[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches
Jose Da Silva
Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:23:51 -0800
On Monday 21 February 2005 06:28 am, Gary Setter wrote:
> I can search for issue surrounding it, such as patents. For me the
> culture wars is not so interesting.
Searching for patents now isn't important since you may have no patents yet,
the problem is that it is possible to later add such features, then, all of
a sudden you have a patent problem. .NET is still a case of the tail wagging
the dog from an Open Source perspective since microsoft could add whatever
features it wishes and open source can do little but follow or exit.
> Fact is there are lots of ordinary people who
> have to do projects based on decisions others make for them, and
> if it comes down that .NET support is required, there is nothing
> they can do.
Yes, there is little point in working on a project that is moving in the
wrong direction. If everyone is using .NET, and you can't make it work, then
you are moving away from the majority and nobody is going to be able to use
what you have. However, if you choose your terms/commands carefully, you
could get things to work without having to resort to specific special
commands. For example, gcc has moved up to 3.x, yet Kevin is trying to
maintain 2.95 compatibility for as long as possible to keep it compatible
across the biggest range possible.
> So the only question is, do those guys deserve our
> support. And the most important question, will they give back?
This is only a question only the maintainer can answer, we could give an
opinion, but that is as far as it goes. The GNU license allows you to fork,
but there is no real point in doing that, since the best place to fix or
improve something is at the root, and this is the root Aspell tree.
> If .NET is not compatible with the LGNU, then I can understand
> that providing .NET support would be like aiding and abetting a
> violation of the LGNU license. Bummer.
If you've followed the idiotic acrobats happening between SCO and IBM (and
indirectly affecting the open source community) you will probably have noted
that some open source projets that used to have SCO support have stopped
supporting their OS. So even though you may not have much interest in
politics, some people do.
You will also have people demanding that their portions of programs get
pulled out. I once watched how some written documentation grew into
something fairly decent, but due to disputes and other issues, people
started demanding their contributions be pulled out, by the time things
cleared, the documentation was a skeleton of it's best form since some
fairly good additions had to get yanked out.
.NET wasn't created in a vacuum, it should have some way of you to be able to
pull older code into it and get it permanently sucked-in, so looking at it
that way, what you could probably do is see what commands will work across a
fairly large range (including on .NET), for example, instead of following
very specific .NET commands, you choose what commands have the best effect
across the largest range possible so it will work equally well on Borland,
Visual C, .NET, Visual Age, gcc, etc... sort of like Kevin is doing by
trying to maintain 2.95 compatibility.
However, like I pointed out earlier, we can render an opinion, but final say
is with the maintainer.
> > Today, many computers are running windows, but just reading
> > www.slashdot.org today, there is a posting mentioning how cisco
> > is moving a fair bit of stuff to linux as well.
> You can thank me for that ;-) Every tech. that I get involved
> with becomes obs. Rember Pascal and VAX/VMS? Of course every
> tech. becomse obsolute eventually.
...and some of them seem to remain timeless, for example, you probably know
what I'm talking about if I mentioned trying to follow K&R C standards. ;-)
Desktop OSes may be "pushed" in the directions of C++, NET, or whatever
technological new wanna-be, but if you look at smaller technologies such as
palm OS, embedded, smallish stuff, K&R C is still the way to go, and with
plain C leading the pack in terms of portable across a huge arena.
Would you believe it if I were to compile some parts of Aspell to run on a
cell phone? Well?, what's the point in that? Well, 10 years ago, you may
remember the Game Doom required high tech 486 running at 66Mhz, while
nowadays you've got phones that outdo those specs. looking at a bigger
picture, perhaps you'll be carrying your personal computer with you and
plugging it into the home TV, who knows? The point I'm hoping to say here
is, that if you try to keep to a known root language, you are then trying
your best to keep portability across as large a range as possible and you'll
be surprised to see where you'll find things in a few years time.
- [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Gary Setter, 2005/02/19
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Jose Da Silva, 2005/02/19
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Gary Setter, 2005/02/21
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches,
Jose Da Silva <=
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Gary Setter, 2005/02/25
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Jose Da Silva, 2005/02/25
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Gary Setter, 2005/02/26
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Jose Da Silva, 2005/02/26
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Gary Setter, 2005/02/27
- Re: [aspell-devel] VC6 and BCB5.5 patches, Jose Da Silva, 2005/02/27