[HARBOUR_VS_XHARBOUR] - Same way, different paths?
ilias
http://www.harbour-project.org/
the some people decide to go a "more agressive developement path" (or
so) and build xHarbour.
Then they place a commercial distribution
Did they succeed? In my opinion they have a long way to reach e.g.
Alaskas xbase++ grade commercial distribution.
See yourself:
[XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=oprvohpwi9zi80sk%40news.cis.dfn.de
Without the splitting the teams, they possible had reached their goal
already.
-
Is the starting source of "xHarbour" taken from the project "Harbour"?
There is still the old developer list in
http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
Are they still associated with harbour?
-
was the splitting really neccessary?
was the splitting based on rationality?
or was it based on egoism?
any further references are welcome.
pe
You fogot the VO part of these questions.
"ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
news:3F718A43...@abeon.com...
reference: dev/null
Ron Pinkas
Yes.
> There is still the old developer list in
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>
> Are they still associated with harbour?
You'll need to ask each specific individual.
> was the splitting really neccessary?
Necessary to whom?
> was the splitting based on rationality?
Yes.
> or was it based on egoism?
Of course it was based on egoism. Every thing that everyone does is driven
by egoism.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
>
> or was it based on egoism?
Rational and Egoism, are NOT mutually exclusive. Your use of "or" is faulty!
Ron
pe
> was the splitting based on rationality?
>
> or was it based on egoism?
I got a big ego
and everywhere I go
the world revolves
around me.
>
> any further references are welcome.
How much further? Mars is nice this time of year.
Gary Stark
> > any further references are welcome.
>
> How much further? Mars is nice this time of year.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Mars year or Earth year? And which
hemisphere ?
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Jon Mayhem
pe
news:3F71EF66...@yahoo.com...
> Paul,
>
>
> > > any further references are welcome.
> >
> > How much further? Mars is nice this time of year.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. Mars year or Earth year? And which
> hemisphere ?
>
The hemisphere in the year that is dear is the one that is near.
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>Is the starting source of "xHarbour" taken from the project "Harbour"?
>
> Yes.
ok
>>There is still the old developer list in
>>
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>>
>>Are they still associated with harbour?
>
> You'll need to ask each specific individual.
Suggestion: update information on
http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
thus any interested party sees that HARBOUR / XHARBOUR communities are
interested in providing transparency to interested parties.
The owner of the domain harbour-project.org should not hinder this.
>>was the splitting really neccessary?
>
> Necessary to whom?
To the HARBOUR community.
To the Clipper community.
To the people which have invested time and trust.
>>was the splitting based on rationality?
>
> Yes.
Any documentation on this?
e.g.: usenet discussions / articles.
>>or was it based on egoism?
>
> Of course it was based on egoism. Every thing that everyone does is driven
> by egoism.
This is false.
Proof: When one goes to pee, it is not driven by egoism.
> Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>was the splitting based on rationality?
>>
>>or was it based on egoism?
>
> Rational and Egoism, are NOT mutually exclusive.
you are right.
> Your use of "or" is faulty!
Some egoisms are that strong, that rationality is blinded.
But i still hope to detect, that all this here is not a destruction of
the last hope for the clipper open-source community.
> Ron
ilias
pe wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F718A43...@abeon.com...
>
>>First there was
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>was the splitting based on rationality?
>>
>>or was it based on egoism?
>
> I got a big ego
> and everywhere I go
> the world revolves
> around me.
I've noticed this already.
>>any further references are welcome.
>
> How much further? Mars is nice this time of year.
Do you really think that such comments will strengthen your position?
Or the position of the product [xHarbour] you represent here?
pe
> [...]
> Do you really think that such comments will strengthen your position?
>
> Or the position of the product [xHarbour] you represent here?
I see you're humour impaired too.
pe
[...]
> >>was the splitting really neccessary?
> >
> > Necessary to whom?
>
> To the people which have invested time and trust.
Since you have done neither, what do you care?
Dave Pearson
> >>There is still the old developer list in
> >>
> >>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
> >>
> >>Are they still associated with harbour?
> >
> > You'll need to ask each specific individual.
>
> Suggestion: update information on
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>
> thus any interested party sees that HARBOUR / XHARBOUR communities are
> interested in providing transparency to interested parties.
There is no useful method of knowing or defining if someone is still
associated with a particular software project. There is no signing up method
and no leaving method. The crew list is simply a method of putting faces to
names and letting people know who has contributed to harbour in the past or
who is contributing now. Moreover, it's a list of people who wish to be
identified in such a way. It's not a requirement. Nobody who works on the
project has to be on that list. Likewise, just because someone isn't active
on the software right now it doesn't follow that they shouldn't be on the
list or that the list should mention this.
I fail to see how transparency has anything to do with anything.
The harbour and xharbour communities (and it's debatable that you can
actually define what a "community" is in this sense) are interested in
developing and *providing* free software Clipper compatible compilers. As
such they've got nothing to hide but, at the same time, there are better
things to be doing that documenting the reasons for project forks. You
shouldn't be surprised to find that people are donating what little free
time they've got to working on the software itself rather than documenting
unimportant things to satisfy the voyeuristic needs or a small number of
individuals who are more interested in the people than in the software.
> Proof: When one goes to pee, it is not driven by egoism.
. o O ( I generally go to a lavatory to pee because pissing myself in )
( public would deflate my ego. )
--
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.
ilias
Isolated humor is rude.
Humor in conjunction with the answers is acceptable.
So, please respond with some answers.
And feel free to add humor.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>>>There is still the old developer list in
>>>>
>>>>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>>>>
>>>>Are they still associated with harbour?
>>>
>>>You'll need to ask each specific individual.
>>
>>Suggestion: update information on
>>
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>>
>>thus any interested party sees that HARBOUR / XHARBOUR communities are
>>interested in providing transparency to interested parties.
>
>
> I fail to see how transparency has anything to do with anything.
I know that you can do better than expressing fuzzy justifications.
-
Transparency has to do with commercial distributions, here xHarbour.com.
Potential customer should have every information neccessary to evaluate
the product and the vendor.
The spin-off is not described with precision and transparency to
potential customers.
To me it seems clear: the founders of xHarbour.com are not interested to
provide clearer information on harbour-project.org.
A whois query on "harbour-project.org" shows who has control over the
domain.
>>Proof: When one goes to pee, it is not driven by egoism.
>
> . o O ( I generally go to a lavatory to pee because pissing myself in )
> ( public would deflate my ego. )
Sometimes you have no other choice.
Body-functions override your ego-protection.
ilias
I've already invested many time in xHarbour.
Now i'm interested in who's responsible for that
"Same way, differet paths"
-
Please be so kindly to answer some of the questions.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> [...] (justifications)
> > I fail to see how transparency has anything to do with anything.
> [...] (justifications)
>
> I know that you can do better than expressing fuzzy justifications.
I didn't provide any justifications. If you think I wrote justifications
then I ask that you go back and re-read what I wrote.
> Transparency has to do with commercial distributions, here xHarbour.com.
> Potential customer should have every information neccessary to evaluate
> the product and the vendor.
xHarbour.com has no connection with harbour. That there are people working
for xHarbour.com who have contributed code to harbour, in the past, or now,
is neither here nor there. That there are people involved with xHarbour who
have previously contributed time and resources to harbour is also neither
here not there.
> The spin-off is not described with precision and transparency to potential
> customers.
That's an issue between the customers of xHarbour.com and xHarbour.com
themselves. It has nothing to do with harbour. If this is a concern for you
then you should take this up with xHarbour.com directly.
> To me it seems clear: the founders of xHarbour.com are not interested to
> provide clearer information on harbour-project.org.
The founders of xHarbour.com don't control harbour-project.org.
> A whois query on "harbour-project.org" shows who has control over the
> domain.
Don't confuse "control" over a domain with control over the content of a web
site.
Can I suggest you spend less time dumpster diving in the whois database, by
way of attempting to uncover a grand conspiracy, and spend more time
listening to what people are telling you?
Think of it like this: xHarbour.com is to harbour what RedHat are to the
Linux kernel. You might see the same name crop up in more than one place
(for RedHat/Linux: Alan Cox, for example) but that doesn't mean that they're
all the same entity or that they all have the same aims and motivations.
Dave Pearson
> pe wrote:
>
> > I see you're humour impaired too.
>
> Isolated humor is rude.
Isolated humor and isolated answers as well as combined humour and answers
are common and accepted in comp.lang.clipper. Please don't be so rude as to
tell us that we're rude for doing what we've being doing for years.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>[...] (justifications)
>>>I fail to see how transparency has anything to do with anything.
>>[...] (justifications)
>>
>>I know that you can do better than expressing fuzzy justifications.
>
> I didn't provide any justifications. If you think I wrote justifications
> then I ask that you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Already revieved.
Justifications - and i know you can do better.
-
[harbour / xHarbour developer lists:]
https://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=33773
https://sourceforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=681
>>Transparency has to do with commercial distributions, here xHarbour.com.
>>Potential customer should have every information neccessary to evaluate
>>the product and the vendor.
>
> xHarbour.com has no connection with harbour.
false fact.
[...]( further comment ignored.)
>>The spin-off is not described with precision and transparency to potential
>>customers.
>
> That's an issue between the customers of xHarbour.com and xHarbour.com
> themselves. It has nothing to do with harbour. If this is a concern for you
> then you should take this up with xHarbour.com directly.
Thank you for your suggestion.
I prefere my way.
>>To me it seems clear: the founders of xHarbour.com are not interested to
>>provide clearer information on harbour-project.org.
>
> The founders of xHarbour.com don't control harbour-project.org.
http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm
>>A whois query on "harbour-project.org" shows who has control over the
>>domain.
>
> Don't confuse "control" over a domain with control over the content of a web
> site.
Who controls the content of the web-site "harbour-project.org" ?
> Can I suggest you spend less time dumpster diving in the whois database, by
> way of attempting to uncover a grand conspiracy, and spend more time
> listening to what people are telling you?
Can i suggest to correct your tenor?
Thank you.
> Think of it like this: xHarbour.com is to harbour what RedHat are to the
> Linux kernel. You might see the same name crop up in more than one place
> (for RedHat/Linux: Alan Cox, for example) but that doesn't mean that they're
> all the same entity or that they all have the same aims and motivations.
Please do not increase complexity.
This is unnecessary.
ilias
[full context recreated manually]
>>Isolated humor is rude.
>>Humor in conjunction with the answers is acceptable.
>>So, please respond with some answers.
>>And feel free to add humor.
>
> Isolated humor and isolated answers as well as combined humour and answers
> are common and accepted in comp.lang.clipper.
Irrelevant.
Personal rating supersedes majority in given [personal] context.
>Please don't be so rude as to tell us that we're rude for doing what
>we've being doing for years.
Faulty conclusion [based on faulty interpretation]
Fautly use of plural.
-
Your comments became off-topic.
Please have the gentleness to focus on answers.
Thank you.
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > I didn't provide any justifications. If you think I wrote justifications
> > then I ask that you go back and re-read what I wrote.
>
> Already revieved.
>
> Justifications - and i know you can do better.
Can I suggest you correct your tenor?
I didn't write justifications. I know you can comprehend better.
> > xHarbour.com has no connection with harbour.
>
> false fact.
It's a fact. You can, of course, ignore the facts and use the "evidence"
you've found to believe otherwise. That's your call. You're more than
welcome to carry on working in a state of ignorance.
> [...]( further comment ignored.)
There's you're problem. You're ignoring answers to your questions.
> > The founders of xHarbour.com don't control harbour-project.org.
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm
That page is out of date and needs to be updated. I let the web master of
harbour know about this a good few months ago. I suspect this is a prime
example of how the project itself is more important than the content of the
web site. This happens, some free software projects can be "under staffed"
and people will spend more time working on the code than on the "marketing".
But you'll dismiss that as "justifications" won't you?
> > Don't confuse "control" over a domain with control over the content of a
> > web site.
>
> Who controls the content of the web-site "harbour-project.org" ?
Harbour's web master. I forget his name right now. Have you asked them?
> > Can I suggest you spend less time dumpster diving in the whois database,
> > by way of attempting to uncover a grand conspiracy, and spend more time
> > listening to what people are telling you?
>
> Can i suggest to correct your tenor?
You can. That won't alter the fact that you're horribly confusing yourself
by looking for some form of conspiracy where none exists.
> > Think of it like this: xHarbour.com is to harbour what RedHat are to the
> > Linux kernel. You might see the same name crop up in more than one place
> > (for RedHat/Linux: Alan Cox, for example) but that doesn't mean that
> > they're all the same entity or that they all have the same aims and
> > motivations.
>
> Please do not increase complexity.
If you find the above complex then you won't understand anything about free
software or harbour and the projects that have forked off from it. The facts
can be complex. If you're willing to acknowledge this then you might learn
from the answers you get to your questions. If you aren't willing to
acknowledge this then there's little point in anyone answering any of your
questions.
In other words, why ask for information if you're going to dismiss the
correct and factual answers as too complex?
> This is unnecessary.
It is necessary. It is necessary because the point is central to harbour and
the projects that have forked from it. It's also necessary because it helps
gauge if you're actually interested in facts and history or if you're just
trolling.
pe
> pe wrote:
> > "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F7417A2...@abeon.com...
> > [...]
> >
> >>>>was the splitting really neccessary?
> >>>
> >>>Necessary to whom?
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >>To the people which have invested time and trust.
> >
> > Since you have done neither, what do you care?
>
> I've already invested many time in xHarbour.
What you invested in was a crusade to get a document we have no interest in
supplying at this time. What you did with the product is beyond me.
> Now i'm interested in who's responsible for that
The in-your-face part? Oh, that was me.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I didn't provide any justifications. If you think I wrote justifications
>>>then I ask that you go back and re-read what I wrote.
>>
>>Already revieved.
>>
>>Justifications - and i know you can do better.
>
> Can I suggest you correct your tenor?
yes, you can.
> I didn't write justifications. I know you can comprehend better.
I comprehend.
>>>xHarbour.com has no connection with harbour.
>>
>>false fact.
>
> It's a fact. You can, of course, ignore the facts and use the "evidence"
> you've found to believe otherwise. That's your call. You're more than
> welcome to carry on working in a state of ignorance.
The "connection" between xHarbour / Harbour is:
Harbour is the roots ot xHarbour.
>>[...]( further comment ignored.)
>
> There's you're problem. You're ignoring answers to your questions.
No, i ignore the irrelevant answers.
>>>The founders of xHarbour.com don't control harbour-project.org.
>>
>>http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm
>
> That page is out of date and needs to be updated. I let the web master of
> harbour know about this a good few months ago. I suspect this is a prime
> example of how the project itself is more important than the content of the
> web site. This happens, some free software projects can be "under staffed"
> and people will spend more time working on the code than on the "marketing".
> But you'll dismiss that as "justifications" won't you?
No, this looks more like a doubtfull missinformation.
=> {public information "domain-owner" has no influence on content}
=> {public information "web master" is out of date}
>>>Don't confuse "control" over a domain with control over the content of a
>>>web site.
>>
>>Who controls the content of the web-site "harbour-project.org" ?
>
> Harbour's web master. I forget his name right now.
i see.
> Have you asked them?
No. I evaluate publically available information.
>>>Can I suggest you spend less time dumpster diving in the whois database,
>>>by way of attempting to uncover a grand conspiracy, and spend more time
>>>listening to what people are telling you?
>>
>>Can i suggest to correct your tenor?
>
> You can. That won't alter the fact that you're horribly confusing yourself
> by looking for some form of conspiracy where none exists.
Faulty conclusion.
>>>Think of it like this: xHarbour.com is to harbour what RedHat are to the
>>>Linux kernel. You might see the same name crop up in more than one place
>>>(for RedHat/Linux: Alan Cox, for example) but that doesn't mean that
>>>they're all the same entity or that they all have the same aims and
>>>motivations.
>>
>>Please do not increase complexity.
>
> If you find the above complex then you won't understand anything about free
> software or harbour and the projects that have forked off from it. The facts
> can be complex. If you're willing to acknowledge this then you might learn
> from the answers you get to your questions. If you aren't willing to
> acknowledge this then there's little point in anyone answering any of your
> questions.
You've rejected my plea.
Again you increase complexity.
This is not very friendly.
> In other words, why ask for information if you're going to dismiss the
> correct and factual answers as too complex?
The answers i request were not complex.
>>This is unnecessary.
>
> It is necessary. It is necessary because the point is central to harbour and
> the projects that have forked from it. It's also necessary because it helps
> gauge if you're actually interested in facts and history or if you're just
> trolling.
I'm interested in exact those facts which i request.
If you can handle this with gentleness, you can answer.
-
The question here is: who is responsible for the missing / incomplete
informations on "www.harbour-project.org"?
ilias
>>>>To the people which have invested time and trust.
>>>
>>>Since you have done neither, what do you care?
>>
>>I've already invested many time in xHarbour.
>
> What you invested in was a crusade to get a document we have no interest in
> supplying at this time. What you did with the product is beyond me.
>
>>Now i'm interested in who's responsible for that
>
> The in-your-face part? Oh, that was me.
You've missunderstood me.
I'd like to know, who is responsible for the "Same way, different
paths", with which i mean the splitting of HARBOUR / XHARBOUR / C3 .
>>"Same way, differet paths"
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > It's a fact. You can, of course, ignore the facts and use the "evidence"
> > you've found to believe otherwise. That's your call. You're more than
> > welcome to carry on working in a state of ignorance.
>
> The "connection" between xHarbour / Harbour is:
>
> Harbour is the roots ot xHarbour.
Right. That and the fact that some people who are/have worked on one
are/have worked on the other. They are, however, very different projects
with different aims, motivations and directions. It isn't the job of the
harbour web site to promote xharbour and it isn't the job of the xharbour
web site to promote harbour.
> > There's you're problem. You're ignoring answers to your questions.
>
> No, i ignore the irrelevant answers.
Deciding that they're irrelevant is faulty reasoning. It is not gentle.
> > That page is out of date and needs to be updated. I let the web master
> > of harbour know about this a good few months ago. I suspect this is a
> > prime example of how the project itself is more important than the
> > content of the web site. This happens, some free software projects can
> > be "under staffed" and people will spend more time working on the code
> > than on the "marketing". But you'll dismiss that as "justifications"
> > won't you?
>
> No, this looks more like a doubtfull missinformation.
Are you suggesting that I'm attempting to spread missinformation? That is
not gentle.
> > If you find the above complex then you won't understand anything about
> > free software or harbour and the projects that have forked off from it.
> > The facts can be complex. If you're willing to acknowledge this then you
> > might learn from the answers you get to your questions. If you aren't
> > willing to acknowledge this then there's little point in anyone
> > answering any of your questions.
>
> You've rejected my plea.
>
> Again you increase complexity.
No, again I explain the facts to you.
> This is not very friendly.
Would a friend lie to you? Why do you want me to lie to you?
> > In other words, why ask for information if you're going to dismiss the
> > correct and factual answers as too complex?
>
> The answers i request were not complex.
Faulty conclusion. If you request answers then you can't know their level of
complexity.
> > It is necessary. It is necessary because the point is central to harbour
> > and the projects that have forked from it. It's also necessary because
> > it helps gauge if you're actually interested in facts and history or if
> > you're just trolling.
>
> I'm interested in exact those facts which i request.
And you've been given them. But now you dismiss them as "complex".
> The question here is: who is responsible for the missing / incomplete
> informations on "www.harbour-project.org"?
The webmaster. Have you tried email the webmaster? Are you kind and gentle
enough to file a bug report regarding the web site via the project's bug
reporting system? Are you kind and gentle enough to drop the developer's
mailing list a note to point out the problem with the web site?
Gary Stark
> > > xHarbour.com has no connection with harbour.
> >
> > false fact.
>
> It's a fact. You can, of course, ignore the facts and use the "evidence"
I'm intrigued with the concept of "false facts"
If something is a fact, it cannot, by definition, be false.
> > > Can I suggest you spend less time dumpster diving in the whois database,
> > > by way of attempting to uncover a grand conspiracy, and spend more time
> > > listening to what people are telling you?
> >
> > Can i suggest to correct your tenor?
>
> You can. That won't alter the fact that you're horribly confusing yourself
> by looking for some form of conspiracy where none exists.
Replace the tenor with Barry Tone.
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>It's a fact. You can, of course, ignore the facts and use the "evidence"
>>>you've found to believe otherwise. That's your call. You're more than
>>>welcome to carry on working in a state of ignorance.
>>
>>The "connection" between xHarbour / Harbour is:
>>
>>Harbour is the roots ot xHarbour.
>
> Right.
ok
> That and the fact that some people who are/have worked on one
> are/have worked on the other. They are, however, very different projects
> with different aims, motivations and directions. It isn't the job of the
> harbour web site to promote xharbour and it isn't the job of the xharbour
> web site to promote harbour.
Those are your personal ratings.
I've not requested them.
They are irrelevant.
>>>There's you're problem. You're ignoring answers to your questions.
>>
>>No, i ignore the irrelevant answers.
>
> Deciding that they're irrelevant is faulty reasoning.
Inhibition is a significant parameter in reasoning.
[you sureley realize your ungentleness of moving the discussing away
from my topic]
> It is not gentle.
I is not gentle to dictate what i should refuse.
It is a very personal process.
>>>That page is out of date and needs to be updated. I let the web master
>>>of harbour know about this a good few months ago. I suspect this is a
>>>prime example of how the project itself is more important than the
>>>content of the web site. This happens, some free software projects can
>>>be "under staffed" and people will spend more time working on the code
>>>than on the "marketing". But you'll dismiss that as "justifications"
>>>won't you?
>>
>>No, this looks more like a doubtfull missinformation.
>
> Are you suggesting that I'm attempting to spread missinformation? That is
> not gentle.
I'm sorry if you felt offended.
>>>If you find the above complex then you won't understand anything about
>>>free software or harbour and the projects that have forked off from it.
>>>The facts can be complex. If you're willing to acknowledge this then you
>>>might learn from the answers you get to your questions. If you aren't
>>>willing to acknowledge this then there's little point in anyone
>>>answering any of your questions.
>>
>>You've rejected my plea.
>>
>>Again you increase complexity.
>
> No, again I explain the facts to you.
You interweave a simple fact with irrelevant ones.
My inhibition-ability has limits.
>>This is not very friendly.
>
> Would a friend lie to you? Why do you want me to lie to you?
Reduce complexityl
>>>In other words, why ask for information if you're going to dismiss the
>>>correct and factual answers as too complex?
>>
>>The answers i request were not complex.
>
> Faulty conclusion.
I stated a fact.
> If you request answers then you can't know their level of complexity.
I cannot know the level of complexity someone generates.
That's why i abort discussions sometimes.
>>>It is necessary. It is necessary because the point is central to harbour
>>>and the projects that have forked from it. It's also necessary because
>>>it helps gauge if you're actually interested in facts and history or if
>>>you're just trolling.
>>
>>I'm interested in exact those facts which i request.
>
> And you've been given them. But now you dismiss them as "complex".
Yes, of course.
>>The question here is: who is responsible for the missing / incomplete
>>informations on "www.harbour-project.org"?
>
> The webmaster.
i see.
> Have you tried email the webmaster? Are you kind and gentle
> enough to file a bug report regarding the web site via the project's bug
> reporting system? Are you kind and gentle enough to drop the developer's
> mailing list a note to point out the problem with the web site?
You still give me irrelevant information.
It looks that you're not able to answer my questions.
pe
> [...]
> >>>>To the people which have invested time and trust.
> >>>
> >>>Since you have done neither, what do you care?
> >>
> >>I've already invested many time in xHarbour.
> >
> > What you invested in was a crusade to get a document we have no interest
in
> > supplying at this time. What you did with the product is beyond me.
> >
> >>Now i'm interested in who's responsible for that
> >
> > The in-your-face part? Oh, that was me.
>
> You've missunderstood me.
Apparently, it's contagious. :-)
>
> I'd like to know, who is responsible for the "Same way, different
> paths", with which i mean the splitting of HARBOUR / XHARBOUR / C3 .
Who is responsible for the phrase?
Or do people choose their own paths for infinite reasons?
Or, maybe everyone should have just stayed with Clipper since that's what
started CLIP, Xbase, C3, Harbour, xHarbour, VO.... (and inspired countless
3rd party products to boot)
It's a better mousetrap.
ilias
>>I'd like to know, who is responsible for the "Same way, different
>>paths", with which i mean the splitting of HARBOUR / XHARBOUR / C3 .
>
> Who is responsible for the phrase?
>
> Or do people choose their own paths for infinite reasons?
>
> Or, maybe everyone should have just stayed with Clipper since that's what
> started CLIP, Xbase, C3, Harbour, xHarbour, VO.... (and inspired countless
> 3rd party products to boot)
>
> It's a better mousetrap.
I got enouth information.
Thank you for your answers.
[...]
Ron Pinkas
> >>
> >>http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
> >>
> >>Are they still associated with harbour?
> >
> > You'll need to ask each specific individual.
>
> Suggestion: update information on
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
1. I'm no longer active in the Harbour project.
2. I'm not and n ever was in charge of the Harbour web site.
3. It's very possible that many contributors that YOU consider inactive,
will not agree with YOUR conclusion.
4. It's very possible that many contributors that YOU consider inactive,
will not appreciate being removed (regardless if they still consider them
self active or not).
> thus any interested party sees that HARBOUR / XHARBOUR communities are
> interested in providing transparency to interested parties.
Please explain transparency in this context. Did you mean "clarity"?
If it is clarity, it is very clear to me that both communities are very
intrested in providing clear information, especially about the fork. To
learn more about the fork, i.e. rational, emotions, personalities, all you
have to do is search the Harbour developers archive, which I belive is
indexed by Google.
> >>was the splitting really neccessary?
> >
> > Necessary to whom?
>
> To the HARBOUR community.
You'll need to ask every memebr of the community in order to conclude.
> To the Clipper community.
You'll need to ask every memebr of the community in order to conclude.
> To the people which have invested time and trust.
You'll need to ask every investor of time, to conclude.
> >>was the splitting based on rationality?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Any documentation on this?
1. You yourself refernced at least 1 link, pointing to my description of my
rational.
2. Are you documenting your rational for every private decision you make?
3. Incase you think 2 above is "irelevant" because these are PUBLIC matters,
I must ask:
Have you ever contributed significant pieces of code to any Open Source
Project?
If not how could you be in a position to to decide that such contribution
does NOT mean you give up your freedom to act as an individual?
> e.g.: usenet discussions / articles.
I don't know.
> >>or was it based on egoism?
> >
> > Of course it was based on egoism. Every thing that everyone does is
driven
> > by egoism.
>
> This is false.
>
> Proof: When one goes to pee, it is not driven by egoism.
What source EXTERNAL to ones ego, is driving one to take ANY action
including pee? It was my impression that EVER action we make, is the result
of a transimition from SELF brain to ITS body, to take that action. Can you
please explain where am I wrong?
Ron
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > That and the fact that some people who are/have worked on one are/have
> > worked on the other. They are, however, very different projects with
> > different aims, motivations and directions. It isn't the job of the
> > harbour web site to promote xharbour and it isn't the job of the
> > xharbour web site to promote harbour.
>
> Those are your personal ratings.
No, they are facts. Your willingness or lack of willingness to accept them
speaks volumes.
> I've not requested them.
Yes you did.
> [you sureley realize your ungentleness of moving the discussing away from
> my topic]
I'm sticking to the topic. I've not strayed once. You, on the other hand,
are straying off-topic.
> > It is not gentle.
>
> I is not gentle to dictate what i should refuse.
It is not gentle to dictate what I should post.
> > Are you suggesting that I'm attempting to spread missinformation? That
> > is not gentle.
>
> I'm sorry if you felt offended.
I'm not offended, I'm simply pointing out that you don't stick to your own
standards.
> > No, again I explain the facts to you.
>
> You interweave a simple fact with irrelevant ones.
They're not irrelevant, they're context, they're grounding. They're
explaining the reasoning.
> > Would a friend lie to you? Why do you want me to lie to you?
>
> Reduce complexityl
So you do want me to lie to you?
> > If you request answers then you can't know their level of complexity.
>
> I cannot know the level of complexity someone generates.
>
> That's why i abort discussions sometimes.
Please feel free to abort this discussion if you really find the history of
harbour to be a complex subject.
> It looks that you're not able to answer my questions.
I am and I have. It looks that you're not able to comprehend my answers to
your questions.
Ron Pinkas
>
>
> Ron Pinkas wrote:
> >>was the splitting based on rationality?
> >>
> >>or was it based on egoism?
> >
> > Rational and Egoism, are NOT mutually exclusive.
>
> you are right.
>
> > Your use of "or" is faulty!
>
> Some egoisms are that strong, that rationality is blinded.
Yes, you have provided PLENTY of evidence, to support that statement.
> But i still hope to detect, that all this here is not a destruction of
> the last hope for the clipper open-source community.
I share your hope, but I don't the rest of your statement.
"the last hope" is faulty description of the current landscape of the future
of the "clipper open source community" There are at least 4 seperate open
source projects each providing many hopes.
Ron
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> >>Humor in conjunction with the answers is acceptable.
> >>So, please respond with some answers.
> >>And feel free to add humor.
> >
> > Isolated humor and isolated answers as well as combined humour and
answers
> > are common and accepted in comp.lang.clipper.
>
> Irrelevant.
Falutly conclusion.
> Personal rating supersedes majority in given [personal] context.
Not in a public forum.
> >Please don't be so rude as to tell us that we're rude for doing what
> >we've being doing for years.
>
> Faulty conclusion [based on faulty interpretation]
Faulty conclusion.
> Fautly use of plural.
Faulty conclusion, Dave + Ron == we == plural use is valid.
> Your comments became off-topic.
>
> Please have the gentleness to focus on answers.
YOUR comments became off-topic. Please try to understand the answers, if you
can't understand, simply ask for clarification, or if you repeatdly can't
understand, simply accept the fact the you apparantly are unable to
understand certain things.
No one is in a position to understand everything.
One's SELF rating of SELF's understanding level, must be evaluated against
the general understand of the people most respected as the experts in the
given field. One should NOT argue against the experts in any field, and
expect to be taken seriously, UNLESS he is an ESTABLISHED Expert TOO, in the
very field.
Ron
steff-edy
harbour only support linux RH 7.3????. because i'm use RH 9.0.
ilias <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message news:<3F718A43...@abeon.com>...
> First there was
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/
>
> the some people decide to go a "more agressive developement path" (or
> so) and build xHarbour.
>
> http://www.xharbour.org
>
> Then they place a commercial distribution
>
> http://www.xharbour.com
>
> Did they succeed? In my opinion they have a long way to reach e.g.
> Alaskas xbase++ grade commercial distribution.
>
> See yourself:
>
> [XHARBOUR] - xIDE /VCL / VO / xBase++
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=oprvohpwi9zi80sk%40news.cis.dfn.de
>
> Without the splitting the teams, they possible had reached their goal
> already.
>
> -
>
> Is the starting source of "xHarbour" taken from the project "Harbour"?
>
> There is still the old developer list in
>
> http://www.harbour-project.org/crew.htm
>
> Are they still associated with harbour?
>
> -
>
> was the splitting really neccessary?
>
> was the splitting based on rationality?
>
> or was it based on egoism?
>
ilias
> Fuck your mother down ...
[OT] - A Shame For The Whole Clipper Community !
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F740089.30806%40abeon.com
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
[...] (many irrelevant stuff, whilst omitting partial quotes)
-
[notes to readers:]
As you've noticed: no answers to concrete questions. I conclude based on
publically available information:
=> "whois" registry points to founder of XHARBOUR
http://www.harbour-project.org/legal.htm
=> again points to founder of XHARBOUR.
-
http://www.xharbour.com/board_of_directors.php
-
conclusion: XHARBOUR controls harbour-project.org website, and thus is
responsible for the missing/faulty information on this site.
pe
[many ^h^h^h^h^h All irrelevant stuff]
> conclusion: XHARBOUR controls harbour-project.org website, and thus is
> responsible for the missing/faulty information on this site.
_sigh_
Why don't you host the site then?
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
[...] (many many things)
>>>Of course it was based on egoism. Every thing that everyone does is
>>> driven by egoism.
>>
>>This is false.
>>
>>Proof: When one goes to pee, it is not driven by egoism.
>
> What source EXTERNAL to ones ego, is driving one to take ANY action
> including pee? It was my impression that EVER action we make, is the result
> of a transimition from SELF brain to ITS body, to take that action. Can you
> please explain where am I wrong?
i'm sure we would find a conclusion if we continue to analyze "pee / ego".
I'm sorry, i've reached time-limit.
Will furthermore focus only on relevant facts.
> Ron
ilias
Ron Pinkas wrote:
> "ilias" <use...@abeon.com> wrote in message
> news:3F74182E...@abeon.com...
>
>>
>>Ron Pinkas wrote:
>>
>>>>was the splitting based on rationality?
>>>>
>>>>or was it based on egoism?
>>>
>>>Rational and Egoism, are NOT mutually exclusive.
>>
>>you are right.
>>
>>
>>>Your use of "or" is faulty!
>>
>>Some egoisms are that strong, that rationality is blinded.
>
> Yes, you have provided PLENTY of evidence, to support that statement.
i see.
>>But i still hope to detect, that all this here is not a destruction of
>>the last hope for the clipper open-source community.
>
> I share your hope, but I don't the rest of your statement.
>
> "the last hope" is faulty description of the current landscape of the future
> of the "clipper open source community" There are at least 4 seperate open
> source projects each providing many hopes.
4 seperate projects?
what a waste of time.
[but good luck anyway]
>
> Ron
>
> Ron
>
>
ilias
[...] (off-topic, off-context, irrelevant)
Sorry, i must reduce conversation on facts.
ilias
steff-edy wrote:
> i don't understand what diferent "harbour" and "xharbour"?????.
> harbour only support linux RH 7.3????. because i'm use RH 9.0.
[...]
I really don't know.
you may follow the links to understand more.
harbour is somehow dead.
http://www.harbour-project.org/
the main developers moved to xHarbour
They have a commercial distribution, too.
ilias
> First there was
[...]
does not provide enouth information to the public.
The publically available information is not enouth to get some clarity
of what happens and how the status of the projects is (harbour / xharbour).
So, there is harbour-project.org, xharbour.org, xharbour.com, C3.
Those are all somehow interweaved. Copyright issues between the tools
makes investment critical. xHarbour.com should, as the highes priced
commercial distribution, provide clear information about all issues.
-
Bu basicly it looks like the clipper open-source community will not get
any commercial grade visual tools out of the above 4 systems.
Without the split (xHarbour / Harbour), they would be ready today, i am
sure for this.
e.g.: the spin-off could focus on the visual-IDE, and support the
harbour-project with the X (extended) modules.
anyway, history.
-
Looks that i'm loosing my time with clipper descendants.
i'm out.
pe
> ilias wrote:
[...]
> i'm out.
I want to thank you for your ramblings. I have not laughed quite as much as
I have at this thread.
:-)
>
Turan Fettahoglu
>
> i'm out.
Ask one or more of these highly competent people for help to solve your
problems:
Eger Robert Dr.med. Arzt für Nervenheilkunde
Bahnhofstr. 64 46145 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-660040
Fard Dr. med. Arzt für Neurologie & Psychiatrie
Elsässer Str. 36 46045 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-809098
Haerting Dr. med. & Partner, Beatrix Ärzte für Neurologie & Psychiatrie
Willy-Brandt-Platz 2 46045 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-803242
Hagemann Klaus Dr.med. Nervenheilkunde
Finanzstr. 8 46145 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-632293
Herber, Eleonora Fachärztin für Psychiatrie Psychotherapeutin
Westfälische Str. 4 46117 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-8989330
Machtemes Dr. phil., Walter Psychiatrie & Psychotherapie
Johanniterstr. 2 a 46145 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-6204454
Marquardt & M.-E. Drs. med Praktischer Arzt & Ärztin für Neurologie,
Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie
Schmachtendorfer Str. 114 46147 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-680061
Münch Ärztin für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie
Schmachtendorfer Str. 46147 Oberhausen Telefon: 0208-680062
Dave Pearson
> [notes to readers:]
>
> As you've noticed: no answers to concrete questions. I conclude based on
> publically available information:
I'm sure that the regular readers of this group will be able to come to
their own conclusions about how useful the answers were. But many thanks for
confirming that you're playing to the audience.
> harbour-project.org
>
> => "whois" registry points to founder of XHARBOUR
Who is the founder of xharbour?
> conclusion: XHARBOUR controls harbour-project.org website, and thus is
> responsible for the missing/faulty information on this site.
And, yet, this simply isn't true. You now have a choice. You can either
accept hard and fast facts or you can carry on spreading misinformation
based around your incorrect reading of scraps of unrelated data. Your
choice. It's a measure of your credibility and your sincerity when asking
pe
> > First there was
> [...]
>
> does not provide enouth information to the public.
btw, since I've seen this enouth times already - it's 'enough'
Receiver chooses to not accept information he is given.
>
> The publically available information is not enouth to get some clarity
> of what happens and how the status of the projects is (harbour /
xharbour).
>
'clarity of what happens, and how the status of the projects is'
What happens to what? What 'status' are you missing?
> So, there is harbour-project.org, xharbour.org, xharbour.com, C3.
Yes, so there is.
> Those are all somehow interweaved. Copyright issues between the tools
> makes investment critical. xHarbour.com should, as the highes priced
> commercial distribution, provide clear information about all issues.
We have nothing to do with C3. Other issues are known.
> Bu basicly it looks like the clipper open-source community will not get
> any commercial grade visual tools out of the above 4 systems.
Complete lie given what you've been told.
> Without the split (xHarbour / Harbour), they would be ready today, i am
> sure for this.
Total speculation.
> e.g.: the spin-off could focus on the visual-IDE, and support the
> harbour-project with the X (extended) modules.
>
> anyway, history.
You are.
> Looks that i'm loosing my time with clipper descendants.
Cool, and who is your next victiim?
ilias
>>Looks that i'm loosing my time with clipper descendants.
>>
>>i'm out.
>
> Ask one or more of these highly competent people for help to solve your
> problems:
As i see, you fight to get my attention.
So, you got it.
-
I don't need the competent people you've suggested [1].
This is because usenet has...
The Cyberdoctors:
Ilias fix
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=ev1plvkr9d1val5a12umvls40p64s70uop%404ax.com
LISP - The Scary Readtable - () => [] - [#V0.3]
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3D7B96F8.7080901%40pontos.net
-
[1]
[...] (list of doctors, including adress and phonenumber,
possible violation of copyright and privacy laws]
ilias
[HARBOUR] - The predestor of xHarbour
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=gCEdb.45886$IU5.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
pe
"I learn very quick & easy from examples."
Dave Pearson
> Further details about harbour-project.org webmaster:
> [SNIP]
It was pointed out to you last week that the details on the harbour web site
pertaining to who the current web master is need updating and that I'd
pointed this out to the current web master some months ago.
I note, however, that in following up my post you've ignored the questions
contained therein. Why do you think the whois database is the place to go
looking for the founders of free software projects?
Turan Fettahoglu
Then there is another link for Chummy to learn from:
http://www.ejk.de/bt2/psych/index.htm
Probably not too far away from his home. Perhaps they know him already.
Turan
ilias
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * ilias <use...@abeon.com>:
>
>>Further details about harbour-project.org webmaster:
>>[SNIP]
>
> It was pointed out to you last week that the details on the harbour web site
> pertaining to who the current web master is need updating and that I'd
> pointed this out to the current web master some months ago.
>
> I note, however, that in following up my post you've ignored the questions
> contained therein. Why do you think the whois database is the place to go
> looking for the founders of free software projects?
>
redundancy.
conversation aborted.
-
Further details about harbour-project.org webmaster:
[HARBOUR] - The predestor of xHarbour
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=gCEdb.45886$IU5.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
pe
news:blc4hr$vtt$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
:-)
>
> Turan
>
>
ilias
>>"I learn very quick & easy from examples."
>
> Then there is another link for Chummy to learn from:
> http://www.ejk.de/bt2/psych/index.htm
At least it looks that you're able to learn from your faults.
> Probably not too far away from his home. Perhaps they know him already.
>
> Turan
Finally, you seem to suffer from an "ilias-neurosis".
-
Please have the gentleness to avoid further off-topic postings.
You decrease the value of this newsgroup.
-
You can open follow-up threads, which you can mark as off-topic ( [OT]
), thus readers can filter those kind of postings.
-
You can review this thread as an example:
Gary Stark
Turan Fettahoglu wrote:
They probably kicked him out.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Will Chapman
|
| They probably kicked him out.
...for arguing with the specialists who were
trying to help him...
Will Chapman