Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Every Proprietary Company Goes Bad Eventually

Reply
Thread Tools

Every Proprietary Company Goes Bad Eventually

 
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <hert7b$7r6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <heqmc7$pl8$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>> In article <heq5jc$lpi$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <heptp6$eqv$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <hepaui$38g$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <heo2qe$v2j$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henk2o$agf$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henf51$1dp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <hen211$akc$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their browser doesn‚??t seem to support the use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it couldn‚??t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would be ‚?|forced‚?? to do anything‚?2that‚??s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise you wouldn‚??t think as you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be blocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until they too are blocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routes. And so on to infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I write assembler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's true, why are you (and Allistar) so thick when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not, we simply disagree with you on somethings
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, it's ability to be changed, when you have the
>>>>>>>>>>>> source....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Colour me convinced.
>>>>>>>>>>> which for 99% of people is worthless.
>>>>>>>>>> Not if they employ someone capable of changing the code. Without the
>>>>>>>>>> code, they can hire who they like, and still be stuck. This much is
>>>>>>>>>> obvious to learner programmers, let alone someone who 'claims' to
>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>> in 'assembler'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It like giving the complete
>>>>>>>>>>> schematics of a 747 to passengers in case of emergency,
>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> hence worthless.
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Very very wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> It's supplying the plane, and the plans to build a new one (and the
>>>>>>>>>> parts). The users will *always* spot new use cases, some even
>>>>>>>>>> unimagined
>>>>>>>>>> by the system designers, and now have the oppourtunity to take the
>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>> to someone capable of changing them, and saying, we want 'foo'
>>>>>>>>>> functionality added please.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In every code for hire job I've ever seen, that's precisely how the
>>>>>>>>>> employer has behaved, ie. here's the code, here's the functionality
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> want changed/added/removed, have it done by Monday.
>>>>>>>>> Ahh yes... "for hire".... so how many $$ is this now going to cost
>>>>>>>>> ????
>>>>>>>> Wth???
>>>>>>>> Are you telling us proprietary code is done for free?????
>>>>>>> Actually with a number of shareware packages I have paid for, yes, I
>>>>>>> have had excellent support, bug fixes, and feature requests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?????????????????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
>>>>>>>> It costs, what they are willing to pay.
>>>>>>> Nothing, the software was FREE, so too was the code.
>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code either
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be doing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
>>>>>>>> And this has what to do with anything?
>>>>>>> The cost of the programmer ....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for
>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>> To sum up.
>>>>>>>> You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not be
>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What were you trying to claim in this post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>>>>> remains
>>>>>> >> an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > until they too are blocked
>>>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....?hl=en&dmode=s
>>>> our
>>>> ce
>>>>
>>>> I left the post you were replying to in for context, and left the
>>>> attribution marks in to make it clear.
>>>>
>>>> It's clear (now) to everyone how low you sink when you've lost.
>>> So you are saying that a factual point about how new routes can be
>>> blocked is the same as code not being able to be changed ?

>> As anyone who has dealt with virus prevention will tell you, your
>> 'point' is meaningless.

>
> So what you are now saying is that competent programmers are able to
> change and extend commercial software even though they do not have the
> source code...after all, isnt this what a virus is doing ?
>
>


Anti virus software (generally) reacts to signatures, derived by
performing various calculations on binary objects.

It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
binary is doing.

The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
software)


>>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
>>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>>>
>>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
>>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.

>>
>> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
>> written that which was pasted.

>
> MY integrity is not in question at all.



It is, in more ways than one.
I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
instance.

> You are ascribing statements to
> me that I did not make.


I did not.

> You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
> that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
>


I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
silent.

> I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
> changing the code.
>


Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.

>>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed as
>>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>> See above.
>>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>
>>>> I did.
>>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
>>> what you are accusing me of.

>> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
>>


Silence noted.

>>>>>>>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the
>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
>>>>>>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
>>>>>>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
>>>>>>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
>>>>>>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>>>>>>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>>>>>>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
>>>>>>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls
>>>>>>> allowed).
>>>>>>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
>>>>>>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
>>>>>>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
>>>>>>> cheating!).
>>>>>>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>>>>>>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miss the point much?
>>>>>> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
>>>>>> no longer useless to them.
>>>>> 95% of Users <> programmers.
>>>>> THAT is the point.
>>>> Wrong, and you know this, which is why you need to outright lie.
>>> I do not lie.
>>>

>> You claimed not to have written that which was pasted.

>
> I am happy to claim everything I posted, I however will not accept your
> grossly incorrect interpretation.
>
> I wrote "until they too are blocked", nothing more, nothing less.
>


What is your alternate interpretation then?

>>>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>>>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>>>> they can do is whistle.
>>> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
>>> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
>>> source small developers don't count.
>>>

>> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
>> let me know when they do...
>>
>> How long do you think you will need?

>
> No idea, I do not use Opera.


ROFL, weak.

> I did not make any claims about ALL
> programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
> applies to all.



You admit failure then.

> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."


Well, what are they going to do with Opera?

> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
> anything YMMV.
>


So, nothing then.


> I am equally not going to ask you how long any piece of code
> modification will take because we both know that depends on the
> complexity of the change, how well the code is documented, if the code
> relies on external libraries (and which versions), how familiar the
> programer is with the code, if the code contains "work arounds" for bugs
> in the compiler/OS/Hardware, and a hundred different other things a
> "competent" programmer needs to consider.
>


So, explain this post then:
http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...c?dmode=source
Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
cheating!).
If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
win because they will not even know where to begin the task.


Sounds like you want one set of rules for one thing, and another set of
rules for anything you don't understand.

> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>
>


Seems you're on your own there.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html


>>>>>>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I
>>>>>>>> doubt
>>>>>>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have displayed
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> far.
>>>>>>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99%
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
>>>>>> Ah, no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
>>>>>> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
>>>>> ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
>>>>> what.
>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....?hl=en&dmode=s
>>>> our
>>>> ce
>>>>
>>>> I did.
>>> No you did not. You have actually proven I did NOT say "code can not be
>>> changed", I looked very closely and there was only ONE line I wrote
>>> consisting of 5 words which I will quote here
>>> "until they too are blocked"
>>>

>>
>>> Now I am the first to admit "code can not be changed" and "until they
>>> too are blocked" both contain exactly 5 words which may be what is
>>> causing your confusion, however the meanings of each are totally
>>> different and I am at a loss as to how you can equate the two.

>>
>> Have it your way the, tell me what /was/ your point.

>
> Right well here was the line I replied to:
>
> "Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
> remains an option."
>
> To which I wrote
> "until they too are blocked"
>
> Now if code were immutable as you are trying to make out I said then
> neither statement could be made. BOTH statement are only possible if
> change is possible.


Try again.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <hes5bp$rf2$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <hert7b$7r6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>> In article <heqmc7$pl8$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <heq5jc$lpi$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <heptp6$eqv$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <hepaui$38g$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <heo2qe$v2j$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henk2o$agf$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henf51$1dp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <hen211$akc$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their browser doesn‚??t seem to support the use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it couldn‚??t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would be ‚?|forced‚?? to do anything‚?2that‚??s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise you wouldn‚??t think as you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be blocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until they too are blocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routes. And so on to infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I write assembler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's true, why are you (and Allistar) so thick when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not, we simply disagree with you on somethings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, it's ability to be changed, when you have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colour me convinced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which for 99% of people is worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not if they employ someone capable of changing the code. Without
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> code, they can hire who they like, and still be stuck. This much
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to learner programmers, let alone someone who 'claims' to
>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 'assembler'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It like giving the complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> schematics of a 747 to passengers in case of emergency,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Very very wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supplying the plane, and the plans to build a new one (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> parts). The users will *always* spot new use cases, some even
>>>>>>>>>>>> unimagined
>>>>>>>>>>>> by the system designers, and now have the oppourtunity to take the
>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone capable of changing them, and saying, we want 'foo'
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality added please.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In every code for hire job I've ever seen, that's precisely how
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> employer has behaved, ie. here's the code, here's the
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> want changed/added/removed, have it done by Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ahh yes... "for hire".... so how many $$ is this now going to cost
>>>>>>>>>>> ????
>>>>>>>>>> Wth???
>>>>>>>>>> Are you telling us proprietary code is done for free?????
>>>>>>>>> Actually with a number of shareware packages I have paid for, yes, I
>>>>>>>>> have had excellent support, bug fixes, and feature requests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?????????????????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
>>>>>>>>>> It costs, what they are willing to pay.
>>>>>>>>> Nothing, the software was FREE, so too was the code.
>>>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code
>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be
>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
>>>>>>>>>> And this has what to do with anything?
>>>>>>>>> The cost of the programmer ....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no value,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>>> To sum up.
>>>>>>>>>> You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not be
>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What were you trying to claim in this post:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>> >> an option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > until they too are blocked
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....21?hl=en&dmode
>>>>>> =s
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> ce
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I left the post you were replying to in for context, and left the
>>>>>> attribution marks in to make it clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's clear (now) to everyone how low you sink when you've lost.
>>>>> So you are saying that a factual point about how new routes can be
>>>>> blocked is the same as code not being able to be changed ?
>>>> As anyone who has dealt with virus prevention will tell you, your
>>>> 'point' is meaningless.
>>> So what you are now saying is that competent programmers are able to
>>> change and extend commercial software even though they do not have the
>>> source code...after all, isnt this what a virus is doing ?
>>>
>>>

>> Anti virus software (generally) reacts to signatures, derived by
>> performing various calculations on binary objects.

>
> Thats in one method, yes.


And....

>> It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
>> binary is doing.
>>
>> The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
>> place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
>> viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
>> software)

>
> actually I was meaning how the virus writers we able to exploit OS's,
> Applications, and avoid anti-virus software without having the source
> code.
>


You mean, how the closed source applications do not change until they
are exploited?
Or do you mean, kind of like the firewall, not changing until the
transgressions are detected, if at all.


Black box testing is far, far, more difficult than white box testing,
any ideas why?

>>
>>>>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better than
>>>>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>>>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED which
>>>>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>>>> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
>>>> written that which was pasted.
>>> MY integrity is not in question at all.

>>
>> It is, in more ways than one.
>> I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
>> instance.

>
> Please do tell, you are obviously holding some facts that I am unaware
> of. Oh wait, is this an attempt to slur someone else in order to bolster
> ones own position...



Given your conduct in this thread, it is a more than fair conclusion to
draw.

>>> You are ascribing statements to
>>> me that I did not make.

>> I did not.

>
> Oh, then please show where I said "code can not be changed".
> I repeat all I said was "until they too are blocked".
>
>


Do tell what you meant, I have asked, several times, only to be met with
silence.

>>> You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
>>> that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
>>>

>> I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
>> silent.

>
> OK, I will type slowly so you can keep up.
> You said... are you keeping up
> ""Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
> remains an option."
>
> Can we agree that is what you said...?????
>
> I said ""until they too are blocked".
>
> Can you agree on that....????
>
> The clear interpretation is that that code will ONLY work until those
> routes are fire walled.
>
> See, no mention of code being unchangeable, no mention of the fire
> walling being unchangeable.
>


Wriggle all you like, tell us, how the firewall will know to change, and
where.
Whilst you're at it explain how the dissident users of chinese internet
have been able to continue to use the internet in ways that violate the
chinese governments desires.

Oh, wait, they have, for years, by staying one step ahead of the
government, by continuously changing.

That was the original point being made, to which you countered, that the
firewall would change, yet it hasn't changed enough to stop the
dissidents...


>>> I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
>>> changing the code.
>>>

>> Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.

>
> Assuming that they have the money to PAY for the programmer, whats the
> going rate.. $100/hr....


Funny, you have mentioned shareware, and claimed that the programmer
does not have to be paid. Why the change in goalposts I wonder...

> Tell me what is the change going to
> cost...$1,000...$10,000... more ?? Looks to me that the small change
> they want could cost them MORE then the whole computer system and all of
> its software put together..... brilliant, I can see exactly how
> beneficial that is to 95% of users...
>


Gosh, with accounting skills like that, nobody will ever be able to
afford to have applications written, ever...

>>>>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be changed
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did.
>>>>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which si
>>>>> what you are accusing me of.
>>>> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
>>>>

>> Silence noted.

>
> Yes your silence has been noted, you have consistently failed to
> show/prove where I said "code can not be changed".



You have offered no alternative, despite being invited to do so.

>>>>>>>>>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the
>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open
>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
>>>>>>>>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an
>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>>>>>>>>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>>>>>>>>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and
>>>>>>>>> frequency.
>>>>>>>>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls
>>>>>>>>> allowed).
>>>>>>>>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
>>>>>>>>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
>>>>>>>>> cheating!).
>>>>>>>>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>>>>>>>>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people
>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Miss the point much?
>>>>>>>> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code is
>>>>>>>> no longer useless to them.
>>>>>>> 95% of Users <> programmers.
>>>>>>> THAT is the point.
>>>>>> Wrong, and you know this, which is why you need to outright lie.
>>>>> I do not lie.
>>>>>
>>>> You claimed not to have written that which was pasted.
>>> I am happy to claim everything I posted, I however will not accept your
>>> grossly incorrect interpretation.
>>>
>>> I wrote "until they too are blocked", nothing more, nothing less.
>>>

>> What is your alternate interpretation then?
>>


Silence, noted.

>>>>>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>>>>>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>>>>>> they can do is whistle.
>>>>> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source code
>>>>> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
>>>>> source small developers don't count.
>>>>>
>>>> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
>>>> let me know when they do...
>>>>
>>>> How long do you think you will need?
>>> No idea, I do not use Opera.

>> ROFL, weak.

>
> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...


Weak.
Have a read of this thread, what is it about, and why.

>>> I did not make any claims about ALL
>>> programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
>>> applies to all.

>>
>> You admit failure then.

>
> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
>


Weak.

> You are like an infomercial where to prove how good their product is
> they show a competing product being used like a moron.



If that's how you feel about your posts, who am I to disagree.


>>> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."

>> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?

>
> Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
> there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
> example to prove it.
>



So nothing?

> Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
> me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
> graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
> Graphics.
>



Tell me, how long will it take you to add that functionality to, um,
Photoshop?
What about, Microsoft Paint?

> I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
> and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
>


Right after you.

> What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
> make up numbers....
>


I'm waiting.


> Best not come up with a weak argument....
>
>


I'll leave that to you.

>>> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
>>> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
>>> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
>>> anything YMMV.
>>>

>> So, nothing then.

>
> Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
>
> So lets be clear:
> Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
> .... obviously it can be
> Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
> .... obviously they do
> Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
> .... again obviously they do
>
>


How's that Opera bug coming along?

Had a reply yet?

For every single OSS project on the planet (dead or alive) it is
possible to change, can you say that for closed source?

EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION.

>>
>>> I am equally not going to ask you how long any piece of code
>>> modification will take because we both know that depends on the
>>> complexity of the change, how well the code is documented, if the code
>>> relies on external libraries (and which versions), how familiar the
>>> programer is with the code, if the code contains "work arounds" for bugs
>>> in the compiler/OS/Hardware, and a hundred different other things a
>>> "competent" programmer needs to consider.
>>>

>> So, explain this post then:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...c?dmode=source
>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
>> cheating!).
>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like you want one set of rules for one thing, and another set of
>> rules for anything you don't understand.

>
> Not at all. I am very happy to give BOTH a programmer and a USER the
> same piece of code and ask BOTH to modify it.
>



Cool, post a link here for the source for the closed source application
so we can see someone independent modify it (Opera is a good place to
start).

Better yet, flick me the source...



>>> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
>>> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
>>> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
>>> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
>>> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>>>
>>>

>> Seems you're on your own there.
>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html

>
> I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
> Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
> Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
> Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
> Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
> in fixing old code than writing new code ?
>


Are you saying you cannot read?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I
>>>>>>>>>> doubt
>>>>>>>>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have
>>>>>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> far.
>>>>>>>>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to 99%
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal abuse.
>>>>>>>> Ah, no.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
>>>>>>>> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....21?hl=en&dmode
>>>>>> =s
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> ce
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did.
>>>>> No you did not. You have actually proven I did NOT say "code can not be
>>>>> changed", I looked very closely and there was only ONE line I wrote
>>>>> consisting of 5 words which I will quote here
>>>>> "until they too are blocked"
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I am the first to admit "code can not be changed" and "until they
>>>>> too are blocked" both contain exactly 5 words which may be what is
>>>>> causing your confusion, however the meanings of each are totally
>>>>> different and I am at a loss as to how you can equate the two.
>>>> Have it your way the, tell me what /was/ your point.
>>> Right well here was the line I replied to:
>>>
>>> "Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>> remains an option."
>>>
>>> To which I wrote
>>> "until they too are blocked"
>>>
>>> Now if code were immutable as you are trying to make out I said then
>>> neither statement could be made. BOTH statement are only possible if
>>> change is possible.

>> Try again.

>
> Why ?


Because, apart from making no sense, you're really just wriggling to get
out of the mess you've made for yourself.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sailor Sam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2009
whoisthis wrote:
> In article <hesjcr$ijb$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article <hes5bp$rf2$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>> In article <hert7b$7r6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <heqmc7$pl8$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <heq5jc$lpi$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <heptp6$eqv$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <hepaui$38g$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <heo2qe$v2j$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henk2o$agf$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <henf51$1dp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <hen211$akc$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sailor Sam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hek505$k6r$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> victor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So its a service issue on mobile phone browsers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary vs free software at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their browser doesn‚??t seem to support the use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compression servers. And customers in China were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new version that used Chinese-based servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has that got to do with proprietary vs. open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same issue could happen with an open source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it couldn‚??t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it could. An open source browser could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no support for alternative compression servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would even try.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once the open source community fixes this issue,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be forced to upgrade to the new version. Just like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one would be ‚?|forced‚?? to do anything‚?2that‚??s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beauty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software. I think you spend too much time with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise you wouldn‚??t think as you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thats completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Symbian is free software, the nokia browser is free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be blocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The un upgraded International version of Opera still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the Opera servers are blocked. The upgraded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connects with the firewalled servers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not an issue with proprietary code, changing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until they too are blocked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At which point, what can you do, oh wait, change the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routes. And so on to infinity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you another one that doesn't understand how malleable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I write assembler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's true, why are you (and Allistar) so thick when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not, we simply disagree with you on somethings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, it's ability to be changed, when you have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colour me convinced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which for 99% of people is worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not if they employ someone capable of changing the code. Without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code, they can hire who they like, and still be stuck. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to learner programmers, let alone someone who 'claims'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 'assembler'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It like giving the complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schematics of a 747 to passengers in case of emergency,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence worthless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Very very wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supplying the plane, and the plans to build a new one (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts). The users will *always* spot new use cases, some even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unimagined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the system designers, and now have the oppourtunity to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to someone capable of changing them, and saying, we want 'foo'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality added please.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every code for hire job I've ever seen, that's precisely how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer has behaved, ie. here's the code, here's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want changed/added/removed, have it done by Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ahh yes... "for hire".... so how many $$ is this now going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ????
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wth???
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you telling us proprietary code is done for free?????
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually with a number of shareware packages I have paid for, yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> have had excellent support, bug fixes, and feature requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ?????????????????
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This precisely what mum and dad owners want to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It costs, what they are willing to pay.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, the software was FREE, so too was the code.
>>>>>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course with complex software it is not just rip in and code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, you should have some knowledge of what you changes will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other part of the program.....all of course adding cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this has what to do with anything?
>>>>>>>>>>> The cost of the programmer ....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ???????????????????
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know I dont work for free, your time may of course have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I sure as hell have other things I prefer to do than working for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To sum up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You failed with you claims that OSS meant that the code could not
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What were you trying to claim in this post:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>> >> an option.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > until they too are blocked
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....6e21?hl=en&dmo
>>>>>>>> de
>>>>>>>> =s
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> ce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I left the post you were replying to in for context, and left the
>>>>>>>> attribution marks in to make it clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's clear (now) to everyone how low you sink when you've lost.
>>>>>>> So you are saying that a factual point about how new routes can be
>>>>>>> blocked is the same as code not being able to be changed ?
>>>>>> As anyone who has dealt with virus prevention will tell you, your
>>>>>> 'point' is meaningless.
>>>>> So what you are now saying is that competent programmers are able to
>>>>> change and extend commercial software even though they do not have the
>>>>> source code...after all, isnt this what a virus is doing ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Anti virus software (generally) reacts to signatures, derived by
>>>> performing various calculations on binary objects.
>>> Thats in one method, yes.

>> And....
>>


That's what I thought.

>>>> It takes a great deal of analysis to determine what a few kilobytes of
>>>> binary is doing.
>>>>
>>>> The virus writers change their code faster than the analysis can take
>>>> place (witness the bot networks that have constantly upgraded their
>>>> viral software in order to stay ahead of the anti virus makers and their
>>>> software)
>>> actually I was meaning how the virus writers we able to exploit OS's,
>>> Applications, and avoid anti-virus software without having the source
>>> code.
>>>

>> You mean, how the closed source applications do not change until they
>> are exploited?
>> Or do you mean, kind of like the firewall, not changing until the
>> transgressions are detected, if at all.
>>
>>
>> Black box testing is far, far, more difficult than white box testing,
>> any ideas why?
>>



That's what I thought.

>>>>>>>>> Me, I did not say that. One hopes your checking of code is better
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>> your attributing of quotes is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My checking of code vs your integrity.
>>>>>>> Indeed, please show WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID CODE CAN NOT BE CHANGED
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is what you have accused me of in your summing up.
>>>>>> Your integrity is being called because you suddenly claimed not to have
>>>>>> written that which was pasted.
>>>>> MY integrity is not in question at all.
>>>> It is, in more ways than one.
>>>> I am seriously doubting you have anything to do with programming, for
>>>> instance.
>>> Please do tell, you are obviously holding some facts that I am unaware
>>> of. Oh wait, is this an attempt to slur someone else in order to bolster
>>> ones own position...

>>
>> Given your conduct in this thread, it is a more than fair conclusion to
>> draw.
>>
>>>>> You are ascribing statements to
>>>>> me that I did not make.
>>>> I did not.
>>> Oh, then please show where I said "code can not be changed".
>>> I repeat all I said was "until they too are blocked".
>>>
>>>

>> Do tell what you meant, I have asked, several times, only to be met with
>> silence.
>>


That's what I thought.

>>>>> You clearly stated "You failed with you claims
>>>>> that OSS meant that the code could not be changed."
>>>>>
>>>> I have asked for you alternative interpretation, and you have remained
>>>> silent.
>>> OK, I will type slowly so you can keep up.
>>> You said... are you keeping up
>>> ""Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>> remains an option."
>>>
>>> Can we agree that is what you said...?????
>>>
>>> I said ""until they too are blocked".
>>>
>>> Can you agree on that....????
>>>
>>> The clear interpretation is that that code will ONLY work until those
>>> routes are fire walled.
>>>
>>> See, no mention of code being unchangeable, no mention of the fire
>>> walling being unchangeable.
>>>

>> Wriggle all you like, tell us, how the firewall will know to change, and
>> where.
>> Whilst you're at it explain how the dissident users of chinese internet
>> have been able to continue to use the internet in ways that violate the
>> chinese governments desires.
>>
>> Oh, wait, they have, for years, by staying one step ahead of the
>> government, by continuously changing.
>>
>> That was the original point being made, to which you countered, that the
>> firewall would change, yet it hasn't changed enough to stop the
>> dissidents...
>>
>>
>>>>> I HAVE stated that for better than 95% of users they are incapable of
>>>>> changing the code.
>>>>>
>>>> Which is meaningless when they find a programmer.
>>> Assuming that they have the money to PAY for the programmer, whats the
>>> going rate.. $100/hr....

>> Funny, you have mentioned shareware, and claimed that the programmer
>> does not have to be paid. Why the change in goalposts I wonder...
>>
>>> Tell me what is the change going to
>>> cost...$1,000...$10,000... more ?? Looks to me that the small change
>>> they want could cost them MORE then the whole computer system and all of
>>> its software put together..... brilliant, I can see exactly how
>>> beneficial that is to 95% of users...
>>>

>> Gosh, with accounting skills like that, nobody will ever be able to
>> afford to have applications written, ever...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you failed with your claims that the code could not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as the environment changed.
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I claim that ??
>>>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, do see above, go back through the thread and correctly attrubute
>>>>>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did.
>>>>>>> And failed to show where I ever said code could not be changed, which
>>>>>>> si
>>>>>>> what you are accusing me of.
>>>>>> Have it your way, what point *were* you trying to make then?
>>>>>>
>>>> Silence noted.
>>> Yes your silence has been noted, you have consistently failed to
>>> show/prove where I said "code can not be changed".

>>
>> You have offered no alternative, despite being invited to do so.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you failed trying to claim that the code was useless to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open
>>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the
>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an
>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>>>>>>>>>>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>>>>>>>>>>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and
>>>>>>>>>>> frequency.
>>>>>>>>>>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed).
>>>>>>>>>>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> cheating!).
>>>>>>>>>>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people
>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish....
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Miss the point much?
>>>>>>>>>> If that person takes the source code to a programmer, then the code
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> no longer useless to them.
>>>>>>>>> 95% of Users <> programmers.
>>>>>>>>> THAT is the point.
>>>>>>>> Wrong, and you know this, which is why you need to outright lie.
>>>>>>> I do not lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed not to have written that which was pasted.
>>>>> I am happy to claim everything I posted, I however will not accept your
>>>>> grossly incorrect interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote "until they too are blocked", nothing more, nothing less.
>>>>>
>>>> What is your alternate interpretation then?
>>>>

>> Silence, noted.
>>
>>>>>>>> All the user needs to do is take that code to any competant programmer
>>>>>>>> to get the changes they require. With a closed source application all
>>>>>>>> they can do is whistle.
>>>>>>> Incorrect. I have had bug fixes and features added to closed source
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> for FREE, unless you now wish to state that shareware and other closed
>>>>>>> source small developers don't count.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Awesome, ask for Opera to change their code regarding the servers, and
>>>>>> let me know when they do...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How long do you think you will need?
>>>>> No idea, I do not use Opera.
>>>> ROFL, weak.
>>> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...

>> Weak.
>> Have a read of this thread, what is it about, and why.
>>
>>>>> I did not make any claims about ALL
>>>>> programs or programmers, nor am I trying to intimate that one example
>>>>> applies to all.
>>>> You admit failure then.
>>> God, are you that desperate to try and score points...
>>>

>> Weak.

>
> Et tu...



>>> You are like an infomercial where to prove how good their product is
>>> they show a competing product being used like a moron.

>>
>> If that's how you feel about your posts, who am I to disagree.

>
> ****, you missed the "My dad is bigger than you dad", or were you saving
> that as the coup de grace.
>>



I'm fairly sure that's the card you were already trying to play.

>>>>> YOU said "With a closed source application all they can do is whistle."
>>>> Well, what are they going to do with Opera?
>>> Ahh, I see, apparently Opera is the ONLY piece of closed source code out
>>> there. So that way when you make a global assertion it only need ONE
>>> example to prove it.
>>>

>>
>> So nothing?

>
> Yes, Booxter, FileSalvage, Parallels, MathType, SuperDuper. So there are
> 5 programs where I have had bug fixes, they are all closed source.
>
> Parallels gave me access to a Beta of their next update within 5 minutes
> of me contacting them to test. This is one of the reasons I have bought
> the every version since version 1 (2 was actually free) and have bought
> multiple copies of different versions. I am more than happy to say that
> Parallels response was out of the norm, but it did happen.
>


So, how's your Opera patch coming along then.

>
>>> Ok, to make it simple, lets take... hmm say GIMP, its open source. Tell
>>> me exactly how long adding the ability to import TRS-80 bit mapped
>>> graphics is going to take so that they can be exported as ZX Spectrum
>>> Graphics.
>>>

>>
>> Tell me, how long will it take you to add that functionality to, um,
>> Photoshop?

>
> No idea, I write assembler for micro controllers.


I'm sure.

> You were the one who
> originally set the task about Opera,



Ah, no, have a read of the thread.

> so I mistakenly assumed that you
> had enough skills and knowledge to make a guess on a similar problem,
> with you having the source code. I will accept that I am grossly
> mistaken in that regard.
>


You're mistaken about a lot of things.


>> What about, Microsoft Paint?
>>
>>> I will need the hours taken, the total cost, and the delivery time....
>>> and you must be 100% accurate. Please supply within 2 hours....
>>>

>> Right after you.

>
> I made things simple for you by giving you access to the source code....


That's the point isn't it.

Having the source code makes it simple, not having it makes it
difficult, to impossible.

> don't tell me, you are one of the 95% who are incapable...


Oh, no, I couldn't code to save my life.

> I freely
> admit I am one the the 95% too, all my coding is micro controller
> assembler, I can barely read C and no nothing about OOP.
>



So, what you're saying is, you have no expertise on the subject at hand,
other than to say, you don't have a clue?


>>> What, are you now going to tell me you cant... or are you just going to
>>> make up numbers....
>>>

>> I'm waiting.

>
> Why, I will take this as an admission from you the task I set you is too
> hard for you.
>
>>


Have you completed it yourself?

>>> Best not come up with a weak argument....
>>>
>>>

>> I'll leave that to you.

>
> wow, what a come back....
>


Best not come up with a weak argument then...


>>>>> to which I factually pointed out that I have had closed source software
>>>>> bug fixed and features added. Go look at comments made to many shareware
>>>>> applications about how responsive (or not) the developer is. As with
>>>>> anything YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>> So, nothing then.
>>> Logical thought is not your strong suit, I can see that now.
>>>
>>> So lets be clear:
>>> Are you saying closed source code can not be modified Y/N
>>> .... obviously it can be
>>> Are you saying closed source programmers will not bug fix Y/N
>>> .... obviously they do
>>> Are you saying closed source programmers will not add features Y/N
>>> .... again obviously they do
>>>
>>>

>> How's that Opera bug coming along?
>>
>> Had a reply yet?
>>


No?

>> For every single OSS project on the planet (dead or alive) it is
>> possible to change, can you say that for closed source?
>>
>> EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION.

>
> do you want some of my old CPM, TRS-80 ones, it will be quicker to
> rewrite them. That is the problem with your grand generalizations they
> do not hold true every time, which is what I said.



Are you trying to say they haven't been ported to another architecture?
Are you trying to say it is impossible to do so?

>>>>> I am equally not going to ask you how long any piece of code
>>>>> modification will take because we both know that depends on the
>>>>> complexity of the change, how well the code is documented, if the code
>>>>> relies on external libraries (and which versions), how familiar the
>>>>> programer is with the code, if the code contains "work arounds" for bugs
>>>>> in the compiler/OS/Hardware, and a hundred different other things a
>>>>> "competent" programmer needs to consider.
>>>>>
>>>> So, explain this post then:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nz.co...c?dmode=source
>>>> Ok, lets put your money where your mouth is. I will find an open source
>>>> piece of software and give it to a user. If they can make the changes
>>>> themselves I will pay you $100, if they cant, you pay me $100. They will
>>>> have 24 hours to make those changes and that person must be an average
>>>> user, not a programmer, nor can they give the problem to anyone else to
>>>> solve for them. Now we can make it a trivial problem, say finding a
>>>> basic text editor and getting the user to add a word concordance
>>>> function to it with it bring sorted in both alphabetical and frequency.
>>>> The code must be integral to the application (no external calls allowed).
>>>> ie the USER must add the functionality to an existing application by
>>>> themselves within 24 hours. It must be their own work, and they will be
>>>> supplied the source code, IDE, and computer (no net connection so no
>>>> cheating!).
>>>> If as you say the source code is NOT useless they will be able to
>>>> complete the task. If however as I contend that for 95% of people having
>>>> the source code is about as much use as bicycles are to fish.... then I
>>>> win because they will not even know where to begin the task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you want one set of rules for one thing, and another set of
>>>> rules for anything you don't understand.
>>> Not at all. I am very happy to give BOTH a programmer and a USER the
>>> same piece of code and ask BOTH to modify it.
>>>

>>
>> Cool, post a link here for the source for the closed source application
>> so we can see someone independent modify it (Opera is a good place to
>> start).
>>
>> Better yet, flick me the source...

>
> lets go back to the task for GIMP, I want to see an average user achieve
> the task, it must after all be significantly simpler....
>


Photoshop.
I want to see an average user achieve the task, it must after all be
significantly simpler, not even having the code to hand to a Romanian.

>>
>>
>>>>> Equally it may often be better to start from scratch than to try and
>>>>> modify mismanaged code, abandoned code, or code written in unsupported
>>>>> languages or those which use depreciated libraries. This will allow it
>>>>> to use newer programming methods, languages, libraries, etc. The time
>>>>> commitment for the programmer may also be less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Seems you're on your own there.
>>>> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articl...000000069.html
>>> I see your problem now, you believe in absolutes.
>>> Are you saying there is NEVER a reason to start from scratch ?
>>> Are you saying that there are no abandoned programming languages ?
>>> Are you saying that there are no abandoned/depreciated libraries ?
>>> Are you saying it makes more sense to spend hundreds of MORE hours
>>> in fixing old code than writing new code ?
>>>

>> Are you saying you cannot read?

>
> Nope, but I am old enough and wise enough not the believe in absolutes.
>


Yet your posts have been littered with them.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you to claim that OSS will cost too much for them
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And to finish you claim that your time is worth something. Which I
>>>>>>>>>>>> doubt
>>>>>>>>>>>> very much given the logic (or lack thereof) that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> far.
>>>>>>>>>>> All I have claimed is that having the source code is worthless to
>>>>>>>>>>> 99%
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> people, all the other inferences are yours, as is the personal
>>>>>>>>>>> abuse.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, no.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may try to rewrite history all you like, but google (and a few
>>>>>>>>>> others) has recorded your stupidity for all to see.
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO... indeed, you should have checked to see who actually wrote
>>>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....6e21?hl=en&dmo
>>>>>>>> de
>>>>>>>> =s
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> ce
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did.
>>>>>>> No you did not. You have actually proven I did NOT say "code can not be
>>>>>>> changed", I looked very closely and there was only ONE line I wrote
>>>>>>> consisting of 5 words which I will quote here
>>>>>>> "until they too are blocked"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I am the first to admit "code can not be changed" and "until they
>>>>>>> too are blocked" both contain exactly 5 words which may be what is
>>>>>>> causing your confusion, however the meanings of each are totally
>>>>>>> different and I am at a loss as to how you can equate the two.
>>>>>> Have it your way the, tell me what /was/ your point.
>>>>> Right well here was the line I replied to:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Changing the code to use routes that aren't firewalled, however,
>>>>> remains an option."
>>>>>
>>>>> To which I wrote
>>>>> "until they too are blocked"
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if code were immutable as you are trying to make out I said then
>>>>> neither statement could be made. BOTH statement are only possible if
>>>>> change is possible.
>>>> Try again.
>>> Why ?

>> Because, apart from making no sense, you're really just wriggling to get
>> out of the mess you've made for yourself.

>
> et tu


I'm not the one complaining.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will subprocess eventually deprecate popen2 ? Daniel Klein Python 1 11-16-2006 03:55 PM
Will Linux eventually take over the desktop market? Lucas Tam Digital Photography 76 06-05-2004 11:17 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Charlie Self Digital Photography 2 09-07-2003 12:40 AM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? DaVidaMundi Digital Photography 3 09-06-2003 04:29 PM
Re: Digital bodies eventually reaching Film body prices? Tony Spadaro Digital Photography 13 09-06-2003 02:36 AM



Advertisments