On Jul 18, 12:27 am, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Emmy Noether <emmynoeth...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>,
> >> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> >> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
> >>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
> >>>> its like a lock
>
> >>> There is no unfreedom involved here. Freedom does not hand you a free
> >>> ride. Only a free road.
>
> > No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.
>
> Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> > Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
> > a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.
>
> You can't "get" anything that has not been written.
>
> > The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.
>
> You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. You have the
> freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.
>
> If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. It is not a puzzle
> because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
> around. It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.
>
> Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.
>
> > Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
> > boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
> > and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
> > and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.
>
> You want a free ride, very obviously.
>
> > He owes it to others
>
> And you think your whining entitles you to it.
By his own admission he broke into professor's offices to help others,
ie unlock the monitors. He has tried to project an image of a saint
for freedom. Its a DECEPTION. A scoundrel has a right to be scoundrel.
But if he projects himself as a saint, then people have a right to
clear the facts.
> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?
What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+
pages ? NOTHING. He gave it to us in the hope that his software will
spread like a VIRUS. He had hopes for money from big companies
probably, which he must be making to pay the astronomical rent in tbe
boston/cambridge area. I can assure you that he can document all the
essentials of his program in a thin book of a few hundred pages with a
trivial amount of man-hours compared to being spent on things which
brings fewer volunteers.
It is said : A picture is worth a thousand words. Make some transition
diagrams, structures, and UML type diagrams of the operation of the
software.
> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?
Draw a diagram, A state transition diagram to understand how illogical
you are.
A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state
of having made a contribution to FSF. How can one do it without
adequate documentation ? Xah Lee has been complaining for a year.
First you deprive people of ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute.
Stall man has written user manuals to effect viral spread. But he has
not written operational details to get the same viral contribution by
others. He must not want it. Yet you want to use it as a taunt as in
pot calling the kettle black ???!!!
OK, why dont you explain a few basic things, if it not a
puzzle ????!!!!
DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
"Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
\n\
The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
(args)
Lisp_Object args;
{
register Lisp_Object val;
Lisp_Object args_left;
struct gcpro gcpro1;
if (NULL(args))
return Qnil;
args_left = args;
GCPRO1 (args_left);
do
{
val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
if (!NULL (val))
break;
args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
}
while (!NULL(args_left));
UNGCPRO;
return val;
}
I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.
And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
function definition ?
Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He
expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code.
What did he do to expect all this ? He was even paid money , as
claimed by the XEMACS people.
What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from
them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!!
He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to
write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has
not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he
was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal
version ???
Answer these very strong arguments ??? What did he deserve to get the
XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why is he INCAPABLE of building
upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about documentation, professional
jealousies of these mean spirited people with double standards. Send
him a CC of this thread. I expect him to explain some of these issues
of documentation.
> --
> David Kastrup
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
