elsewhere and
integrate it. Like X. Do you have to get permission from anyone to
write an application for the Windows API? Or MacOS? Or X? Or any other
OS?
>Dr. Martin never said he signed an NDA at all. You are making that
>up.
Yes he did. In the words of Dr. Martin:
'In short, Serenity has little to do with the port and we are
all under non-disclosure requirements to refrain from
revealing who the real programmer(s) is/are. This is because
many in the eCS group would be 'up in arms' if they knew
who was really behind the porting.'
Note 'WE (my emphasis) are all under NDA'. Dr. Martin is clearly
stating that he is one of the 'we' who are under NDA. To be pedantic,
he doesn't actually specifically say he has *signed* it, but he says
he is *under* it, and in order to be under it he must have signed it,
so the inference in justified.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Steve Wendt wrote:
>> I wish it were open source, but it is not. The WPS is designed to be
>> enhanced by third-party programs, without needing the source code.
>> Projects like XWorkplace are an excellent example of that.
>
>So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
>to tap into the WPS source code?
No, no, no. Go read about APIs - the whole point is that they shield
the developer from details of the underlying implementation. IBM can
*write* WPS in PL/X or Sanskrit if they so chose - so long as they
support their own API the developer doesn't *know or care* what
language the source code was written in.
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Steve Wendt wrote:
>> The eCS Guy wrote:
>>
>>> So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
>>> to tap into the WPS source code?
>>
>>
>> It doesn't "tap into" the source code. As I said, the WPS was designed
>> to be extended by others. No permission from IBM necessary.
>
>Then why was it abandoned or stopped?
Because you lost interest in developing it further?
The eCS Guy
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:18:36 -0500, The eCS Guy <eCS...@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <huge snips>
>
>>The WPS is OS/2 code and if it is going to be integrated into a
>>native OS/2 version of Open Office for OS/2 version 2.0 then
>>IBM would have to give their ok to do so.
>
>
> No they wouldn't. You don't know how WPS works - it's an interface, an
> API essentially. You write for it, you don't take it elsewhere and
> integrate it. Like X. Do you have to get permission from anyone to
> write an application for the Windows API? Or MacOS? Or X? Or any other
> OS?
Ahh... well that's good to know because Open Office v2.0 for the
other operating systems looks to be a fine suite of apps. Here's
hoping the OS/2 user gets the same features and enhancements
as the other OS users.
>>Dr. Martin never said he signed an NDA at all. You are making that
>>up.
>
>
> Yes he did. In the words of Dr. Martin:
No he did not. You are misreading the words of Dr. Martin. No wait,
you are reading something that isn't there.
> 'In short, Serenity has little to do with the port and we are
> all under non-disclosure requirements to refrain from
> revealing who the real programmer(s) is/are. This is because
> many in the eCS group would be 'up in arms' if they knew
> who was really behind the porting.'
>
> Note 'WE (my emphasis) are all under NDA'. Dr. Martin is clearly
> stating that he is one of the 'we' who are under NDA. To be pedantic,
> he doesn't actually specifically say he has *signed* it, but he says
> he is *under* it, and in order to be under it he must have signed it,
> so the inference in justified.
Dr. Martin said nothing about being under a non-discolure "agreement".
He was referring only to being under non-disclosure requirements.
Requirements and Agreements are two seperate items.
Since Dr. Martin has publicly stated he receives his eCS products
from Bob St. John in return for publicizing eCS and, again, that has
been confirmed many times by Bob St. John who has thanked
Dr. Martin for his work at publicizing eCS, then we can assume it
is Bob St. John who is under some kind of non-disclosure requirement,
and has maybe even signed an agreement or contract.
Since Dr. Martin knows the name of the programmer and has not
revealed it, we can assume Dr. Martin is honoring any requirement
undertaken by Bob St. John.
Dr. Martin clearly could have said "we are all under a non-disclosure
agreement or contract" but he did not and that's where you are
misreading what he actually wrote.
I've noticed, especially in these newsgroups, that people read what
they 'want' to hear and fail to read what is actually said.
The eCS Guy
The eCS Guy
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:57:43 -0500, The eCS Guy <eCS...@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Wendt wrote:
>
>
>>>I wish it were open source, but it is not. The WPS is designed to be
>>>enhanced by third-party programs, without needing the source code.
>>>Projects like XWorkplace are an excellent example of that.
>>
>>So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
>>to tap into the WPS source code?
>
>
> No, no, no. Go read about APIs - the whole point is that they shield
> the developer from details of the underlying implementation. IBM can
> *write* WPS in PL/X or Sanskrit if they so chose - so long as they
> support their own API the developer doesn't *know or care* what
> language the source code was written in.
Then I'm right. The XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission of
any kind from IBM to tap into the WPS source code or as you call it,
the API.
That's good to know.
The eCS guy
The eCS Guy
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:27:43 -0500, The eCS Guy <eCS...@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Wendt wrote:
>>
>>>The eCS Guy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So the XWorkplace author didn't have to get permission from IBM
>>>>to tap into the WPS source code?
>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't "tap into" the source code. As I said, the WPS was designed
>>>to be extended by others. No permission from IBM necessary.
>>
>>Then why was it abandoned or stopped?
>
>
> Because you lost interest in developing it further?
? I had nothing to do with the development of XWorkplace.
The eCS Guy
Bob St.John
<snip>
>
> Since Dr. Martin has publicly stated he receives his eCS products
> from Bob St. John in return for publicizing eCS and, again, that has
> been confirmed many times by Bob St. John who has thanked
> Dr. Martin for his work at publicizing eCS, then we can assume it
> is Bob St. John who is under some kind of non-disclosure requirement,
> and has maybe even signed an agreement or contract.
"Dr. Martin" doesn't exist as a bona fide person. So, all the other
information you posted is wrong. Silly, really. But .. you knew that.
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Dr. Martin said nothing about being under a non-discolure "agreement".
>He was referring only to being under non-disclosure requirements.
>Requirements and Agreements are two seperate items.
Bit pedantic but technically you're right - 'requirements' *could* be
verbal. But in this business it's usually a formal NDA, in my
experience.
>I've noticed, especially in these newsgroups, that people read what
>they 'want' to hear and fail to read what is actually said.
Well I just read the simplest interpretation - any reference to
non-disclosure usually implies an NDA.
Dr. Martin hasn't jumped back in to correct either of us, so it's
unresolved either way.
Bob St.John
<snip>
> Dr. Martin hasn't jumped back in to correct either of us,
Some would say he has .. ;-)
The eCS Guy
Making such a claim doesn't make it true. It is no surprise that
you would do so, though.
The eCS guy
Menno
The eCS Guy wrote:
> Mark, do you or don't you have his Sausalito residential
> address? Yes or no would be the polite answer.
<shrug> Yes or no.
> Thanks.
Glad to be of service.
As an observation, the Unenlightened One is keeping mighty quiet these
days, to the rejoicing of all. In his stead, we have this...
individual. Who uses an email address that appears in Expletive
Deleted's sig.
Have we just experienced a troll shedding its skin? According to
Wikipedia, snakes do this to get rid of external parasites, among other
reasons. Perhaps Dr. Expletive Deleted wishes to get rid of some
statements he made in the past?
Back to lurk mode...
Cheers/2,
Menno
Bob St.John
<snip>
>
Exactly. Posting a bunch of "stuff" doesn't make it true, either. Your
postings illustrated this clearly.
> It is no surprise that you would do so, though.
Correct. No surprise that folks caught on to this a long time ago,
Doesn't diminish the entertainment, or the opportunities provided to
illustrate the value proposition.
Just means the postings of the various sock puppets should be seen as
what they are; puffery based on fantasy. And that is being kind.
No .. I can see the law of diminishing returns just ahead. I'm sure
you've seen it, too.
Regards,
Bob StJohn
Serenity Systems International
Andrew Stephenson
fle...@wanadoo.nl "Menno" writes:
> [...] Have we just experienced a troll shedding its skin? [...]
It hardly matters. He/she/it went into my killfile within a few
metaphorical seconds of surfacing, thanks to style similarities.
This particular Killfile Kid is unable to change skin, or smell.
--
Andrew Stephenson
opa...@hotmail.com
I'm an ex-OS2 user who switched to Linux years ago, and I peek in on
this newsgroup once in awhile to see if the never ending flame war is
still raging. And I am not surprised to see it is, since you people
are mentally ill.
I suggest that instead of spending $50 to get Open Office for an
obsolete OS, dump OS2 and get Linux and Open Office for free. And
save your money for the psychiatric help you obviously need.
Richard Steiner
>You people are fricking nuts.
Sanity is overrated. :-)
>I'm an ex-OS2 user who switched to Linux years ago, and I peek in on
>this newsgroup once in awhile to see if the never ending flame war is
>still raging. And I am not surprised to see it is, since you people
>are mentally ill.
Why? I've been using Linux in conjunction with OS/2 for over 10 years,
and the combination works very well for me. This makes me crazy?
If you ask me, it's the folks who use Windows and don't really need to
that are the crazy ones...
>I suggest that instead of spending $50 to get Open Office for an
>obsolete OS, dump OS2 and get Linux and Open Office for free. And
>save your money for the psychiatric help you obviously need.
I already have Linux and OpenOffice for free, but I also want to run it
under OS/2 (or possibly eCS ... haven't decided which box yet).
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
11/25/2005
at 06:51 PM, opa...@hotmail.com said:
>I'm an ex-OS2 user who switched to Linux years ago, and I peek in on
>this newsgroup once in awhile to see if the never ending flame war is
>still raging. And I am not surprised to see it is, since you people
>are mentally ill.
Nu, tonto, where did you do your psychiatric internship? Didn't su
madre la puta teach you that you couldn't diagnose people en masse?
>I suggest that instead of spending $50 to get Open Office for an
>obsolete OS, dump OS2 and get Linux and Open Office for free.
I suggest that you stick it where the Sun don't shine. We (TINW) will
make our own (TINO) determination of what our needs are and of what
software is most appropriate for us at any given point in time. We
will stay with OS/2, use both OS/2 and Linux or migrate to Linux
according to what makes sense to us, not based on what some acephallic
incoherent frothing coprophage insists we must do.
>And save your money for the psychiatric help you obviously need.
My shrink say that when I encounter articles from pigheaded bigots
with delusions of adequacy I should add them to my twit list. He also
says that people who write such articles feel threatened when others
make different decisions from the ones that they make.
IMHO you should be running windoze and Digital Research C; you're too
arrogant to deserve any better. FOAD.
*PLONK*
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Mike Ross
wrote:
<big snip>
>I'm fully cognizant of what is reported here. It has been clearly
>established
>that Bob St. John represents a company called SSI. Where is SSI located
>on the world wide web? Would it not be logical to believe a company called
>SSI would have a web site url called SSI.com?
Only if someone else with a company name similar to SSI didn't get
there first. I believe SSI stands for 'Serenity Systems International'
or somesuch - wouldn't serenity.com or serenity-systems.com be just as
logical?
In actual fact they've chosen to call their website after their
best-known product, ecomstation - a much better-known name than SSI I
guess. Perfectly logical. Check out ecomstation.com, or do a WHOIS on
it - all your answers lie there.
I would have expected 'the eCS Guy' to know this already! :-)
© The OS/2 Guy ©
corporation located in Japan. The web site is still under construction.
Serenity.com is taken and offers disposable underwear for weak
bladders. And Serenity-Systems.com is registered to: Serenity Systems,
765 Juniper Lane, Lewisville, Texas, 75077, USA, which is the company
behind the ill-fated eComStation product.
As I read the thread it appears Boob St. John was not going to give out
his company's website url - perhaps it was because he advertises his
company under the name of "Serenity Systems International" when, in
fact, Serenity Systems International is licensed to another company
all-together and is no way associated with eComStation. It would
certainly explain why the owner of Serenity-Systems.com would not want
to draw attention to itself and would rather have consumers believe
they are something they are no, i.e., Serenity Systems International.
Imagine buying eComStation and finding it to be little more than a
piece of crap and seeking to take or threaten to take legal action
against the owner of Serenity Systems International instead of the
rightful culprit of the failed eCS product, Boob St. John? The consumer
would end up the chump, again!
eComStation - "best known product"? It is simply one of two products
peddled by Bob St. John who is the only publicly identified proprietor
of Serenity Systems (he does retain a silent partner). Serenity Virtual
Station is the other product and for some reason the Serenity Systems
web site appears to claim Open Office as one of their products.
According to the web site selling versions of Open Office for OS/2, aka
Mensys of "The Netherlands", Serenity Systems does not appear to be
associated with OpenOffice for OS/2. Perhaps Boob believes he is a
'silent partner' of some sorts.
With all the confusion over who, what, where and the why of Serenity
Systems and it's nefarious owner, Boob St. John, it is no wonder "The
eCS Guy" is 'in the dark' and asking pertinent questions of "The Boob".
Who wouldn't be? Even *you were to dumb* to know of the
Serenity-Systems web site which is the official company web site owned
by Boob St. John. It was quite natural for "The eCS Guy" to wonder why
the "Serenity Systems International" (aka SSI) claimed as the home of
eComStation by Boob St. John had no record or information regarding the
eComStation product on its website. Serenity Systems International aka
SSI.com has no association with eCS at all!
Man who scratch ass should not bite fingernails.
--
Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
email: OS2...@Gmail.com OR eCS...@Gmail.com
Jeroen Besse
> According to the web site selling versions of Open Office for OS/2, aka
> Mensys of "The Netherlands", Serenity Systems does not appear to be
> associated with OpenOffice for OS/2. Perhaps Boob believes he is a
> 'silent partner' of some sorts.
Simply unzip the OOo 115 zip, and run packs\ooo_i_en.exe. Then take a
look at the logo at the left.
dizzy
My, aren't we touchy?
© The OS/2 Guy ©
buggy product to find out who was behind selling such a piece of crap?
Thank you Jerone for your admission. Can you tell all of us here,
today, why Serenity keeps their name off all of the marketing
propaganda surrounding OpenOffice and why Mensys works so hard to avoid
acknowledging Serenity in any public way?
What is *reallyI* sick is that you'd have to be a consumer so wise and
knowledgeable that you would know to "run packs\ooo_i_en.exe" to find
such a logo.
You have to admit Jerone that something is amiss here with OpenOffice
and any claim Serenity makes regarding an association with the product.
Oops, wait, Serenity isn't selling OpenOffice ... Serenity is selling
a 'support contract' oops, wait, wrong again ... Mensys is selling
something called a 'support contract' which doesn't mention anything
about Serenity whatsoever and apparently this so called 'support
contract' is obviously just a cover-up for selling an already free
product to naive and quite stupid consumers who refuse to look beyond
their pointy noses and see that OpenOffice v2.0 is *FREE* to anyone who
wants it.
© The OS2 Guy ©
Serenity on the site where it is sold (Mensys). Thank you. You have
proven my point: Serenity has no real association with OpenOffice
whatsoever. St. John is simply trying to make another phony claim and
attempt to use it to benefit his own slimy pockets.
In your haste to cover up all the other Serenity lies with your
"snipping", Jerone, you snipped the truth regarding the claim that
Serenity Sysems International is owned by Bob St. John.
It is not. Like much of the phony claims made by Serenity/St. John,
eCS doesn't work and isn't worth the time to download and SSI belongs
to a Japanese corporation that has no association whatsoever with
eComStation.
Thanks for playing the "OS/2 Guy Game" with me. I love making a fool
out of you.
Steve Wendt
> SSI belongs to a Japanese corporation that has no association whatsoever with
> eComStation.
Huh? On what basis do you make that claim?
leto...@nospam.net
at 04:27 AM, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org> said:
> The OS2 Guy wrote:
Because ownership for a Texas company is a public record!
Bob St.John
> In <E2Qjf.26348$q%.4322@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, on 12/02/2005
> at 04:27 AM, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org> said:
>
>
>
>
>> The OS2 Guy wrote:
>
>
>>>SSI belongs to a Japanese corporation that has no association whatsoever with
>>>eComStation.
>
>
>>Huh? On what basis do you make that claim?
He is referring to "SSI" as in "SSI.com". No one owns "SSI" anymore
than someone owns "ABC". Now, "SSI Incorporated" may be a different
story. I dunno .. I never refer to the company as SSI, myself. I refer
to it as Serenity Systems International, which is registered with the
Secretary of State in Texas.
Inquiring folks can go to the Texas Comptroller of Public accounts
vendor search page, http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/vendor/tpsearch1.html
and search the name "managed systems international", which is the name
under which the company was incorporated.
When the results of the search for managed systems international come
up, click on the corporate name link. That will establish that Serenity
Systems International is registered for use by this company at this
location.
No confusion and no change since January 1998, when we began operations.
Public record as they say.
> Because ownership for a Texas company is a public record!
I don't know about that. Perhaps you can provide the links to establish
this? You can go to http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/Index.html and enter
the business name 'managed systems international' and see who the
registered agent and officers are.
Since Managed Systems International is privately held, I don't know if
the ownership is public information. If you know better, feel free to
produce the information. Ownership is, of course, reported to the State
of Texas annually, or when there is a change, as required by Texas laws.
You may know more than I.
Regards,
Bob St.John
Registered Agent for
Serenity Systems International
leto...@nospam.net
We know when you registered the names booby. It was after you were
exposed here for breaking the law.
Now go work on your business -- before the IRS shuts you down for taking
tax deductions for a hobby.
In <43904ca8$0$1763$8b46...@news.nationwide.net>, on 12/02/2005
Bob St.John
leto...@nospam.net
Stop lying and get to work booby. --IBM fired you for this kind of
behavior. Are you capable of learning to be ethical or not? It doesn't
look like you are. That, is one mark of the psychopath.
In <439088b1$0$1762$8b46...@news.nationwide.net>, on 12/02/2005
Bob St.John
> That, is one mark of the psychopath.
You don't need the comma ... you still haven't backed up your statement
about public information regarding ownership of companies in Texas ..
and you seem to know a lot about being a psychopath (btw .. congrats on
spelling that correctly). Why do you know so much about being psycho?
As much fun as you are, "ed" .. I really must let you have the last
word. Spin away. I'm not expecting you to provide any meaningful info
which would require a response ... just the usual spittle encrusted
attacks. Good job staying away from the anal references this time, too.
leto...@nospam.net
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>> That, is one mark of the psychopath.
>You don't need the comma ...
You know what shrinks say about people who whine like you don't you
-->They say you do it because you don't have anything to say, but lack the
self-control to shut up and grow up.
>you still haven't backed up your statement
>about public information regarding ownership of companies in Texas ..
Whats to back up asshole -->Its all on the Texas Sec. of State website.
PS: The fact that you snipped my words and then whined about what I
wrote, tells us that I was dead-on right. This behavior too, is a mark of
a psychopath. Now get to work and make your hobby business into
something, so you can show the IRS you're not just playing around. That
means you need to get your dumb ass out of the newsgroups and actually
work for once.
Daniel Jones
Seems like a reasonable response - Mr. opa...@hotmail.com put out
some flame bait, and got exactly what he was looking for.
Now he can smugly return to his world of Linux - which, interestingly
enough, is begining to look more like Windows XP every day...and where
the newsgroups specific to that OS house no one who appears to be
"mentally ill" ;)
Bob St.John
<snip>
>>you still haven't backed up your statement
>>about public information regarding ownership of companies in Texas ..
>
>
> Whats to back up asshole -
Ooops ... looks like I have to take back the positive reinforcement I
gave you for refraining from anal references. You just can't stay away
from those, can you?
> ->Its all on the Texas Sec. of State website.
What is? Ownership? I see "officers" and "agents" .. nothing about
ownership. So, I guess the thing to back up would be a Texas Secretay of
State URL idenitfying "ownership".
I expect a reply .. I do not expect the reply to back up your claim,
though. Too bad .. if there was anyone "out there" who really wanted to
believe (in) you, you let them down, again, and again, and again.
leto...@nospam.net
booby the shrinks have you and those who behave las you do down pat; you
whine over nothing, instead of addressing the real issues raised -->
because you don't have anything worth saying, but lack the self-control to
act like a man and just shut up until you have something worth hearing.
Its your nonsense behavior that got you fired from IBM. Its your nonsense
behavior that has made your product a failure in the enterprise market
(where all the money is) -- and its your nonsense behavior; this inability
to learn and shut up until you do, that marks you as refusing to learn;
thus an asshole.
Its a very simple and commonly used word. You object to it, because you
know that it does apply to you; e.g., you are it. You are an asshole. And
a failed one at that!
In <4391d13b$0$1759$8b46...@news.nationwide.net>, on 12/03/2005
Ben Dragon
> dizzy wrote:
>
> Seems like a reasonable response - Mr. opa...@hotmail.com put out
> some flame bait, and got exactly what he was looking for.
>
> Now he can smugly return to his world of Linux - which, interestingly
> enough, is begining to look more like Windows XP every day...and where
> the newsgroups specific to that OS house no one who appears to be
> "mentally ill" ;)
Still and all, one cannot help but wonder what kind of a sorry life one
must have to post in a Usenet OS group, (for which he has no interest),
just to make his choice of OS' seem right and add a crumb of excitement
to a washed-out existance.
Surely anything, reading a book or squeezing one's own blackheads, would
be time better spent...
His post is a cry for help.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-= B e n D r a g o n =-
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________