[VO] - Sources of the product / libraries
ilias
E..g from the core or from the libraries?
In which language are the libraries written?
Can anyone point me to documentation about the 'deep insides'?
Stephen Quinn
> Are there any Sources of Visual Objects available?
VO SDK - GUI, Servers & a few others
> In which language are the libraries written?
VO - in the SDK anyway
System libraries in VC++ (no source available)
Compiler VC++ 5 and 2.7 is in VC++ 7 (according to past posts)
> Can anyone point me to documentation about the 'deep insides'?
There is none AFAIK
Classes & docs for accessing the Repostitory are in the SDK
--
HTH
Steve Quinn
Peter Fallon
Rod da Silva has been writing a series of articles for SDT magazine for some years now on the
internals of VO. This mainly covers how the object engine works, memory allocation and
garbage collection issues. Sabo and some of the other ex-developers also used to contribute
articles abvout writing for the SDK and adding things like in-line assember...
I don't know if back issues are available or not?
Remember it is a proprietary product, so you DON'T get to peek inside by definition... IAC,
with the SDk available with v2.6, you would not need any more (since the only thing left is
the compiler itself and the IDE <g>)
seeya...Pete
Denis Mitrofanov
> Can anyone point me to documentation about the 'deep insides'?
Which exactly 'deep insides' you are interesting? may be I can help with
some...
Denis
ilias
I don't know exactly. Everything what is normally not visible to a VO
user.
E.g.:
- Placing an ActiveX on a window results in a crash. How to trace the
code which causes the error?
- Automation-Server Tool does not support events. How to expand its
functionality.
=> Source code.
=> How to activate the available library-sources (e.g. OLE) for
debugging.
>
>Denis
>
Geoff Schaller
> Are there any Sources of Visual Objects available?
Of course. ...except to the runtime, IDE and compiler. But that is to be
expected and is the same as for Delphi, VS, C++, etc.
> E..g from the core or from the libraries?
> In which language are the libraries written?
Libraries: Visual Objects - the SDK that comes free with VO 2.6
"Core"; VC++ V5.0 ( and soon to be V7 with VO 2.7)
> Can anyone point me to documentation about the 'deep insides'?
Would like to be more specific?
There is stuff around: SDT articles etc.
Geoff
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
[...]
>> Can anyone point me to documentation about the 'deep insides'?
>
>Would like to be more specific?
Core functionality.
C++ sources.
>There is stuff around: SDT articles etc.
Any pointer to online versions?
>
>Geoff
>
>
Geoff Schaller
> >Would like to be more specific?
> Core functionality.
That's hardly "specific" <g>
> C++ sources.
Well no. That will never be available. That is, if you meant CAVORT modules,
the compiler and the IDE. This is normal for ALL significant commercial
development environments. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect
otherwise.
> >There is stuff around: SDT articles etc.
> Any pointer to online versions?
Yes, but you must subscribe: www.vocager.de
Regards,
Geoff
Malcolm Gray
>> There is stuff around: SDT articles etc.
>
> Any pointer to online versions?
Well it is a comercial product, subscribers can download
PDFs within their subscription.
http://vocager.de/
(english SDT page at
http://vocager.de/eng/products/sdt/index.html
including free samples
Don't assume the cover dates have a strong
correlation to reality - most magazing publish
ages ahead of the cover date, this one tends to
be behind
)
Denis Mitrofanov
> Well no. That will never be available. That is, if you meant CAVORT
modules,
> the compiler and the IDE. This is normal for ALL significant commercial
> development environments.
Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments' comes
with full sources of runtime part. Usually you has sources of ALL the stuff
existing in your application. And can debug, check and change it if needed.
VO has a serious leak here because SDK actually is a code snapshot library
(you cannot recreate appropriate DLLs at least for VO 2.5 as I know), and
runtime is also hidden.
Denis
ilias
<deni...@mail.ru> wrote:
[...]
>Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments' comes
>with full sources of runtime part. Usually you has sources of ALL the stuff
>existing in your application. And can debug, check and change it if needed.
This should be the goal for VO2.7, too.
But i'm not sure to what you refere with "runtime part".
Can you clarify?
[...]
ilias
<ma...@NOmartiSPAM.nl> wrote:
[moved down into context]
>
>"Denis Mitrofanov" <deni...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht
>news:bc4ic9$ie2$1...@dipt.donbass.net...
[...]
>> VO has a serious leak here because SDK actually is a code snapshot library
>> (you cannot recreate appropriate DLLs at least for VO 2.5 as I know), and
>> runtime is also hidden.
Really a serious leak.
>But this will gonna change in VO2.7... (At least the SDK part)
>Grtz, Marc
This is nice to know.
I assume you have this information from the VO2.7 announcements.
I hope this very important feature will be not dropped from the
priority list.
>> Denis
- Jari -
> Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments'
comes
> with full sources of runtime part.
What would these be???
So you are saying that for example in .NET you get all the source code for
Visual Studio .NET development environment...I doubt this....????
- Jari -
Ginny Caughey
I think he means that you get the source to the runtime libraries, not the
development environment. But with .Net you still don't. It is common with many
other tools though, and before Brian rescued VO I asked Yogesh Gupta for the
source to the VO runtime for the community so the VO community could fix bugs
that CA was unwilling or unable to do. Now I understand that source is
incredibly horrible, still full of ASM and 16-bit Windows code that was never
updated when 32-bit VO was developed. I am VERY happy to have Brian's team
working on that junk and not me!!!
--
Ginny
"- Jari -" <Jari.Sevon@_SPAMREMOVE_codeblock.fi> wrote in message
news:bc5ele$9v1$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Geoff Schaller
> Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments'
comes
> with full sources of runtime part. Usually you has sources of ALL the
stuff
> existing in your application. And can debug, check and change it if
needed.
Which ones? Certainly not Delphi. Certainly not FoxPro. Certainly not Visual
Studio.None of the Unix ones.... Perhaps its the definition of 'runtime'
which needs clarification?
> VO has a serious leak here because SDK actually is a code snapshot library
> (you cannot recreate appropriate DLLs at least for VO 2.5 as I know), and
> runtime is also hidden.
No, bad choice of words as the two further respondents has shown <g>. The
GUI classes in the SDK certainly got out of kilter with version changes -
this Paul Piko and John Parker are working to fix. Will we get access to the
runtime libs? No - Brian has made this quite clear but if Robert has done
his job properly, we won't need to.
Geoff
Gary Stark
Denis Mitrofanov wrote:
> Hi, Geoff
>
> > Well no. That will never be available. That is, if you meant CAVORT
> modules,
> > the compiler and the IDE. This is normal for ALL significant commercial
> > development environments.
>
> Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments' comes
> with full sources of runtime part.
So you're saying that I have the source for the runtimes of my VS 6 and VS.Net
environments? Where, within the installation sets, would this source be?
Likewise for Delphi?
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Ginny Caughey
I think it's important for people to understand that it is CA and not Brian that
is preventing sharing the source to the runtime libraries.
--
Ginny
"Geoff Schaller" <ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote in message
news:YFtFa.993$GU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Phil McGuinness
I can appreciate this statement..
Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software
-
"Ginny Caughey" <ginny....@wasteworks.com> wrote in message
news:bc5tdt$fnlea$1...@ID-144704.news.dfncis.de...
Stephen Quinn
> Likewise for Delphi?
\Delphi?\Source\RTL
\Delphi?\Source\VCL
where ? = 3-7 for D1 & D2 versions you had to buy it IIRC
Don't know about VS/.NET
--
HTH
Steve Quinn
Gary Stark
Stephen Quinn wrote:
> Gary
>
> > Likewise for Delphi?
> \Delphi?\Source\RTL
> \Delphi?\Source\VCL
> where ? = 3-7 for D1 & D2 versions you had to buy it IIRC
>
> Don't know about VS/.NET
I certainly don't see it in my installations.
Denis Mitrofanov
> > Not exactly. Most of 'significant commercial development environments'
> comes
> > with full sources of runtime part. Usually you has sources of ALL the
> stuff
> > existing in your application. And can debug, check and change it if
> needed.
>
> Which ones? Certainly not Delphi. Certainly not FoxPro. Certainly not
Visual
> Studio.None of the Unix ones.... Perhaps its the definition of 'runtime'
> which needs clarification?
1. Runtime = all what is included in your application while it is linked
(see my letter)
2. Not Delphi?!! <Install folder>/Sources/Rtl. They are there from Turbo
Pascal time. I can recreate ALL system Delphi units myself without a
problems. Also for C++ Builder.
Denis
Geoff Schaller
> (see my letter)
Hmmm, I think we'd need to see the libraries to see what you mean.
> 2. Not Delphi?!! <Install folder>/Sources/Rtl. They are there from Turbo
> Pascal time. I can recreate ALL system Delphi units myself without a
> problems. Also for C++ Builder.
Not a direct comparison with VO. There are libraries and there are
libraries.
Geoff
Marc Verkade
The aim is to get the SDK in line with the published versions of VO.
This is what is told at a conference lately.
Grtz, Marc
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> schreef in bericht
news:bc5cvg$kv4$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
ilias
<ginny....@wasteworks.com> wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>I think it's important for people to understand that it is CA and not Brian that
>is preventing sharing the source to the runtime libraries.
Why does CA has any influence on this?
I thought Visual-Objects was sold to GrafX.
Phil McGuinness
VO is still a CA product which is developed and marketed under license by
Grafx.
Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software
---
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:bc8vn2$l4c$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
ilias
<hey...@sherlock.com.au> wrote:
[moved down to context]
[...]
>"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
>news:bc8vn2$l4c$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:34:04 -0400, "Ginny Caughey"
>> <ginny....@wasteworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Geoff,
>> >
>> >I think it's important for people to understand that it is CA and not
>> >Brian that is preventing sharing the source to the runtime libraries.
>>
>> Why does CA has any influence on this?
>>
>> I thought Visual-Objects was sold to GrafX.
>VO is still a CA product which is developed and marketed under license by
>Grafx.
Thus CA does not learn from faults.
Thus GrafX makes a bad deal.
cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.
cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
marketing.
>>
>>
>
Phil McGuinness
We all learn.... !!
==
snip[ Thus GrafX makes a bad deal. ]
Not they are delighted.....
==
snip[ cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.]
They have full control...
===
snip[ cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
marketing.]
A specialised compiler will never go open source... and I imagine it is a
problem with some of the VO code was licensed from other providers..
However I feel a lot of the TOYS and SDK and GUI libraries should go this
way to evolve the product even faster...
The great thing is Grafx will build a product to their specifications and
know what the VO community expects it should be..
Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software
-------------------------------------------
ilias
<hey...@sherlock.com.au> wrote:
>snip[ Thus CA does not learn from faults. ]
>We all learn.... !!
CA not.
>==
>snip[ Thus GrafX makes a bad deal. ]
>Not they are delighted.....
>==
>snip[ cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.]
>They have full control...
They don't have...
>===
>snip[ cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
>marketing.]
...cause the above expression is true.
Your comments do not change this.
Geoff Schaller
You've missed the point as usual. GrafXSoft can develop the product in any
way they see fit. But there are restrictive covenants on the IP. That is
reasonable both from a business sense and an IP sense. Deal with it.
The purchase for GrafXSoft was a good deal: for them and us.
Geoff
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>You've missed the point as usual.
You've ommited quoting and answering in context. As usual.
>GrafXSoft can develop the product in any
>way they see fit. But there are restrictive covenants on the IP. That is
>reasonable both from a business sense and an IP sense. Deal with it.
>
>The purchase for GrafXSoft was a good deal: for them and us.
For me not.
I wrote:
"
Thus GrafX makes a bad deal.
cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.
cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
marketing.
"
Your comment doesn't change this.
>
>Geoff
>
Erik Visser
GrafX made the only and best possible deal.
If they had not done this, VO was dead already.
But i guess you have to know the history to fully understeand
Erik Visser
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> schreef in bericht
news:bcc4i7$7al$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
ilias
wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>GrafX made the only and best possible deal.
I don't believe this!
What is the source for this information?
>If they had not done this, VO was dead already.
Do not underestimate "Community Power".
>But i guess you have to know the history to fully understeand
My expression ("GrafX makes a bad deal") remains true.^
You may add: "but it was the only and best possible deal"
Although i don't believe this (see above).
>
>Erik Visser
Robert van der Hulst
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:48:32 [GMT +0200] (which was 12:48 where I live)
you wrote about: ' - Sources of the product / libraries'
> Ilias,
> GrafX made the only and best possible deal.
> If they had not done this, VO was dead already.
> But i guess you have to know the history to fully understeand
You are right, and if we all had known our classic literature, we
would have realized that 'Ilias' is the name of the famous book
written by the Greek author Homeros, describing the Trojan War.
So Ilias it very likely not his real name, and he is just acting like
a Trojan Horse on this newsgroup. Afaik he is really from Greece (at
least he uses otenet.gr to post his messages).
Since it is the (unwritten) policy on this newsgroup to use real
names, I suggest we all ignore the postings from this guy, until he
starts using his real name.
--
Robert van der Hulst
AKA Mr. Data
Vo2Jet & Vo2Ado Support
www.sas-software.nl
mrd...@sas-software.com
ilias
<mrd...@sas-software.com> wrote:
>Hi Erik,
>
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:48:32 [GMT +0200] (which was 12:48 where I live)
>you wrote about: ' - Sources of the product / libraries'
>
>> Ilias,
>
>> GrafX made the only and best possible deal.
>> If they had not done this, VO was dead already.
>> But i guess you have to know the history to fully understeand
>
>You are right,
Of course he's wrong.
>and if we all had known our classic literature, we
>would have realized that 'Ilias' is the name of the famous book
>written by the Greek author Homeros, describing the Trojan War.
well, i don't know it (classic literature).
>
>So Ilias it very likely not his real name, and he is just acting like
>a Trojan Horse on this newsgroup.
"very likely" => {an assumtion}
>Afaik he is really from Greece (at
>least he uses otenet.gr to post his messages).
This could be an relay.
>Since it is the (unwritten) policy on this newsgroup to use real
>names,
"this newsgroup" => nothing special.
apply standard usenet netiquette.
>I suggest we all ignore the postings from this guy, until he
>starts using his real name.
Fairness:
You suggest an 'penalty' based on {an assumtion}.
-
Equality:
RULE: ignore postings until poster {starts to keep netiquette}
Apply to all posters.
=> not much to listen remains in this group!
due to lousy netiquette manners.
-
I like your 'imagination'.
but it switches to paranoia.
Control it.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-
ilias.
this is my real name.
i don't know the bible.
but the name is taken from there.
ilias or elias, a prophet.
name of my grandfather
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a10d4c.03060...@posting.google.com
so please don't play with it.
-
if you like, you can apologize.
i will accept it.
Ginny Caughey
--
Ginny
"Robert van der Hulst" <mrd...@sas-software.com> wrote in message
news:79193847812.2...@sas-software.nl...
Robert van der Hulst
> ilias.
> this is my real name.
> i don't know the bible.
> but the name is taken from there.
> ilias or elias, a prophet.
> name of my grandfather
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a10d4c.03060...@posting.google.com
> if you like, you can apologize.
> i will accept it.
Congratulations, you have made it in my 'KillFile' for this newsgroup.
At this moment there are only three people on that list, so you are
very special !
Don't bother to respond, I won't see your response.
Greg Garza
What this person and others with similar revolting attitudes should
realize, is that the more people they alienate the smaller their support
pool becomes. I guess he's self-sufficient enough with VO to not
require other people's help or advice, because pretty soon he's going to
be the only reading his own posts.
BTW, he's number 2 in my Kill File.
Greg
Stephen Quinn
You can find all the information if you use Google and search this ng archive and www.cavo.com.
You can believe it or not - your choice, just stop bitching about it here.
--
Steve Quinn
Jamie Macleod
"Greg Garza" <gga...@ruddwisdom.com> wrote in message
news:bccrs0$hdvcp$1...@ID-134241.news.dfncis.de...
Erik Visser
>
> I don't believe this!
There are also people not believing the world is round.
> What is the source for this information?
I have been around for several years. Have visit (and spoken) on several
conferences, met a lot of the folks around here, etc ect..
> Do not underestimate "Community Power".
If one does not it is me. I was the one collecting emails on
car...@wilg.nl
See some of them at www.wilg.nl/care4vo/wedo.htm
It has been send to CA a year ago. (and there have been a lot more
activity)
> My expression ("GrafX makes a bad deal") remains true.^
So everybody is a criminal unless proven innocent ..?
you are on my killfile as well from now on
Erik Visser
ilias
<squ...@brutecom.com.au> wrote:
>ilias
>
>You can find all the information if you use Google and search this ng archive and www.cavo.com.
You answer this?
I asked "What is the source for this information?".
And you point me (and other readers) to Google and www.cavo.com?
There is not specific link, which backups the expression "GrafX makes
the only and best possible deal"?
>You can believe it or not - your choice, just stop bitching about it here.
I'm not 'bitching'.
I ask simple questions.
ilias
wrote:
>> >GrafX made the only and best possible deal.
>>
>> I don't believe this!
>You do not have to.
>There are also people not believing the world is round.
But it is not round.
>> What is the source for this information?
>I have been around for several years. Have visit (and spoken) on several
>conferences, met a lot of the folks around here, etc ect..
=> {Source of this information: your mind}
-
"GrafX made the only and best possible deal."
This expression remains false.
>> Do not underestimate "Community Power".
> If one does not it is me. I was the one collecting emails on
>car...@wilg.nl
>See some of them at www.wilg.nl/care4vo/wedo.htm
>It has been send to CA a year ago. (and there have been a lot more
>activity)
Llooks like the activities were not the right ones.
Cause the result is not enouth.
(no control over the sourcecode).
>> My expression ("GrafX makes a bad deal") remains true.^
>
>So everybody is a criminal unless proven innocent ..?
faulty comparision.
-
"So everybody is a criminal unless proven innocent"
=> expression
i wrote:
"
Thus GrafX makes a bad deal.
cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.
cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
marketing.
"
=> Expression + reasoning.
>you are on my killfile as well from now on
Such weakness.
Makes me sad.
>Erik Visser
>
Stephen Quinn
Congatulations in over 10 years of using these ngs your the 2nd to make my kill file.
'Explorer98' was the first - maybe your a relation, you seem to be cast from the same mould.
PLONK!
--
Steve Quinn
ilias
<mrd...@sas-software.com> wrote:
>Hi ilias,
>
>
>> ilias.
>> this is my real name.
>> i don't know the bible.
>> but the name is taken from there.
>> ilias or elias, a prophet.
>> name of my grandfather
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a10d4c.03060...@posting.google.com
you ommit one line:
"so please don't play with it."
>> if you like, you can apologize.
>> i will accept it.
>
>Congratulations, you have made it in my 'KillFile' for this newsgroup.
Thus you won't apologize.
You are not able to admit a mistake?
>At this moment there are only three people on that list, so you are
>very special !
Yes, i am very special.
As the other 2 in your killfile are.
As you are.
>Don't bother to respond, I won't see your response.
Others do.
And your weakness, too.
ilias
<squ...@brutecom.com.au> wrote:
>ilias
>
>Congatulations in over 10 years of using these ngs your the 2nd to make my kill file.
Kill file brings silence.
Why are you screaming, that you'll bring silence?
>'Explorer98' was the first - maybe your a relation, you seem to be cast from the same mould.
Theres is no relation.
-
For readers:
Explorer98, one pick:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7ifkcq%24s0u%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Explorer98, all of the messages:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=explorer98&meta=group%3Dcomp.lang.clipper.visual-objects
>
>PLONK!
Gary Stark
I'll go further.
When this boorish individual (I refuse to refer to it as a person) first
(apparantly) posted a couple of weeks back, I suggested that it looked and
smelled very much like Steve Rowe. Although I'm confortable that this isn't
Steve, it still smells like a particularly unpleasant individual
We should note however that over the last couple of months there have been
other postings from users named "Ilias Lazaridis" <vo...@null.com> as well as
one from "Ilias Mister" <use...@abeon.com>. All of these postings were made
through news.otenet.gr. But it's not only using that newsserver
(news.otenet.gr). It's also using Mailgate.org, and google, both of which are
services that, effectively, permit anonymous posting.
But I can also tell you that Illias Lazardis has an address in Germany. It's in
the same city that a Nikolaos Lazaridis also maintains an address.
The bottom line is that this seems to be an individual which may or may not be
using it's real name, but it clearly doesn't have the integrity, maturity or
stability to use just the one server, nor does it have the professionalism or
personal strength to engage in reasonable debate nor contribute anything to
this community.
It would appear to be little more than a parasite and a leech, and as you
correctly point out, now needs to be ignored by the community at large.
The sooner it goes and crawls back into its little hole, the better.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
ilias
Be careful what you say about others.
You read these posts; so do millions of other people. This group quite
possibly includes people you know and care about. Information posted
on the net can come back to haunt you or the person you are talking
about. Think twice before you post personal information about yourself
or others. Posting personal information even in the most innocuous
groups can be extremely hazardous. If you don't want it known by a
large segment of the world's population, don't post it.
"
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html#careful
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:18:34 +1000, Gary Stark
<3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote:
>Robert,
>
>I'll go further.
>
>When this boorish individual (I refuse to refer to it as a person) first
"boorish"
>(apparantly) posted a couple of weeks back, I suggested that it looked and
>smelled very much like Steve Rowe. Although I'm confortable that this isn't
>Steve, it still smells like a particularly unpleasant individual
"unpleasent"
>We should note however that over the last couple of months there have been
>other postings from users named "Ilias Lazaridis" <vo...@null.com> as well as
>one from "Ilias Mister" <use...@abeon.com>. All of these postings were made
>through news.otenet.gr. But it's not only using that newsserver
>(news.otenet.gr). It's also using Mailgate.org, and google, both of which are
>services that, effectively, permit anonymous posting.
>
>But I can also tell you that Illias Lazardis has an address in Germany. It's in
>the same city that a Nikolaos Lazaridis also maintains an address.
At least you don't publish the adresses of people you don't even know.
>The bottom line is that this seems to be an individual which may or may not be
>using it's real name, but it clearly doesn't have the integrity, maturity or
>stability to use just the one server,
You should be aware of this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a10d4c.03060...@posting.google.com
and this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a10d4c.03060...@posting.google.com
(you wrote in both topics)
>nor does it have the professionalism or
>personal strength to engage in reasonable debate nor contribute anything to
>this community.
"no professionalism"
"no personal strength"
"reasonalbe debate"
"no conribution"
>It would appear to be little more than a parasite and a leech, and as you
>correctly point out, now needs to be ignored by the community at large.
"parasite"
"leech"
>The sooner it goes and crawls back into its little hole, the better.
What do you think?
Will i "crawl back into my little hole"?
Or will i react?
E.g. if you mutate to "Sherlock Holmes" and forget in your next post,
that there are limits.
E.g. if you violate my privacy by posting private information, which
involves other people too.
-
Every person with a little knowledge of the internet can check it out
immediatly, that i use my real name. He can even find out my adress
with no problem.
Please cool down.
-
Gary Stark
You may be in my killfile, but a friend drew my attention to your most recent posting.
ilias wrote:
> "
> Be careful what you say about others.
> You read these posts; so do millions of other people. This group quite
> possibly includes people you know and care about. Information posted
> on the net can come back to haunt you
> What do you think?
> Will i "crawl back into my little hole"?
> Or will i react?
> E.g. if you mutate to "Sherlock Holmes" and forget in your next post,
> that there are limits.
> E.g. if you violate my privacy by posting private information, which
> involves other people too.
Your threats upon me were taken quite seriously when I referred them to the local
authorites, who have assured me that they will be in contact with your police over the
next few days.
> >But I can also tell you that Illias Lazardis has an address in Germany. It's in
> >the same city that a Nikolaos Lazaridis also maintains an address.
>
> At least you don't publish the adresses of people you don't even know.
No, not of people. Nor of you, even though I have it. You are, quite simply, not worth
the effort.
It's far more effective to simply pass it on to the authorities and allow them to deal
with your viscous little diatribe.
> Please cool down.
I'm not the one making the threats ...
Phil McGuinness
Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software
-
"Gary Stark" <3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3EEADCCC...@RedbacksWeb.com...
ilias
<3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>You may be in my killfile, but a friend drew my attention to your most recent posting.
killfile? - yes, of course.
[...]
>Your threats upon me were taken quite seriously when I referred them to the local
>authorites, who have assured me that they will be in contact with your police over the
>next few days.
police? - so, so!
[...]
>No, not of people. Nor of you, even though I have it. You are, quite simply, not worth
>the effort.
not worth? - aha!.
>It's far more effective to simply pass it on to the authorities and allow them to deal
>with your viscous little diatribe.
Viscous little diatribe? - whow!
>> Please cool down.
>
>I'm not the one making the threats ...
threats? - ...
paranoia?...
-
*please* cool down.
Marc Verkade
Shoudn't it be [PLEASE] Cool down?
Grtz
Geoff Schaller
> You've ommited quoting and answering in context. As usual.
??? I am referring to your whole post. You can cut and paste any bits of you
like but my assessment remains the same. You missed the point <g>.
> >The purchase for GrafXSoft was a good deal: for them and us.
> For me not.
Fine - but your statement was "Thus GrafX makes a bad deal." - this is the
inaccuracy. Your statement implies it is bad all over. You did not state
that it was only from your perspective and is part of the
over-generalisations you make. It is why people are concerned about your
attitude. Basically it is accepted by the wider VO community that the deal
was both good and necessary for the future of VO. This has proven accurate
already. hence your statement is simply wrong. If you now wish to explain
why it is wrong from your personal perspective, please go ahead....
> I wrote:
> ...
> Your comment doesn't change this.
Yes it does. You are wrong. GrafXSoft DOES have control over marketing and
development. Total control. Please explain your evidence to the contrary.
Geoff
Geoff Schaller
Millions? That would be nice. Brian will be ecstatic!
(but I would have thought the real figure somewhat below this)
Geoff Schaller
Jamie Macleod
Geoff Schaller
> I asked "What is the source for this information?".
> And you point me (and other readers) to Google and www.cavo.com?
Exactly what "evidence" are you seeking? Our points of view? Brian's
statements? The User Group presidents meetings with Yogesh Gupta and Sanjay
Kumar? John Parker's points of view? 1000's and 1000's of words. No, there
is no one specific link but there is 18 months (and longer) of posts and
missives. What you seek is unreasonable.
Why are you so unwilling to accept the point of view of the majority?
> I'm not 'bitching'.
> I ask simple questions.
Yes you are and no you are not.
(...and I don't have to cut and paste anything to back that up <g>)
Geoff
Geoff Schaller
> This expression remains false.
So you are guilty of the crime you suggest of others.
You do not provide ANY evidence to the contrary.
"We" happen to believe it is true.
"We" have the accumulated evidence for this assessment.
What do you have?
Geoff
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>> You read these posts; so do millions of other people. This group quite
faulty quotation.
[...]
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>> I asked "What is the source for this information?".
>> And you point me (and other readers) to Google and www.cavo.com?
>
>Exactly what "evidence" are you seeking? Our points of view?
no.
>Brian's statements?
e.g.
[Note: Brian refers to the president of GrafX]
>The User Group presidents meetings with Yogesh Gupta and Sanjay
>Kumar?
Yogesh Gupta, Sanjay Kumar => exotic names.
What is their relation to VO?
> John Parker's points of view?
John Parker, who is this?
> 1000's and 1000's of words.
fine.
>No, there
>is no one specific link but there is 18 months (and longer) of posts and
>missives. What you seek is unreasonable.
No one of the users, usergroups, presidents, "we's" etc. has compiled
and published the essence of all this "mega-discussion"?
There's no official anouncement "This is the deal" and a commentary
"This are the reasons for the deal"?
If anyone feel sadness or agression due to the fact, that the sources
of this partially unstable (crashes) and unfinished (e.g. COM-support)
product are still kept "top secret" today, how can he find out who
*exactly* is responsible for this?
This i am seeking.
>Why are you so unwilling to accept the point of view of the majority?
no comment.
>> I'm not 'bitching'.
>> I ask simple questions.
>
>Yes you are and no you are not.
>
>(...and I don't have to cut and paste anything to back that up <g>)
of course you don't have to.
>Geoff
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>What do you have?
Nothing.
That's why i'm asking.
>Geoff
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>> You've ommited quoting and answering in context. As usual.
>
>??? I am referring to your whole post. You can cut and paste any bits of you
>like but my assessment remains the same. You missed the point <g>.^
It is much friendlier against readers, to quote with precision and to
'attack' an argumentation line exact in given context.
>> >The purchase for GrafXSoft was a good deal: for them and us.
>> For me not.
>
>Fine - but your statement was "Thus GrafX makes a bad deal." - this is the
>inaccuracy. Your statement implies it is bad all over.
Yes, it does.
If GrafX has not the right to release sourcecode, then they have make
a bad deal all over.
This is my opinion.
>You did not state that it was only from your perspective
Don't have to state this.
That's obvious.
>and is part of the over-generalisations you make.
No over-generalisation.
It's really my opinion.
>It is why people are concerned about your
>attitude. Basically it is accepted by the wider VO community that the deal
>was both good and necessary for the future of VO.
Irrelevant.
My opinion remains.
>This has proven accurate already.
No proofs to see.
At least not form me.
>hence your statement is simply wrong.
My statement remains right.
>If you now wish to explain
>why it is wrong from your personal perspective, please go ahead....
i've done this already.
you've omitted quoting this:
see below...
>> I wrote:
>> ...
>> Your comment doesn't change this.
>
>Yes it does. You are wrong. GrafXSoft DOES have control over marketing and
>development. Total control. Please explain your evidence to the contrary.
i did it:
the full context:
"
I wrote:
"
Thus GrafX makes a bad deal.
cause GrafX has not the full control of developement and marketing.
cause "releasing sourcecodes" is an parameter in developement and
marketing.
"
"
The factor "releasing sourcecodes" is very important.
So important, that i say: "bad deal allover".
VO community should accept, that it is really bad.
Even if it was "The only and best possible deal".
And then 'fight' against this.
-
Please be aware, that with your off-context-writing (and ommitance of
exact quotes ) you exhaust the readers.
There are many ways to change or 'cover' informations / opinions.
One is disrupting context and creating a new one, thus the writer gets
exhausted. But readers notice this cause they get exhauted whilst
reading, too.
Do you really think you do VO a favor with this?
-
Please have the friendliness to keep context, thus readers don't get
exhausted by reading again and again the same things or by not getting
the answers they expect to read, after they read a simple question.
Do it for VO.
Writign this way raises the quality of this group.
Any visitor would see, that a different opinion is handled with
professionalism and respect.
This would reflect directly to VO.
>Geoff
Greg Garza
Depends on the language. "Ilias" and "Iliad" translate to the same work
by Homer. Somehow I'm not surprised that Iliad/Ilias never heard of it.
Greg
Lars-Eric Gisslén
Perhaps some history might be helpful. User groups has been important to CA
for a long time as CA has seen the UG's as their contact with their users.
Plus, the UG's has served as some kind of 'support' groups for their
products. Therefor CA has invited all user group president's to a meeting
with CA's management and product owners each year. These meetings are called
the CARE Conference (CA Regional Exchange, CARE). I've been a VO User Group
president so I've been to 4 CARE conferences. There we have had the
possibilities to ask the CA management about the future plans for each of
their products plus we have had direct contact with the VO dev team. During
the 3 first CARE conferences I attended Charles Wang (CEO at that time) had
Q&A sessions and during the last CARE I attended Sanjay Kumar was the CEO
and also had a Q&A session with us. So, we have been able to follow the
development of VO and CA's plans for VO quite closely. CA's plans for VO has
not at all satisfied us so a few years ago we asked for a meeting with CA's
management in Islandia to discuss VO's future. We selected 5 representatives
that went to that meeting. The outcome was VO 2.5, but I'm not sure it would
have been a VO 2.5 without that meeting. CA was moving resources from the VO
development to other projects within CA and the development was reduced to a
maintainance mode (no further development). I think this is what has happend
with perhaps more than a hundred of CA products. I also got the feeling that
the VO dev team was not so happy with the situation for VO. We had plenty of
beer with the dev team during the conferences so they didn't belong to an
anonymous world for us. So, without the deal with GrafX I think VO would
have been a dead end for us VO users but this deal gives us quite good hope
for VO. If it's a good deal or not for GrafX? I think only GrafX can answer
that question. If they can't release the source code, so what. Which other
major company has released the source code to programming languages in the
Windows world? I have never heard that either Microsoft or Borland are going
to release the source code for Visual Studio or Delphi so I don't think that
has any impact on the deal.
Regards,
Lars-Eric
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:bcknii$d4p$6...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
Geoff Schaller
These were precisely your words.
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:bckni5$d4p$3...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
Geoff Schaller
I hadn't seen that elsewhere (but nor have I seen non Greek or non English
versions)
"Greg Garza" <gga...@ruddwisdom.com> wrote in message
news:bckpoj$k6iu1$1...@ID-134241.news.dfncis.de...
Geoff Schaller
Nice summary but I think it is falling on deaf ears. Ilias seems content to
criticise but not once has indicated that he is willing to do the basic
research on GrafXSoft and other sites on these matters. Far from
contributing to the general pool of support he wants everyone to prove to
him what most of us know from involvement. Without honest and open motives
he is not going to get very far.
Geoff
Geoff Schaller
assessments of the majority. Clearly you do it just to elicit a negative
response. I can see no other motive.
Gary Stark
See Greg's observations on this silly ass being a troll.
The sooner he's consigned to the bit-bucket the happier we'll all be.
Geoff Schaller wrote:
--
Geoff Schaller
> It is much friendlier against readers, to quote with precision and to
> 'attack' an argumentation line exact in given context.
...and you can waste time with irrelevancies. Keep to the point.
> If GrafX has not the right to release sourcecode, then they have make
> a bad deal all over.
> This is my opinion.
The only thing correct here is your claim that this is your opinion. The
relationship of source code disclosure to success of a deal is not proven by
you or anyone. There would be many who disagree with you. You claim to cry
for accuracy in statements... well how about offering it yourself. It took 3
posts to get you to explain yourself properly in this matter so know we
finally know. You think the deal was bad because it involves source code
secrecy. Well you happen to be out of step with most of the planet.
> >You did not state that it was only from your perspective
> Don't have to state this.
You do indeed - especially if you intend to be taken seriously.
> >It is why people are concerned about your
> >attitude. Basically it is accepted by the wider VO community that the
deal
> >was both good and necessary for the future of VO.
> Irrelevant.
No its not - its totally relevant. Its why the internet is still such a
lousy source of authoritative information. Lack of peer review. The
anonimity of contributions.
> My statement remains right.
In your eyes - you present no proofs and no evidence. Just supposition.
> The factor "releasing sourcecodes" is very important.
> So important, that i say: "bad deal allover".
> VO community should accept, that it is really bad.
No. You seem to ignore commercial realities and the opinions of many. This
is very sad comment.
> Please be aware, that with your off-context-writing (and ommitance of
> exact quotes ) you exhaust the readers.
Oh no, your posts are the most difficult of all to read. Especially with
excessive spaces, cut/paste marks and in-paragraph remarks. Look to your own
formatting please.
> Please have the friendliness to keep context, thus readers don't get
> exhausted by reading again and again the same things or by not getting
> the answers they expect to read, after they read a simple question.
Have you re-read any of your posts lately?
I guess not <g>.
> Do it for VO.
> This would reflect directly to VO.
Now I know you're not serious <g>.
Gimme a break...
Geoff
Ginny Caughey
Have you ever considered how you might write a Troll program if you chose?
--
Ginny
"Gary Stark" <3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3EEE4713...@RedbacksWeb.com...
Gary Stark
Ginny Caughey wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Have you ever considered how you might write a Troll program if you chose?
The thought has never even crossed my mind.
Ginny Caughey
I don't mean that you'd actually DO it! Only that you might hit a newsgroup,
read a post, copy some phrases and say something negative, etc. You'd try to
make the reply not sound mechanical, but it might not flow quite right either.
Then you'd just keep replying to anybody who replied to you. Finally you'd go
away when there were no more replies... <g>
--
Ginny
"Gary Stark" <3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3EEE4F89...@RedbacksWeb.com...
Gary Stark
Ginny Caughey wrote:
> Gary,
>
> I don't mean that you'd actually DO it!
I know that and I didn't for a moment suspect that this was what you meant. You
were just exploring the process of course, but my point was that my mindset isn't
even in that space.
> Only that you might hit a newsgroup,
> read a post, copy some phrases and say something negative, etc. You'd try to
> make the reply not sound mechanical, but it might not flow quite right either.
Mechanical, or manical ? <g>
> Then you'd just keep replying to anybody who replied to you. Finally you'd go
> away when there were no more replies... <g>
Indeed. Sounds like a project that some silly ass might try to attempt. ;)
ilias
<gga...@ruddwisdom.com> wrote:
>Geoff,
>
[...]
>Somehow I'm not surprised that Iliad/Ilias never heard of it.
faulty conclusion.
i wrote "well, i don't know it (classic literature)."
this (that i don't know classic literature in general) does not imply
that i don't know about the existance of "the ilias / illiad".
>
>Greg
>
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>
>"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
>news:bckni5$d4p$3...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:19:21 GMT, "Geoff Schaller"
>> <ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> You read these posts; so do millions of other people. This group quite
>>
>> faulty quotation.
>I'm sorry, what do you mean?
>
>These were precisely your words.
No, this were precisely googles words that i'd quoted.
I wrote :
[Please note the indented quatation. I hope this is not too
complicated]
"
"
Be careful what you say about others.
You read these posts; so do millions of other people. This group quite
possibly includes people you know and care about. Information posted
on the net can come back to haunt you or the person you are talking
about. Think twice before you post personal information about yourself
or others. Posting personal information even in the most innocuous
groups can be extremely hazardous. If you don't want it known by a
large segment of the world's population, don't post it.
"
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html#careful
"
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>Ilias,
>
>> It is much friendlier against readers, to quote with precision and to
>> 'attack' an argumentation line exact in given context.
>
>...and you can waste time with irrelevancies. Keep to the point.
"Readers convenience"
"Irrelevancy"
i see.
>> If GrafX has not the right to release sourcecode, then they have make
>> a bad deal all over.
>> This is my opinion.
>
>The only thing correct here is your claim that this is your opinion. The
>relationship of source code disclosure to success of a deal is not proven by
>you or anyone. There would be many who disagree with you. You claim to cry
>for accuracy in statements... well how about offering it yourself. It took 3
>posts to get you to explain yourself properly in this matter so know we
>finally know. You think the deal was bad because it involves source code
>secrecy. Well you happen to be out of step with most of the planet.
fine.
>> >You did not state that it was only from your perspective
>> Don't have to state this.
>
>You do indeed - especially if you intend to be taken seriously.
"taken seriously"
from (all) regular posters.
=> Irrelevant.
>> >It is why people are concerned about your
>> >attitude. Basically it is accepted by the wider VO community that the
>deal
>> >was both good and necessary for the future of VO.
>> Irrelevant.
>
>No its not - its totally relevant.
It's totally irrelevant.
[for my personal rating of the deal]
>Its why the internet is still such a
>lousy source of authoritative information. Lack of peer review. The
>anonimity of contributions.
Irrelevant.
>> My statement remains right.
>
>In your eyes - you present no proofs and no evidence. Just supposition.
Of course.
>> The factor "releasing sourcecodes" is very important.
>> So important, that i say: "bad deal allover".
>> VO community should accept, that it is really bad.
>
>No. You seem to ignore commercial realities and the opinions of many. This
>is very sad comment.
i understand.
>> Please be aware, that with your off-context-writing (and ommitance of
>> exact quotes ) you exhaust the readers.
>
>Oh no, your posts are the most difficult of all to read. Especially with
>excessive spaces, cut/paste marks and in-paragraph remarks. Look to your own
>formatting please.
nothing special.
>> Please have the friendliness to keep context, thus readers don't get
>> exhausted by reading again and again the same things or by not getting
>> the answers they expect to read, after they read a simple question.
>
>Have you re-read any of your posts lately?
>I guess not <g>.
You've guessed wrong.
>> Do it for VO.
>> This would reflect directly to VO.
>
>Now I know you're not serious <g>.
>Gimme a break...
I am serious.
>
>Geoff
>
>
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>So if you have nothing, how are you in a position to criticise the obvious
>assessments of the majority.
democracy.
freedom of speech.
>Clearly you do it just to elicit a negative response.
no, i don't
>I can see no other motive.
learning
ilias
<3061...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>See Greg's observations on this silly ass being a troll.
"silly ass"
Geoff Schaller
If you want to quote words then you have to accept responsibility for using
them. If you didn't intend that then you are quoting out of context and that
stands against all you purport to stand for <g>. Hence you are a fake pedant
(and they are the worst kind). I'm outta here. Bye
ilias
<ge...@softwareREMobjectives.com.au> wrote:
>You're amazing and you're a dill <bg>
"amazing"
"dill"
>
>If you want to quote words then you have to accept responsibility for using
>them. If you didn't intend that then you are quoting out of context and that
>stands against all you purport to stand for <g>. Hence you are a fake pedant
>(and they are the worst kind).
Faulty conclusion.
I simply dislike fake quotations.
>I'm outta here. Bye
Ok.
Bye.
>
>