[HARBOUR] - The predestor of xHarbour
ilias
http://www.harbour-project.org/
-
Can anyone answere me those few questions to the original HARBOUR project?
-
Is there an release-date for a visual IDE (IDE)?
In which language is this IDE be written?
Will the IDE source-code be available (at least partially, e.g.
code-generators)?
Will the IDE be extensible?
if yes, in which language?
can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX (or other) components with xIDE / xHarbour?
Is there any migration-guide available?
Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with Harbour (which
limitations)?
Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
Can i compile xHarbour source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
pe
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:3F718677...@abeon.com...
pe
I am the front man for these questions too. Please do not further
demonstrate your incoherence by starting this again.
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:3F718677...@abeon.com...
> first ther was the:
>
[...]
>
> can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX (or other) components with xIDE / xHarbour?
We've already been over this. Asking again is not going to change the
answer.
>
> Is there any migration-guide available?
Point south - fly there.
[...]
>
> Can i compile xHarbour source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
The xHarbour extensions are not available in Harbour. See .\xdiff.txt in
xHaroubor for reasons.
Jon Mayhem
ilias
pe wrote:
> Given that xHarbour started out as Harbour, and I've been involved in
> both, I am the front man for these questions too.
You _have_ been involved in Harbour.
Who continues Harbour now?
Why the information is not updated in the wegpage?
http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
> Please do not further demonstrate your incoherence by starting this
> again.
feel free to ignore.
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F718677...@abeon.com...
>
>>first ther was the:
>
> [...]
>
>>can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX (or other) components with xIDE /
>> xHarbour?
>
> We've already been over this. Asking again is not going to change the
> answer.
Apologize. This was a typo:
should be:
"can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX (or other) components with IDE [if any
available] / Harbour?"
[this question refere to the current HARBOUR version]
>>Is there any migration-guide available?
>
> Point south - fly there.
I refere to "Harbour" not to "xHarbour"
> [...]
>
>>Can i compile xHarbour source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
>
> The xHarbour extensions are not available in Harbour. See
.\xdiff.txt > in xHaroubor for reasons.
ok
ilias
> search for the Harbour-project on sourceforge.net.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
suggestion:
place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
descendant project.
[...]
ilias
ilias wrote:
> pe wrote:
>
>> search for the Harbour-project on sourceforge.net.
>
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
many of the 54 registred developers (over 15) are registred in the
xHarbour project, too.
The project has currently an activity of 0% (last week)
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
this project looks active normally.
[...]
Dave Pearson
> suggestion:
> place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
> descendant project.
<URL:http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour56.html#56>. An FAQ seems
like an obvious place to do that. Didn't you look in the FAQ to see if your
questions are frequently asked?
And, if all this bothers you so much, why don't you start your own central
resource that tracks and documents all available free and non-free Clipper
compatible compilers?
What is an unfriendly link?
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Dave Pearson
> ilias wrote:
>
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
>
> many of the 54 registred developers (over 15) are registred in the
> xHarbour project, too.
So? Ron, when he forked from harbour, gave everyone who had write access to
the harbour CVS write access to the xharbour CVS. Some retained that access,
some paid no attention and some revoked their own access. It's also not
unusual or surprising to find that some people have an interest in more than
one free software project.
> The project has currently an activity of 0% (last week)
So? Perhaps they had nothing to add to CVS this week?
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
>
> this project looks active normally.
So? Perhaps they had something to add to CVS this week?
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
>>
>>many of the 54 registred developers (over 15) are registred in the
>>xHarbour project, too.
>
> So? Ron, when he forked from harbour, gave everyone who had write access to
> the harbour CVS write access to the xharbour CVS.
This was a friendly gesture.
> Some retained that access, some paid no attention and some revoked
> their own access.
I see.
And some possibly even don't know that they are in the list.
Suggestion: they should cleaup the lists in both projects.
> It's also not unusual or surprising to find that some people have an
> interest in more than one free software project.
Obvious.
>>The project has currently an activity of 0% (last week)
>
> So? Perhaps they had nothing to add to CVS this week?
I understand.
Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access.
>>>https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
>>
>>this project looks active normally.
>
> So? Perhaps they had something to add to CVS this week?
ok
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>suggestion:
>>place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
>>descendant project.
>
> <URL:http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour56.html#56>. An FAQ seems
> like an obvious place to do that. Didn't you look in the FAQ to see if your
> questions are frequently asked?
yes, sometimes.
> And, if all this bothers you so much, why don't you start your own central
> resource that tracks and documents all available free and non-free Clipper
> compatible compilers?
>
> What is an unfriendly link?
one which is hidden in FAQ's.
pe
>
>
[...]
> > What is an unfriendly link?
>
> one which is hidden in FAQ's.
Oh by all means, don't let FAQ's interfere with a good argument...
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Some retained that access, some paid no attention and some revoked their
> > own access.
>
> I see.
>
> And some possibly even don't know that they are in the list.
>
> Suggestion: they should cleaup the lists in both projects.
Why do you assume that the lists are "dirty"?
> Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access.
That is my understanding. Did you not check this before commenting? I
believe it is documented on the SourceForge web site.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > What is an unfriendly link?
>
> one which is hidden in FAQ's.
The first thing a friendly browser with questions does is look in the FAQ.
Why are you an unfriendly browser?
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>What is an unfriendly link?
>>
>>one which is hidden in FAQ's.
>
> The first thing a friendly browser with questions does is look in the FAQ.
> Why are you an unfriendly browser?
Please do not swich context of wordings.
-
there's a grafic, top right, "SOURCEFORGE".
This does not link to the specific SourceForge project, but to
sourceforge itself.
-
Additionally, the opensource people should show at least some unity and
place and additional link to the "sister-project" xHarbour.org.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>Some retained that access, some paid no attention and some revoked their
>>>own access.
>>
>>I see.
>>
>>And some possibly even don't know that they are in the list.
>>
>>Suggestion: they should cleaup the lists in both projects.
>
> Why do you assume that the lists are "dirty"?
Based on your sayings (see quote above).
>>Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access.
>
> That is my understanding.
My fault.
I trusted your information without furhter evaluation.
> Did you not check this before commenting?
I've simply reported the sourceforge activity of the last week.
> I believe it is documented on the SourceForge web site.
I believe this, too.
Of course everyone is free to evaluate that.
Including you.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
> >
> >>Dave Pearson wrote:
> >>
> >>>What is an unfriendly link?
> >>
> >>one which is hidden in FAQ's.
> >
> > The first thing a friendly browser with questions does is look in the FAQ.
> > Why are you an unfriendly browser?
>
> Please do not swich context of wordings.
I didn't. I pointed out that a friendly person with questions will check the
FAQ to see if their Q is FA.
> Additionally, the opensource people should show at least some unity and
> place and additional link to the "sister-project" xHarbour.org.
Faulty reasoning. Rejected.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Why do you assume that the lists are "dirty"?
>
> Based on your sayings (see quote above).
Right, I didn't say the lists were dirty. The people who have CVS write
access are the people who have CVS write access. Taking write access away
from people would not be the right thing to do unless there was a reason to
do so. Those people have earned the right to write to CVS. Revoking that
right because a single individual doesn't like the look of the content of
the lists makes no sense.
> >>Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access.
> >
> > That is my understanding.
>
> My fault.
>
> I trusted your information without furhter evaluation.
Faulty reasoning. I gave you no information in regard to activity.
> > I believe it is documented on the SourceForge web site.
>
> I believe this, too.
>
> Of course everyone is free to evaluate that.
>
> Including you.
Should I ever find that I'm in a position where I'm obsessed with CVS
activity I'll be sure to go back and re-read that documentation. Personally
I have no such obsession.
Ron Pinkas
> > both, I am the front man for these questions too.
>
> You _have_ been involved in Harbour.
Yes, he _was_.
> Who continues Harbour now?
Faulty, question, NO definite answer can be provided. Open Source Projects
by definition are OPEN to EVERYONE intrested. There is no practical way to
find who MAY be intrested. The term "continues" is in appropriate.
> Why the information is not updated in the wegpage?
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
You conclusion that someone that [in your opinion, or in his opinion] is no
longer active, should be removed from a "Contributors List" is faulty. For
example, I am NO LONGER directly active in the Harbour Project, yet I'd be
offended if my information would be removed, because I DID contribute to
Harbour, and such information should not be HIDDEN.
Ron
ilias
> Fuck your mother down ...
[OT] - A Shame For The Whole Clipper Community !
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F740089.30806%40abeon.com
ilias
>> > Given that xHarbour started out as Harbour, and I've been involved in
>> > both, I am the front man for these questions too.
>>
>>You _have_ been involved in Harbour.
>
> Yes, he _was_.
ok
The developement of HARBOUR continued since his move to xHARBOUR.
=> he's _not_ the front man for questions regarding [actual state of]
HARBOUR.
>>Who continues Harbour now?
>
> Faulty, question,
of course not.
> NO definite answer can be provided.
false
> Open Source Projects by definition are OPEN to EVERYONE intrested.
> There is no practical way to find who MAY be intrested.
interessents are irrelevant.
relevant: current contributors:
https://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=681
I miss Role/Position: "former developer"
There are many in the list.
This would give any interested party a clear picture.
> The term "continues" is in appropriate.
false.
Who continues HARBOUR, as some [or many] of the head developers /
contributors moved to XHARBOUR?
>>Why the information is not updated in the wegpage?
>>
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>
> You conclusion that someone that [in your opinion, or in his opinion] is no
> longer active, should be removed from a "Contributors List" is faulty.
False fact.
Discussing "CREW" not "Contributors list"
"The Harbour Crew" implies "current crew of the 'ship'".
> For
> example, I am NO LONGER directly active in the Harbour Project, yet I'd be
> offended if my information would be removed, because I DID contribute to
> Harbour, and such information should not be HIDDEN.
I understand this.
I would feel offended, too.
A second list:
"Former Crew Members"
perhaps with small details about work done and reasons for leaving the crew.
would be the solution.
or an "marker" in the list-entry "former member"
> Ron
pe
> Ron Pinkas wrote:
> >> > Given that xHarbour started out as Harbour, and I've been involved in
> >> > both, I am the front man for these questions too.
> >>
> >>You _have_ been involved in Harbour.
> >
> > Yes, he _was_.
>
> ok
>
> The developement of HARBOUR continued since his move to xHARBOUR.
>
> => he's _not_ the front man for questions regarding [actual state of]
> HARBOUR.
Given that I seem to be willing to try and pull teeth from this chicken, why
not just accept the fact that you are squandering a valuable resource?
>
> >>Who continues Harbour now?
> >
> > Faulty, question,
>
> of course not.
>
> > NO definite answer can be provided.
>
> false
>
> > Open Source Projects by definition are OPEN to EVERYONE intrested.
> > There is no practical way to find who MAY be intrested.
>
> interessents are irrelevant.
>
> relevant: current contributors:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=681
>
> I miss Role/Position: "former developer"
>
> There are many in the list.
>
> This would give any interested party a clear picture.
>
Part of what you're seeing is that quite a number of people were given
developer status due to delays with the Sourceforge annonymous CVS access.
(for now, developers get access to the current CVS, others get a snapshot
view)
None of this has any bearing on using (or not as the case may be) Harbour or
any variants that may exist.
You're now following people down the street and giving them a hard time for
dropping a gum wrapper.
Cut it out.
>
> > Ron
>
ilias
full relevant context. I've recreated the context at some points marked
with "MRC"]
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>
[MRC]
>>>>>>many of the 54 registred developers (over 15) are registred in the
>>>>>>xHarbour project, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>So? Ron, when he forked from harbour, gave everyone who had write
>>>>>access to the harbour CVS write access to the xharbour CVS.
>>>>
>>>>This was a friendly gesture.
>>>>
>>>>>Some retained that access, some paid no attention and some revoked
>>>>>their own access.
>>>>
>>>>I see.
>>>>And some possibly even don't know that they are in the list.
>>>>Suggestion: they should cleaup the lists in both projects.
>>>
[END MRC]
>>>Why do you assume that the lists are "dirty"?
>>
>>Based on your sayings (see quote above).
>
> Right, I didn't say the lists were dirty. The people who have CVS write
> access are the people who have CVS write access. Taking write access away
> from people would not be the right thing to do unless there was a reason to
> do so. Those people have earned the right to write to CVS. Revoking that
> right because a single individual doesn't like the look of the content of
> the lists makes no sense.
irrelevant. [please avoid increasing uneccessary complexity]
relevant: the list [xHarbour developers] did not reflect the real active
contributors to xHarbour.
"Everyone from HARBOUR got write access to XHARBOUER"
"Some retained access" - [but possibly do not contribute]
"Some paid no attention access" - [and highly possibly do not contribute]
[it is really exhausting to me to extract those facts against your
resistance. Please do not abuse my patience and adittionally don't
forget that there are readers, too.]
>>>>Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access.
>>>
>>>That is my understanding.
>>
>>My fault.
>>
>>I trusted your information without furhter evaluation.
=> {Relized My fault: I trusted your information}
>
> Faulty reasoning.
of course not.
> I gave you no information in regard to activity.
I concluded : "Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access."
you confirm : "That is my understanding."
=> {you give me information regarding Activity.}
[please increase your precision]
>>>Did you not check this before commenting?
>>>I believe it is documented on the SourceForge web site.
I realize that your information was not a given fact but an assumption.
=> {Realized My fault: I trusted your information}
>>I believe this, too.
>>
>>Of course everyone is free to evaluate that.
>>
>>Including you.
>
> Should I ever find that I'm in a position where I'm obsessed with CVS
> activity I'll be sure to go back and re-read that documentation. Personally
> I have no such obsession.
You are 'obsessed' with CVS activity, as you use it in this conversation.
I trusted a fact provided by you.
Then you admit that its and expectation.
You have abused the trust i had in you.
Why?
You admit that it was an assumtion.
But you refuse to correct your fault, whilst providing me [and the
readers] with the correct background information (information about
SourceForge Activity)
You are an unfriendly person.
In conjunction with your reduced precision and your tendency to increase
complexity, this makes you uninteresting for analytical conversation to me.
Please correct your faulty behaviour if you are interested in further
conversation
Thank you.
ilias
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>>* ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>>>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What is an unfriendly link?
>>>>
>>>>one which is hidden in FAQ's.
>>>
>>>The first thing a friendly browser with questions does is look in the FAQ.
>>>Why are you an unfriendly browser?
>>
>>Please do not swich context of wordings.
>
> I didn't. I pointed out that a friendly person with questions will check the
> FAQ to see if their Q is FA.
I see.
Your 'talkaround' is really exhausting.
reminding context:
Website of open-source-project.
expecation: link to sourceForge project in the main page.
further details: see below, the 'work' is half-done.
>
>
[OMITTED_QUOTE]
>>www.harbour-project.org
>>
>>there's a grafic, top right, "SOURCEFORGE".
>>
>>This does not link to the specific SourceForge project, but to
>>sourceforge itself.
[/OMITED_QUOTE]
It is very interesting, that you've omitted this.
>>
>>Additionally, the opensource people should show at least some unity and
>>place and additional link to the "sister-project" xHarbour.org.
>
> Faulty reasoning. Rejected.
Feel free to adapt my writing style.
But to be taken seriously, you should at minimum quote with precision.
"Additionally" refers to the omitted quote.
Your 'precise' evaluation "Faulty reasoning. Rejected", becomes senseless.
It is anyway false, but explanation becomes redundant.
-
pe
news:3F76E9A2...@abeon.com...
[...]
There is a saying something like 'The destination is not the point, it's the
journey..."
Why do you continually stop the vehicle, get out, dig a pothole, then drive
through it?
You are supposed to enjoy the trip....
Paul
ilias
> first ther was the:
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/
>
> -
>
> Can anyone answere me those few questions to the original HARBOUR project?
so, i'll answer myself and comment a little.
> Is there an release-date for a visual IDE (IDE)?
> In which language is this IDE be written?
> Will the IDE source-code be available (at least partially, e.g.
> code-generators)?
> Will the IDE be extensible?
> if yes, in which language?
> can i use 3rd-party VCL / OCX (or other) components with xIDE / xHarbour?
no IDE available
> Is there any migration-guide available?
> Can i compile CA Visual Objects source-code with Harbour (which
> limitations)?
> Can i compile Alaska xBase++ source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
> Can i compile xHarbour source-code with Harbour (which limitations)?
harbour is still in alpha state.
possibly it will not reach final state.
The project is a "lost-child", as the many developers moved to the xHarbour.
see this topic for some reference:
news://news.xharbour.org:119/acadu5$3st$1...@www.fivetech.net
[HARBOUR_VS_XHARBOUR] - Same way, different paths?
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bkt2st%244kv%243%40newsreader.mailgate.org
[XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F76DB8D...@abeon.com
Some other developers (mainly spanish) moved to C3.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F74474B...@abeon.com
-
Looking at the registry-information for harbour-project.org, and
http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm, the site is controlled by the
founders of xHarbour.com.
-
The harbour-project is in essence dead.
The only relevance for commercial users were the copyrights, which are
possibly violated in derived designs (xHarbour, C3), even if the only
indications for this were the developer list.
-
pe
[crap]
> The harbour-project is in essence dead.
Bzzzzzzzt: Faulty Conclusion.
>
> The only relevance for commercial users were the copyrights, which are
> possibly violated in derived designs (xHarbour, C3), even if the only
> indications for this were the developer list.
>
Not a nice way to twist either the facts, or what you've been told.
> -
>
Patrick Mast
[...]
> Looking at the registry-information for harbour-project.org, and
> http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm, the site is controlled by the
> founders of xHarbour.com.
Alexander S. Kresin is the webmaster of harbour-project.org, which is hosted
on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
--
Best regards,
Patrick Mast
www.xHarbour.com
Dave Pearson
> [please have the gentleness against me and the readers, to quote the
> full relevant context. I've recreated the context at some points marked
> with "MRC"]
Please have the gentleness to learn and understand about quoting on usenet.
Also please have the gentleness to not suggest that the readers of this
usenet group don't know how to read a post in context.
> Dave Pearson wrote:
> > * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
> >
> >>Dave Pearson wrote:
> >
> >>>Why do you assume that the lists are "dirty"?
> >>
> >>Based on your sayings (see quote above).
> >
> > Right, I didn't say the lists were dirty. The people who have CVS write
> > access are the people who have CVS write access. Taking write access
> > away from people would not be the right thing to do unless there was a
> > reason to do so. Those people have earned the right to write to CVS.
> > Revoking that right because a single individual doesn't like the look of
> > the content of the lists makes no sense.
>
> irrelevant. [please avoid increasing uneccessary complexity]
It's highly relevent. If you were an honest person you'd say why it wasn't
relevant (saying that it adds "complexity" simply demonstrates that you're
either not willing or not able to deal with real life, you decide). People
will note that you simple state that it isn't relevant and say nothing else
useful.
Here are the facts: The lists of registered developers, as you'll find on
SourceForge, are lists of people who have been awarded, by their peers, the
right to write to CVS. First you have to dispute this fact before you can
say anything in this regard lacks relevance.
> relevant: the list [xHarbour developers] did not reflect the real active
> contributors to xHarbour.
The harbour CVS write rights lists is a list of people who have the right to
write to harbour's CVS. The xharbour CVS write rights list is a list of
people who have the right to write to xharbour's CVS. These are facts. Are
you able to dispute them?
> "Everyone from HARBOUR got write access to XHARBOUER"
> "Some retained access" - [but possibly do not contribute]
> "Some paid no attention access" - [and highly possibly do not contribute]
>
> [it is really exhausting to me to extract those facts against your
> resistance.
Resistance?
> Please do not abuse my patience and adittionally don't forget
> that there are readers, too.]
I'm sure that everyone else reading this is capable of comprehending what
I'm saying.
> > I gave you no information in regard to activity.
>
> I concluded : "Thus "Sourgeforge" Activity tracks only CVS access."
> you confirm : "That is my understanding."
>
> => {you give me information regarding Activity.}
>
> [please increase your precision]
That isn't information about what activity tracks. It's me saying that
*your* conclusion was the same as my understanding. Notice how you were the
one providing information about CVS?
> I realize that your information was not a given fact but an assumption.
>
> => {Realized My fault: I trusted your information}
And, yet, it seems it was right. So even if I had given you some information
about how SourceForge calculate "activity" you'd have been right to trust
me.
> > Should I ever find that I'm in a position where I'm obsessed with CVS
> > activity I'll be sure to go back and re-read that documentation.
> > Personally I have no such obsession.
>
> You are 'obsessed' with CVS activity, as you use it in this conversation.
Curious. You're the one who brought the subject up, not me.
> You have abused the trust i had in you.
First you'd have to document your trust in me, then you'd have to document
how I abused it. But it's clear from what you say here that you are nothing
but a common liar because I abused nothing and never intended to abuse
anything.
> You admit that it was an assumtion.
Yes. I never said otherwise.
> But you refuse to correct your fault, whilst providing me [and the
> readers] with the correct background information (information about
> SourceForge Activity)
What fault? You keep trying to admonish me for a fault that hasn't been
documented.
> You are an unfriendly person.
Err, Ilias, you're the one who is telling lies about me. Who is the
unfriendly one here?
> Please correct your faulty behaviour if you are interested in further
> conversation
Please direct this comment to yourself.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > I didn't. I pointed out that a friendly person with questions will check
> > the FAQ to see if their Q is FA.
>
> I see.
>
> Your 'talkaround' is really exhausting.
Why do you think a direct pointer to the list you desired is "talkaround"?
> reminding context:
>
> Website of open-source-project.
> expecation: link to sourceForge project in the main page.
> further details: see below, the 'work' is half-done.
No, the context in question was about pointers to other projects related to
harbour.
> [OMITTED_QUOTE]
>
> >>www.harbour-project.org
> >>
> >>there's a grafic, top right, "SOURCEFORGE".
> >>
> >>This does not link to the specific SourceForge project, but to
> >>sourceforge itself.
>
> [/OMITED_QUOTE]
>
> It is very interesting, that you've omitted this.
I omitted it for two reasons. The first is that I wasn't actually responding
to that, I was responding to this:
,----
| suggestion:
| place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
| descendant project.
`----
See <slrnbn8cof.8...@hagbard.davep.org> for my response to that.
The second reason is that I try and keep posts as small as possible while
retaining enough quoting to provide enough context to remind people what
we're talking about. Other than that people generally use threaded news
readers so it's easy for them to follow the thread.
> But to be taken seriously, you should at minimum quote with precision.
To be taken seriously you should quote the right things.
Ron Pinkas
> contributors to xHarbour.
Not true! xHarbour Developers list is constantly being maintained, and
accurately reflects status of developers and contributors.
> "Everyone from HARBOUR got write access to XHARBOUER"
> "Some retained access" - [but possibly do not contribute]
> "Some paid no attention access" - [and highly possibly do not contribute]
I originally did grant CVS access to almost all Harbour developers. I
contacted all the devlopers and advised them of my invitation. Few days
later I REMOVED all those that rejected my invitiation, and few months later
I REMOVED those that did not actively express direct interest in the
project. The current list (for many months) is very accurate.
Ron
ilias
> Dear Ilias,
>
> [...]
>
>>Looking at the registry-information for harbour-project.org, and
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm, the site is controlled by the
>>founders of xHarbour.com.
>
> Alexander S. Kresin is the webmaster of harbour-project.org, which is hosted
> on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
false.
[your statement cannot supersede the above mentioned public information]
suggestions:
- You should ensure an updated information of
"http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm" and "webmaster".
- You should ensure a clarifying statement about content control.
Especially as you are personally involved.
-
btw: critical copyright information is not available:
http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour-2.html#ss2.11
Not Found
The requested URL /faq/harbour-2.html was not found on this server.
-
ilias
> Dear Ilias,
>
> [...]
>
>>Looking at the registry-information for harbour-project.org, and
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm, the site is controlled by the
>>founders of xHarbour.com.
>
> Alexander S. Kresin is the webmaster of harbour-project.org, which is hosted
> on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
false.
ilias
>> Alexander S. Kresin is the webmaster of harbour-project.org, which is
>> hosted on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
>
> false.
>
> [your statement cannot supersede the above mentioned public information]
clarification: the above refers to the information "webmaster" (not
"hosting location", which is not the main topic).
ilias
>>relevant: the list [xHarbour developers] did not reflect the real active
>>contributors to xHarbour.
>
> Not true! xHarbour Developers list is constantly being maintained, and
> accurately reflects status of developers and contributors.
ok
i like this.
>>"Everyone from HARBOUR got write access to XHARBOUER"
>>"Some retained access" - [but possibly do not contribute]
>>"Some paid no attention access" - [and highly possibly do not contribute]
>
> I originally did grant CVS access to almost all Harbour developers. I
> contacted all the devlopers and advised them of my invitation. Few days
> later I REMOVED all those that rejected my invitiation, and few months later
> I REMOVED those that did not actively express direct interest in the
> project. The current list (for many months) is very accurate.
Thank you for your explanations.
Personally, i rate this as a gentle and professional way to deal with
the harbour developers.
possible exception: "...to almost all...".
Which Harbour developers did you exclude from your initial invitation?
For which reasons?
> Ron
ilias
topic" or "two people, which cannot communicate, possibly due to
different natures")
-
redundancy.
conversation aborted.
-
[please review this message, which contain the small and compact
relevant answers to the sbuject of this subthread]
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=A28eb.199$qj6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net
pe
I get it, you have chosen to not respond to questions, yet you still demand
answers.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I didn't. I pointed out that a friendly person with questions will check
>>>the FAQ to see if their Q is FA.
>>
>>I see.
>>
>>Your 'talkaround' is really exhausting.
>
> Why do you think a direct pointer to the list you desired is "talkaround"?
>
>>reminding context:
>>
>>Website of open-source-project.
>>expecation: link to sourceForge project in the main page.
>>further details: see below, the 'work' is half-done.
>
> No, the context in question was about pointers to other projects related to
> harbour.
"
search for the Harbour-project on sourceforge.net.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
suggestion:
place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
descendant project.
"
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F742B5D...@abeon.com
-
repetition.
conversation aborted.
ilias
Please, in your own interest, correct your attitude.
Thank you.
pe
> Which Harbour developers did you exclude from your initial invitation?
Why is this important?
>
> For which reasons?
Same here
>
> > Ron
>
pe
Dave Pearson
> repetition.
The only repetition here is you repeatedly lying. Why do you keep suggesting
that I replied to something I didn't? If you were an honest person you'd
acknowledge that <slrnbn8cof.8...@hagbard.davep.org> was a
response that provided you with information to the part of your post that I
quoted.
<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=slrnbn8cof.8i4.davep.news%40hagbard.davep.org>
It was information given in good faith and you've since spent time and
effort attempting to suggest otherwise. Your sincerity has been tested and
has been found wanting.
> conversation aborted.
I thought that might be the case. You often do this when exposed as a liar.
Ron Pinkas
Victor.
> For which reasons?
It was clear to me that he would not be intrested.
Ron
ilias
I'll not ask further, as i honestly trust your evaluation.
> Ron
I appreciate the precision of your writing.
You wrote "almost all", cause you've excluded one person.
-
Thank you for your gentleness to directly answer my questions.
-
[clarification: my writings are 100% sincere]
Gary Stark
ilias wrote:
And you'll do what, exactly, if he doesn't ?
Curious minds want to know.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Gary Stark
> > conversation aborted.
>
> I thought that might be the case. You often do this when exposed as a liar.
He rarely does anything else.
Gary Stark
> [clarification: my writings are 100% sincere]
And 200% trash!
ilias
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>repetition.
>
> The only repetition here is you repeatedly lying. Why do you keep suggesting
> that I replied to something I didn't? If you were an honest person you'd
> acknowledge that <slrnbn8cof.8...@hagbard.davep.org> was a
> response that provided you with information to the part of your post that I
> quoted.
>
> <URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=slrnbn8cof.8i4.davep.news%40hagbard.davep.org>
>
> It was information given in good faith and you've since spent time and
> effort attempting to suggest otherwise. Your sincerity has been tested and
> has been found wanting.
>
>>conversation aborted.
>
> I thought that might be the case. You often do this when exposed as a liar.
one finaly try:
I am the original poster of this topic.
Thus my context is the relevant one:
-
first given context:
"
search for the Harbour-project on sourceforge.net.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/xharbour/
suggestion:
place friendly links on http://www.harbour-project.org/ pointing to any
descendant project.
"
-
"descendant project" [notice: the 2 main projects were stated]
The FAQ points to different projects.
Thus irrelevant. [overinformation]
-
second given context (contains clarification)
"
reminding context:
Website of open-source-project.
expecation: link to sourceForge project in the main page.
further details: see below, the 'work' is half-done.
"
-
Ron Pinkas
hosted
> > on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
>
> false.
Ilias, you are doing yourself a disservice with this kind of atitude. It is
a simple fact that the Harbour Web Master is Alexander. You may contact him
in person to confirm that fact. Incase you wonder, he is not at all involved
in xHarbour. He is a very loyal and very important Harbour devloper for many
years.
> [your statement cannot supersede the above mentioned public information]
Patrick is no longer the Web Master of Harbour. When he resigned from that
position he posted a notice to the Developers list. At that time, he could
not have changed the name of on the Web Master, as there was no known
replacement at that time. Later it become the resposnability of the Harbour
Project Manager (Phil) to appoint a new Web Master which in turn is in
charge of updating the site.
Patrick simply informed you of what he KNOWS, and that information is 100%
TRUE, regardless of any [invalid] public information you may have
encountered. It would be much better to THANK him for providing the CORRECT
info you were lokking for, instead of accusing him of providing false
information. It's even more frustrating that you claim it to be false
without any basis.
[Seeing a conflicting public info, is NOT a proof that the other statement
is false - it's a proof that ONE of the 2 is wrong (and probably dated).]
> suggestions:
> - You should ensure an updated information of
> "http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm" and "webmaster".
> - You should ensure a clarifying statement about content control.
We already advised you that Patrick has no longer any such responsability.
> Especially as you are personally involved.
WAS invloved.
> btw: critical copyright information is not available:
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour-2.html#ss2.11
>
> Not Found
Again, you should forward such info to the people in charge of the Harbour
Project. Best place of contact should be the Harbour Developers mailing
list.
Ron
ilias
> Billy,
>
> ilias wrote:
>
>>pe wrote:
>>
>>>Ilias
>>>
>>>I get it, you have chosen to not respond to questions, yet you still demand
>>>answers.
>>
>>Please, in your own interest, correct your attitude.
>
> And you'll do what, exactly, if he doesn't ?
I'll do nothing.
That was a friendly suggestion.
> Curious minds want to know.
Apologize.
pe
> Gary Stark wrote:
> > Billy,
> >
> > ilias wrote:
> >
> >>pe wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ilias
> >>>
> >>>I get it, you have chosen to not respond to questions, yet you still
demand
> >>>answers.
> >>
> >>Please, in your own interest, correct your attitude.
> >
> > And you'll do what, exactly, if he doesn't ?
>
> I'll do nothing.
>
> That was a friendly suggestion.
The point is, it _really_ doesn't come across as such.
>
> > Curious minds want to know.
>
> Apologize.
You do?
Gary Stark
> > >>Please, in your own interest, correct your attitude.
> > >
> > > And you'll do what, exactly, if he doesn't ?
> >
> > I'll do nothing.
> >
> > That was a friendly suggestion.
>
> The point is, it _really_ doesn't come across as such.
I certainly read it as a threat.
A most unfriendly threat.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > I thought that might be the case. You often do this when exposed as a liar.
>
> one finaly try:
>
> I am the original poster of this topic.
>
> Thus my context is the relevant one:
And I responded, in good faith, to one part of your post, pointing you to
the pointers you desired. Instead of accepting those pointers and thanking
me for helping you get the information you desired you started playing games
and attempting to suggest that I'd munged your context.
> "descendant project" [notice: the 2 main projects were stated]
>
> The FAQ points to different projects.
>
> Thus irrelevant. [overinformation]
The FAQ points to, amongst other things, descendant projects. It's a shame
that you think it is irrelevant because it demonstrates that you're not
sincere when you seek information.
Mark L. Cooper
Or he'll purchase Harbour from you guys and then you really will feel
morally bound to deal with<g>.
Mark
--
Mark L. Cooper
Columbus, Ohio USA
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Scanned w/MLC's AVG scanner.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/27/2003
pe
news:blk61r$cle6v$1...@ID-147466.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Paul,
>
> Or he'll purchase Harbour from you guys and then you really will feel
> morally bound to deal with<g>.
Ahh, yes, _that_!
<g>
--
http://tulis.dsinet.org/misc/bart.gif
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from -
self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
-------
ilias
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>I thought that might be the case. You often do this when exposed as a liar.
"liar".
>>one finaly try:
>>
>>I am the original poster of this topic.
>>
>>Thus my context is the relevant one:
>
> And I responded, in good faith, to one part of your post, pointing you to
> the pointers you desired. Instead of accepting those pointers and thanking
> me for helping you get the information you desired you started playing games
> and attempting to suggest that I'd munged your context.
ok
>>"descendant project" [notice: the 2 main projects were stated]
>>
>>The FAQ points to different projects.
>>
>>Thus irrelevant. [overinformation]
>
> The FAQ points to, amongst other things, descendant projects. It's a shame
> that you think it is irrelevant because it demonstrates that you're not
> sincere when you seek information.
"shame".
ilias
>>>Alexander S. Kresin is the webmaster of harbour-project.org, which is
>>>hosted on Phil Barnet's Fiberhosting servers.
>>
>>false.
>
> Ilias, you are doing yourself a disservice with this kind of atitude. It is
> a simple fact that the Harbour Web Master is Alexander. You may contact him
> in person to confirm that fact. Incase you wonder, he is not at all involved
> in xHarbour. He is a very loyal and very important Harbour devloper for many
> years.
irrelevant.
>>[your statement cannot supersede the above mentioned public
>>information]
>
> Patrick is no longer the Web Master of Harbour. When he resigned from that
> position he posted a notice to the Developers list. At that time, he could
> not have changed the name of on the Web Master, as there was no known
> replacement at that time. Later it become the resposnability of the Harbour
> Project Manager (Phil) to appoint a new Web Master which in turn is in
> charge of updating the site.
>
> Patrick simply informed you of what he KNOWS, and that information is 100%
> TRUE, regardless of any [invalid] public information you may have
> encountered. It would be much better to THANK him for providing the CORRECT
> info you were lokking for, instead of accusing him of providing false
> information. It's even more frustrating that you claim it to be false
> without any basis.
>
> [Seeing a conflicting public info, is NOT a proof that the other statement
> is false - it's a proof that ONE of the 2 is wrong (and probably dated).]
the public information is missleading and false.
>>suggestions:
>>- You should ensure an updated information of
>>"http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm" and "webmaster".
>>- You should ensure a clarifying statement about content control.
>
> We already advised you that Patrick has no longer any such responsability.
There are other visitors of this website, too.
the public information is missleading and false.
please correct.
>>Especially as you are personally involved.
>
> WAS invloved.
is involved. [still mentioned as active webmaster on the webpage]
>>btw: critical copyright information is not available:
>>
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour-2.html#ss2.11
>>
>>Not Found
>
> Again, you should forward such info to the people in charge of the Harbour
> Project. Best place of contact should be the Harbour Developers mailing
> list.
"btw"
>
> Ron