"Charles Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I read the paper, and it seems to summarize as: > 1. The BitFrost Specification is documentation, not detailed > implementation. The author does not read code. > [...] > It seems like OLPC F. should issue an immediate (preemptive) response saying: > 1. BitFrost is an open-source implementation. The "BitFrost > Specification" is a high level document and not an engineering > specification. Engineers can read the implementation source code. > [...]
As shown on the Bitfrost status wiki page though, there is not that much implementation yet to critique, so the paper's authors are perhaps justified in looking at just the plans. - FChE _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
