Andre wrote:
Bob:
we have order and we have progress... runrev is on a nice, orderly
position in the 2.8.x series and have a clear roadmap to progress...
again, what do you want from open source that can't be achieved by
closed source?
Andre
Having read the latest Mathewson v. Kane mini-rant, I thought it was
about time somebody long-in-the-tooth, white-haired and Gandalf-like
synthesised a few things. As a persistent, silent reader for many
years on this list, I assume I can be allowed one message of
(positively) negative
On 10 Jun 2007, at 12:35, Mike Harland wrote:
Allow people to produce Rev advice sites and repository sites or to
form non-commercial user groups
I must be missing something somewhere, because there's a pretty
substantial number of Rev repositories on the web... ;-)
Ian
Mike Harland wrote:
Rev continues to contemplate its own navel with all
its talk of
'pros' on this list, while consistently looking down
its nose at the
so-called hobbyist, newby or daft-headed academic
extremely well-put. And, bye-the-bye, your posting
title expresses the situation to a
Mike et al.
I am not an investor. I produce open source apps and closed source
apps in Rev. I produce them in Macs and deliver in windows and linux
with success. And yes, I build web applications in Rev.
I am not biased. Some stuff could be made simpler or easier, like the
FFI and being able to
Andre,
You have just spoken for the silent majority!
Joe Wilkins
On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Andre Garzia wrote:
Mike et al.
snip
I don't understand what are you guys in need of.
andre
___
___
As a hobbyist/daft-headed academic, I don't understand this remark.
When Metacard was $1,000 a license and I complained to Rev that
hobbyist/academics couldn't afford/wouldn't pay $1,000 a license, they
came out with a series of reasonably-priced feature-reduced versions to
meet the
Mike Harland wrote:
Having read the latest Mathewson v. Kane mini-rant, I thought it was
about time somebody long-in-the-tooth, white-haired and Gandalf-like
synthesised a few things. As a persistent, silent reader for many
years on this list, I assume I can be allowed one message of
Andre wrote:
I don't understand what are you guys in need of.
-
Andre:
Brazil's lemma is Order and Progress I believe?
Of course, I am just speaking for myself.
Regards,
Bob
___
use-revolution mailing list
Bob:
we have order and we have progress... runrev is on a nice, orderly
position in the 2.8.x series and have a clear roadmap to progress...
again, what do you want from open source that can't be achieved by
closed source?
Andre
On 6/10/07, Bob Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andre wrote:
I
Andre Garzia wrote perhaps the most cogent statement of all threads on
open source and quality concerns in the history of this list:
If you guys believe that open source would squash bugs, then why
don't you gather a group and build regression tests.
A lot of folks here share a good many
11 matches
Mail list logo
