Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Alfredo Portes wrote: | > | When Xorg forked from XFree86, the projects essentially went their | > | separate ways despite starting from a virtually identical code base. | > | (Granted there were licensing issues there.) There is no doubt Xorg is | > | a separate product from

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, C Y wrote: | --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > It strikes that people are trying hard to speculate on Fricas goals | > and methods, much more than the originator of the Fricas project :-) | | Point - in fact, a very good point. Waldek isn't joining this

[Axiom-developer] Re: Take a break.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Since I clearly "want the Axiom project to succeed, be alive, and attract | talented people" I plan to skip the Axiom meeting at ISSAC. I hope it is | well attended and I anticipate a flood of new developers. Well, that is entirely within your right

[Axiom-developer] Take a break.

In light of your recent posting I believe I'll take your suggestion. Since I'm clearly the reason that "very few people are showing up for Axiom" I think I'll go back to my policy of silence and continue to code. Since I cl

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

Gaby, You had mentioned a week or two ago about posting some slides on the 'net detailing a talk you gave about Axiom, which IIRC contained some personal ideas about future directions. Did these ever get online? Apologies in advance if I somehow missed them. Take care, Steve

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

> | When Xorg forked from XFree86, the projects essentially went their > | separate ways despite starting from a virtually identical code base. > | (Granted there were licensing issues there.) There is no doubt Xorg is > | a separate product from XFree86. > > and (almost) the same people re-united

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

On 26 Jul 2007 16:42:24 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote: Perhaps what we need is a page on the wiki which describes the goals of the Axiom project in a succinct way. That page can be developed and driven by a community effort. Well that is certainly what I had in mind when I made the changes tha

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On 7/26/07, C Y wrote: ... > (We have been discussing that in another thread on MonoidRing.) As far as I know it is the intention of everyone involved that Axiom > will eventually be able to compile this code. I doubt the FriCAS project will want to spend effort on that though - they will pro

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It strikes that people are trying hard to speculate on Fricas goals > and methods, much more than the originator of the Fricas project :-) Point - in fact, a very good point. Waldek isn't joining this fray so far, but I'll quote from http://www.m

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | *, | | Perhaps what we need is a page on the wiki which describes the goals | of the Axiom project in a succinct way. That page can be developed | and driven by a community effort. | | It can contain a listing of all of the current branches which | d

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

*, Perhaps what we need is a page on the wiki which describes the goals of the Axiom project in a succinct way. That page can be developed and driven by a community effort. It can contain a listing of all of the current branches which describes the efforts underway to realize some of those objec

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] | > > FriCAS is capable of developing its own resources. | > > That's what a fork is. | > | > A fork is a failure to communicate (which also happens to be the | > cause of most wars :-( | | I would have thought this fork could be characterized as a desire t

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] | When Xorg forked from XFree86, the projects essentially went their | separate ways despite starting from a virtually identical code base. | (Granted there were licensing issues there.) There is no doubt Xorg is | a separate product from XFree86. and (alm

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

> If for whatever reason we can't work together with Waldek in the > Axiom project then at least Axiom still has access to his skills > and the work of some other people through FriCAS. It is not the ideal > situation but it is not a net loss. (I think at least Clifford Yapp > agrees with me on t

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

On 26 Jul 2007 14:36:15 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... | When I go into a restaurant and order a "coke" I frequently get asked | "Is Pepsi ok?". There is a reason why they bother to ask. For all I know, proof by analogy is fraud. http://jyte.c

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Bill, | | > Are you going to say if I happen to mention FriCAS once or twice that | > I am somehow mis-using Axiom "resources, history, goodwill", etc.? | | When I go into a restaurant and order a "coke" I frequently get asked | "Is Pepsi ok?". There is a reason why t

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | > Much better for Axiom would be if we get Waldek back into the boat. | > Isn't that simple? Cooperation, not separation. | | There has been no discussion against Waldek participating in Axiom. | I, for one, would welcome his participation at any time. I participate |

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I strongly object to the dilution of the Axiom name and resources | implied by your action. A fork implies the decision NOT to share | resources. Please do NOT promote Fricas as Axiom in any forum. | They are two entirely separate projects. | | We clearly disagree on t

[Axiom-developer] Re: [fricas-devel] Re: Fricas

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote: | | Tim, | | I am truly shocked and saddened by your demand to remove my updates | concerning the FriCAS project from the axiom-developer server. !!! | :-(( ? I did not have network access for four days, so I'm having trouble following all this saga from w

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On 7/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill Page wrote: > A fork is a failure to communicate. A fork is a separate project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) Wherein we may read (in part): --- Forks are considered an expression of the freedom made a

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Bill Page wrote: | Dear Axiom Users and Developers, | | Based on Gaby's suggestion I wrote to the ISSAC 2007 conference | organizers asking to schedule a meeting about Axiom during the | conference next week, to which they agreed. It is tentatively | scheduled for Monday (Jul

[Axiom-developer] Fricas

Bill, > Are you going to say if I happen to mention FriCAS once or twice that > I am somehow mis-using Axiom "resources, history, goodwill", etc.? When I go into a restaurant and order a "coke" I frequently get asked "Is Pepsi ok?". There is a reason why they bother to ask. How often, and in wha

[Axiom-developer] Fricas

Bill, > A fork is a failure to communicate. A fork is a separate project. A failure to communicate is what you and I have. Tim ___ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org ht

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On 7/26/07, I wrote: ... I plan to give a public presentation (Software exhibit) on Axiom at the upcoming ISSAC 2007 conference. (See attached abstract.) And I have also arranged with the conference organizers to have a meeting specifically about Axiom on Monday evening 7:30 PM. Are you going to

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

On 7/26/07, Tim Daly wrote: > But you are paying the bills for the entire axiom-developer.org server > so I have complied with your request. To me this clearly demonstrates > that an open source project (like Axiom used to be) should *never* > allow themselves to get into a situation where signi

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To suggest that this is "Tim's project" and that I set all the goals > is to rewrite history in a very negative way. It minimizes the > efforts and contributions of a large number of people, all named (or > intended to be named) in the list of Axiom credits. My apol

[Axiom-developer] Fricas

Cliff, > Tim, perhaps you could upload a page to the wiki defining in a concise > manner the original foundational project goals, so we have a place to > refer to for this discussion? contains the project goals as of Oct, 2004 rep

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

Much better for Axiom would be if we get Waldek back into the boat. Isn't that simple? Cooperation, not separation. Cooperation, not separation, applies to everyone on the project. Did I say something else? Tim, my last mail text was delibarately not addressed to you but to the community. I

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right now we are lucky if we can even find > 5 out out of the nearly 100 subscribers in the axiom-devel mailing > list who are willing to make a public statement about any of issues > that have been considered for vote-taking here recently. I think peop

[Axiom-developer] Fricas

> Much better for Axiom would be if we get Waldek back into the boat. > Isn't that simple? Cooperation, not separation. There has been no discussion against Waldek participating in Axiom. I, for one, would welcome his participation at any time. I participate in a couple computer algebra systems an

Re: [Axiom-developer] Fricas

Hello, I clearly understand any position. Axiom is not FriCAS and FriCAS should not sell under the name of Axiom. That's clear, but not the point. Much better for Axiom would be if we get Waldek back into the boat. Isn't that simple? Cooperation, not separation. Let's not fight against each