Re: [Axiom-developer] Mailing List Etiquette

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

C Y wrote:
> --- Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/07/2007 01:16 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>>> For building Axiom on less common architectures I strongly
>>>> recommend the FriCAS or OpenAxiom forks of the Axiom project.
>>> I strongly object to your suggestion that someone who has requested
>>> information, help, or porting assistance on this mailing list
>>> should go to another project.
>> Why? Isn't it "help" if someone points you to some piece of software 
>> that solves the problem?
> 
> I think the point is that Axiom is a different project from
> FriCAS/OpenAxiom, so having FriCAS/OpenAxiom working on a platform !=
> Axiom working on that platform.
> 
> I.e., if Maple didn't happen to work on a platform of interest
> suggesting Mathematica doesn't help to get Maple on that platform.
> 
> Obviously the userland environments are still very similar at the
> moment, but whether this will be true indefinitely remains to be seen. 
> I'd say as the various projects take SPAD/Aldor and the interpreter
> different directions this will get less true, so it avoids confusion to
> keep the identities of the various projects distinct.  (Note that this
> does not imply hostility toward those projects, just making sure the
> distinction is clear to avoid confusion.)
>

I'm with Tim on this one -- if I have a FriCAS question I'll post it on
the FriCAS list. If I have an OpenAxiom question I'll post it on the
OpenAxiom list. But I have Axiom questions, and I post them here.

And I hardly think that Gentoo Linux on an Athlon64 X2 is a "less common
architecture". Now that I think of it, I'm on the FriCAS and OpenAxiom
lists and I haven't seen much activity. Maybe that's because the
*interesting* part of the three of them is the *math*, not the mechanics
of getting them up and running, and, ... well ... the math pretty much
has to be the same on all of them, doesn't it? :)