Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have not programmed an analogue computer. Your statements show
this. If you claim that you have, then you are a categorical liar.
The above shows how fallible you are and how unsafe your logic is.
[...] Learn some math.
This suggests that you're a
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060215 20:41]:
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they are
clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060215 20:41]:
Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the
non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever
claims people will make.
Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]
[...]
Debian GNU/Linux
Can people here mobilise some action in each of the member states?
Benjamin Henrion writes:
Please try to make a similar letter and send it to your governement:
http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn
We have one working day to put pressure on governements.
If patents is removed from the
Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to
the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite
whatever claims people will make.
Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]
[...]
Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they
are clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they are directed. Comments are
I was reading an old interview with Eckert, one of the people who
designed ENIAC today, where he says the following:
Question: Was ENIAC programmable?
Eckert: Yes and no. We programmed the machine by plugging wires in
from place to place. That's not hard-wired; it's no software; it's
not
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate
the digits of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
I think this is getting boring, although some interesting point have
been made in the past days. Actually, you agreed
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't static. You'd have a
point[0] if you dumped the listing of prime
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 22:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't
Harald Welte wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:17:15AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
- E. Vil claims that as not all of the copyright holders of the work
he obtained are suing, they cannot sue at all.
This is a myth, and probably stems from US copyright.
(A myth I was trying to
What about starting looking beyond these defects and go to the
substance ?
If the defect is so grave as in this case, it is hard to look at the
substance.
So what do you call a spreadsheet with macros ? Is it a document?
Is it a program ?
It is a spreadsheet. Is a poem a document?
simo wrote:
To me it is more that invariant sections cannot be removed is bad, not
that invariant are bad per se.
I would prefer my opinion to be removed entirely than see them changed,
so I welcome invariant sections to some degree but not the way they are
made in the GFDL. I think that
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I wouldn't call troff/latex files for `program source. They all spit
out a static file, one could compare it to a file with values in it,
that you give to a program, which then spits out a fractal image. Is
the file with the values, just numbers, source code? Or even
14 matches
Mail list logo
