Re: [fpc-other] rebuild FreePascal in FreeBSD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm newbie in freepascal lists and in Freepascal Unix, and if this question doesn't make sense for this list, please ignore! I believe that fpc-pascal would be the best choice (this one is for discussions only partly related to FPC). I downloaded files fpc.zip and fpcbuild.zip from ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/snapshot/v23/source/. Which of them I will use to rebuild Freepascal? I used fpcbuild.zip, but only the sources of freepascal are instaled as 2.3.1, the compiler continue as 2.2.0 . What I have to do to build Freepascal version 2.3.1? I believe that make all install in the unpacked directory of either of these ZIPs should do it normally (I'm no FreeBSD user, though). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Fwd: [fpc-pascal] fpGUI Toolkit source repository migrated to Git
On Wed, April 8, 2009 16:22, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: . . platforms as well. So far they are going a great job. BTW: I understand FPC was Windows only in the beginning. ;-) . . No, DOS. ;-) Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] DocView and FPC documentation release
On Thu, August 26, 2010 17:55, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: Hi Graeme, I am pleased to announce that fpGUI's DocView is available for download in a convenient binary executable from fpGUI's SourceForge project page. See the URL below. . . Thanks! Any idea why is your Win32 binary 100 kB (12%) larger than the one I compiled two days ago from your fpGui7.0 sources available in SourceForge? I assume you haven't made any changes in the sources in between, have you? I tried opening some OS/2 INF files (in particular the pascalized version of the IBM OS/2 Control Program Reference/CPREF distributed with Virtual Pascal v1.0) and DocView displayed empty pages for just any of the Control Program APIs listed in the Contents pane. IBM's XVIEW (Win16 viewer) and IVIEW (Win32 viewer) both display the same file correctly. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 62, Issue 1
On 6 Oct 12, at 17:12, Giuliano Colla wrote: Cephas Atheos ha scritto: [..] I knew that I wasn't going to convince anyone who wasn't willing to give new technology a fair go! But we do need to at least be fair with our evaluation of technology, not just go with what we know and love. It's not fair to the users who may not know the difference, or who may have been genuinely interested in better ways of communicating with everyone else here. [...] I'm afraid that you're are under the false impression of talking to a newbee audience, who's never seen a forum in his life. The sample forum you proposed is very similar to the one I did set up for a cultural association I'm member of. It uses the same tools and . . Please do follow Graeme suggestions, and concentrate where problems exist, and improvements would be welcome. Fpc/Lazarus Wiki search is a nightmare, because there's no decent content based indexing: if what you're searching for is not on a page title it can't be found. Fpc website usability is very poor. In those fields more modern tools, and someone willing to devote some time would help a lot. To be fair, it's probably useful to mention that the example forum prepared by Peter should be better compared to the forum we currently provide on FPC pages (community.freepascal.org) rather than NNTP newsgroups, etc., which we do not provide at the moment anyway. There _are_ issues with the existing WWW forum (e.g. the notifications work incorrectly). I do not say that it is the most important problem of our WWW site, but there is still some room for improvement there. Nevertheless, the provided example shall be accompanied by description of the supposed transition scenario. First of all, it is important to understand whether the created example was meant to replace just the existing WWW forum or the whole site (possibly including the Wiki, bug tracker, etc.) / supporting infrastructure. If it's the former, alright, let's discuss advantages and disadvantages compared to our current one with regard to all aspects (usability, features, involved infrastructure, security, operability and support of the forum software, etc.). At the end, we can put the advantages and disadvantages on one page and then decide whether to change or not. As an example, one disadvantage I can see so far is that it lacks the benefit of very easy (and user controlled) possibility of localization to other languages. That feature is actually used right now and there are quite a few localizations available (partly created by our users) matching the possibility to discuss FPC related questions also in other languages than just English (which is important for some our users who do not speak English so well). Sacrificing that feature may be an option, but we should understand the reasons for doing so. Another question - is the forum structure supposed to be part of the proposal? If yes, it would be useful to get some arguments why this structure fits better than the current one. In my opinion, the prepared structure focuses too much on just installing and specific architectures and too little to general cross-platform development (which is one of the FPC strengths and an important benefit of FPC). If the proposal was meant to replace the whole FPC site (as potentially suggested e.g. by mentioning the download options on a very prominent place and not having links to the other WWW resources like the bug tracker), I have sincere doubts. I hope that it wasn't meant that way, but I'll wait for the response. If the prepared sample forum is supposed to replace not only the existing WWW forum but also the existing mailing lists (completely)? This hasn't been stated (yet), although I suspect that it might have been meant that way based on some previous statements. If this is the case, it would be useful to provide some statements regarding different access options - even 'up to date' forum solutions like Google Groups provide options for accessing the fora via e-mail (in both directions, i.e. for both reading and responding). Is something like that supported by the created example in order to provide benefits of both approaches (again related to description of supposed transition from the current state mentioned above)? Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] What does Embarcadero spend there time on
On Fri, March 8, 2013 17:04, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: Also, there as no specific person I targeted in fpc-devel. Almost all posts lately contain about 95% quoted text! How does a moderator fail to see this? I really don't want to prolong this and perhaps upset more people than necessary, but has it occurred to you that that's how mailing lists work and that possibly your expectations are unreasonable? . . Just to add another view (to show that it is not a fight among two clearly delineated camps): - I agree to Graeme that many people don't use quoting efficiently - either always or at least sometimes (e.g. because they forget). - It is important to stress that efficient quoting is subjective and depends on many factors including used tools, habits and preferences (some people prefer more context than others), etc. - Pointing out good practice may be useful and accepted by others even from just one of the many subscribed people if performed in gentle way allowing others to improve themselves (without attacking them). One should probably not expect everybody else to even know what netiquette is these days (unfortunately :-( ), i.e. providing some specific reference may be useful and increase efficiency of such a message (text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_%28technology%29 might suggest some improvement opportunities for Graeme too ;-) ). Trying to enforce the expected behaviour (e.g. by pointing it out twice within the same day) should be certainly left to moderators in my view (and if someone believes that the moderator does this job insufficiently, it is always possible to contact him directly to discuss such concerns). I fully agree to Jonas explaining how other people might feel and why such a response might have arrived. Jonas simply tried to clarify potential reasons behind a bit curt reaction from Mark and I don't see anything problematic in that e-mail from Jonas. (Being a non-native speaker, I just hope that the word curt just looked up in a dictionary matches my intention here - I mean something worse than not very nice but not reaching inappropriate). - I believe that the response of Graeme to comment from Jonas was clearly inappropriate (calling others idiots is always inappropriate in my view and never leads to any positive outcome) and an obvious reason for the moderation action (especially if this wasn't for the first time with Graeme). - I _personally_ dislike insufficient quoting at least as much as excessive quoting (and yes, I observe that sometimes in FPC lists too - I mean messages commenting something without providing any clue what the statement is about unless looking at the whole thread). Again, different people, different habits, different preferences. - I do not share the opinion of Mark that sending URLs should be considered inappropriate or that senders willing to share some link with others ought to spend time on creating different (shorter) URLs in cases like this (and from this point of view I don't see anything wrong on Graeme's original post). While I do not necessarily always use tools allowing me to access You Tube on all devices which I use for reading e-mails, I understand that the choice of devices (with all their advantages and disadvantages) is fully on my side. My preferred _e-mail_ client has allowed clicking on URLs in plain text e-mails (and launching these URLs in the WWW browser) since at least 14 years ago, i.e. Mark's assumption that this has to do with reading e-mails via WWW client is not necessarily correct. In any case, I believe that a response like: Sorry, I cannot access the video when reading e-mails, can you please tell me what it is about? might give better results and would not provide triggers for unnecessary escalation. BTW, my original reaction when reading Graeme's post was: OK, a link to some video in fpc-other, I'll see if I have time for watching it later but I can probably live happily without it too. ;-) For everybody who read up to this point - yes, I know that I'm a candidate for being moderated because I tend to express my thoughts in too much detail leading to very long e-mails (also mentioned as bad habit on the netiquette link above). If you believe that I'm a bigger idiot than Graeme, Mark and Jonas together because of this, I'm fine with that. ;-) Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Console Encoding in Windows (Local VS. UTF8)
On Thu, July 11, 2013 13:23, Lukasz Sokol wrote: On 10/07/2013 13:38, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: Hi *, Moving here (from fpc-pascal), since this discussion became off-topic. . . And is so since Win95. Just amazing that Windows Console is so far behind other platforms - it's rather ridiculous if you think about it. If I used Windows, I would install a different console application — there must be better after-market ones out there. But yes, this probably doesn't solve your or your clients problems. I seriously doubt it... It is not clear which part of the previous paragraph the doubt was related to, but I've found http://sourceforge.net/projects/console - depending on your needs, it may address some features not supported by MS Windows console windows directly / easily. I mean, in the olden days, the cmd program was actually a fully/partially [delete inappropriate] DOS compatible virtual machine, starting with : being able to run real x86 mode programs... Well, CMD.EXE obviously does not run x86 real-mode programs (it's ntvdm.exe doing this together with the respective OS drivers as far as I know), but it can indeed start such programs (as well as any other program types supported by the operating system) and also display their output within the allocated console window (as long as this output is textual - otherwise you need to switch to full-screen; unlike OS/2 CMD.EXE which cannot do this directly by default and needs to open a special DOS window instead). It wasn't a shell as *nix has, never was meant to be... It was meant to be a shell as much as command.com was meant to be a shell with DOS as far as I know (and the differences between the two clearly show that attempts have been made to make it more useful as a shell). You'd have more luck using DosBOX emulator these days... That obviously depends on ones needs, right? CMD.EXE / Windows console is also used for running Win32 console applications - certainly not an area for DosBOX. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Problems reading some of the messages from this mailing list
On Mon, September 23, 2013 15:06, Guillermo Martínez wrote: From: Tomas Hajny xhaj...@hajny.biz Switching to fpc-other, since this is really off-topic in fpc-pascal... That should not be an issue by itself. The more likely reason is probably use of 8-bit message (utf-8) without encoding in us-ascii (7-bit) compatible envelope - typically MIME Quoted Printable (as already used for the HTML section, but not for the plain text version). Some mail servers may not allow that and recode the message in MIME Base64 encoding (which is most likely the text below); while doing that, they should include this information in the header, but I suspect that this hasn't happened in the case of Guillermo (this could be checked if he forwards the received message in attachment - doing this via fpc-other would be more appropriate than here). Nevertheless, the real solution is probably for Philippe to configure his e-mail client not to send 8-bit messages without 7-bit safe encoding). So I can't do anything, can I? Unfortunatelly there are more users that sends their e-mail that way, specially chinese ones. You can check the headers of the e-mails as received on your side. As suggested previously, I'm willing to have a look at it (you can either save such broken message into a file (complete message including full headers), zip it and send it to me, or at least forward it as an attachment (although the latter is not guaranteed to keep the headers intacted). If the headers do not conform to the reality (i.e. some server transcoded the content without adding information about the new encoding in headers), you could try to find out where exactly the transcoding happens (on which server) and try convincing administrators of that server to change their configuration or upgrade the server. If the headers are correct in fact, you may want to upgrade your own e-mail client. ;-) Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Announcing PUMA Repository (Ralf Quint)
On Mon, December 16, 2013 00:38, waldo kitty wrote: On 12/15/2013 3:06 PM, Johannes W. Dietrich wrote: . . Apple Mail doesn't seem to be the only software that doesn't know what to do with this type of encoded data. The problem seem to affect the list processor, too. See http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/fpc-pascal/2013-December/040336.html in the archive for reference. FWIW: the displayed block at the URL given decodes perfectly with the MIME decoding URL i gave previously... i have a sneaking suspicion that some are expecting certain control lines to be in use when they are not required for the given context... but then i'm still learning this MIME stuff and have only some tools at hand to work with and base my understanding on... As already suggested by Jonas, responding to fpc-other. Sorry, but I believe that you should indeed check the respective RFCs first (and possibly also search some information about what mail servers may do when receiving an e-mail with message encoding not supported by their configuration in order to understand what may cause differences with different recipients). In any case: 1) RFC 2045 states that 7-bit encoding (i.e. no encoding necessary due to using only lower part of ASCII table aka us-ascii character set) is the default assumed if no other information about content encoding is provided (i.e. encoding the message using base64 without specifying this explicitly is invalid and any client doing this based on some heuristic methods of guessing the encoding would be breaking the RFC defined behaviour). 2) As also mentioned in the RFC mentioned above, the SMTP message format (RFC 821) requires all messages to be in us-ascii. Many e-mail clients provide possibility to allow 8-bit messages in their configuration (and some others might even do it silently by default). Even worse, some e-mail clients allow including non-encoded characters outside of us-ascii without signalizing that the encoding is in fact 8-bit (i.e. not conforming to the original SMTP message format). However, anybody allowing these 8-bit characters without encoding outside his own controlled environment (e.g. within a company) is in a risk that any of SMTP servers encountering such messages might enforce the strict rules of RFC 821 format and encode the message differently according to their own selection. This means that different recipients may receive the same message in different format. Obviously, proper headers should be added during this encoding - Jonas suggested that this might have worked wrongly in this case. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Announcing PUMA Repository (Ralf Quint)
On Mon, December 16, 2013 09:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Tomas Hajny wrote: . . Sorry, but I believe that you should indeed check the respective RFCs first (and possibly also search some information about what mail servers may do when receiving an e-mail with message encoding not supported by their configuration in order to understand what may cause differences with different recipients). In any event, this isn't really an issue about MIME types etc. The real issue is that if somebody wants to get an announcement (or an urgent request for help, or an urgent reply, or in fact /anything/) read by the maximum number of people, then it's good practice to use plain text and to leave off any attachments etc. that could possibly be misinterpreted or cause the entire message to be misrouted as spam. The upside of the Internet is that there's a vast number of supported data formats and protocols. The downside is that there's a vast number of RFCs and informal conventions describing them. On occasion, for everybody's sake, it's best to keep things as simple as possible. While I agree to your statement personally (regardless of my own experience from a corporate environment ;-) - see below), the issue discussed here may be triggered with plain text messages without any attachments very easily (especially for posters coming from areas where us-ascii is simply not enough) - one accented character (e.g. German umlaut / diaeresis) in name or organization (e.g. included in e-mail signature) may be sufficient (if supported by the e-mail client configuration as described in my previous post). Now the promised bit regarding the corporate environment - some time ago, I was requested by a colleague not to use plain text mails by default because they were difficult to read (potentially causing recipients not to read them fully). It turned out that his view was primarily influenced by the default configuration of MS Outlook using font Courier for displaying plain text messages and that font being less readable than some others due to its non-proportional nature. Not even mentioning that not using top-posting also results in some people not reading responses because they do not realize the need to scroll to the bottom (obviously, this is also supported by the treatment of such messages in MS Outlook). :-( OK, let's get back to the slightly more educated Internet environment. ;-) Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-devel] OS/2 and DLLs
On Thu, December 18, 2014 21:54, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Thu, December 18, 2014 19:49, Ralf Quint wrote: On 12/17/2014 2:56 PM, mark diener wrote: Ralf, I am not goint to tell you to do anything, but gently suggest that you chill out. Well, how about you live what you are preaching? I'd like to ask everybody to stop responding to this part of the thread and restrict him/herself to on topic messages on this list. Switching to fpc-other as a more appropriate space: I believe that although my time available for FPC is quite limited, my activities related to OS/2 target in FPC in the last few years show more than clearly that I want to continue support of this target regardless of the number of users lower compared to some other targets as long as my work helps at least someone. In this context, I'd like to thank everybody who expressed his interest in this target. Note that I don't aim to convince people that they should stop using their preferred platform and switch to OS/2, and I won't participate in any kind of advocacy discussion about why OS/2 should continue to be used, etc. Thanks again Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] (OS/2 eCS) - Free Pascal problem.
On Mon, March 23, 2015 02:06, John H. Lindsay wrote: Hi John, I'm looking for any help getting Free Pascal into usable shape on OS/2 and eCS; I'm running eCS v. 2.2 B2. The basic problems are that I can't get a big enough command-line window to show the fp character-mode IDE window to do any work, and that once in any command-line window, the fp display doesn't respond to any key strokes or mouse clicks, and almost immediately, the mouse pointer turns into a drag-and-drop symbol without any apparent way to turn it off (cancel drag). Details below. I'd appreciate any thoughts or information about how OS/2 and eCS people are using Free Pascal successfully. I use FPC with eCS 1.0 without any problems. I'm pretty sure that it should work with eCS 2.2 B2 as well. I assume that you talk about the last released version of FPC, i.e. 2.6.4, right? See also my comments below. Any hope for Lazarus/2 ? Probably not any time soon, unless someone starts working on it. There are people asking about this from time to time, but nobody started working on it really as far as I know. As you might know, the original codebase which was used for creating Lazarus (looong time ago) _did_ come from OS/2 (and the sources of that old version might be still available), but none of the current Lazarus developers uses OS/2 and I (aka the person providing support for the compiler and RTL for OS/2 currently) have no capacity for such an endeavour. However, if someone starts working on it, I'm certainly ready to help with potentially necessary advices, etc. Any recommendations about how to get on one of the Free Pascal fora ? When I log in and try, I have an e-mail window, and it asks for an e-mail address to send it to, but what does one enter to have the e-mail sent to one of the fora ? Do you mean the fora available on http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org? I don't think that you can post messages there from an e-mail if this is what you mean - one needs to post messages from the WWW interfaces (once registered and logged on there). [Details of my efforts]: A standard size OS/2 command-line window does respond to the fp command, but the display (25 lines ?) leaves only a few lines for any work. You should change the window size before starting FP using one of the various utilities available e.g. on Hobbes (or indeed using standard command mode as suggested in your text below). The display doesn't respond to keystrokes or mouse clicks. I have never seen such a behaviour. Do you mean that after starting FP, you can't e.g. exit using Alt-X? The window size is fixed, and although pointing at the boundaries shows the double arrow, one still can't resize the window. Of course, there's the mode command, where one can resize the command-line window to any of a selection of fixed sizes, but if one issues fp to get the Free Pascal character-mode IDE, the window then pops back to the smaller standard size. . . The window is the standard OS/2 text-mode (VIO) window, i.e. you can't resize it using mouse indeed. However, FP should not shrink the window back on start-up. I'll check it again once at my OS/2 machine. One idea coming to my mind is that if you stored FP desktop settings with the resolution 80x25, FP might try to restore that resolution on startup. Could you try removing the file fp.dsk (if it exists) and try it again ? Hope this helps, let me know your results (and preferably remind the readers of not being subscribed to this mailing list, so that everybody replying includes you in Cc:). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Looking for JavaScript component on FPC
On Fri, April 3, 2015 13:05, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: On 2015-04-03 10:39, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Moving the discussion about advantages out of fpc-pascal elsewhere to avoid bothering others... :/ you just change one option -Fu/GUI/LCL to 2: -Fu/GUI -NLCL I don't see much added value in that. Other possibly (more useful) usage would be reducing the generic unit name clashes. eg: How common is the unit name constants.pas? Very common. So when using various libraries that all could contain a unit named constants.pas, using namespaces means we can easily get around the unit name clash issue. . . ps #2: Unit namespace clashing is exactly why fpGUI uses the fpg_* unit name format. Because my first attempt of FP* and fpg* clashed with units included with FPC. If you already know that you have a bigger project where it is likely to get into a conflict (which may indeed be the case easily), you can obviously avoid that conflict either by selecting and using a namespace in your project, or equally well by using a prefix as you did with fpGUI. There's nothing in either of the two cases guaranteeing that you can't get into a conflict anyway (somebody may pick the same prefix as easily as a namespace - especially if most people wouldn't be interested to use/type long and thus more specific namespaces). Once you start using the units created with namespaces, you have the same issue again - either you use the short names in your uses clause, etc., but then you still may get into the same problem with conflicts as before (as soon as you start using a 3rd party unit which contains a unit with the same short name), or you always use the full name, but then you're in exactly the same situation as with prefixes (the same amount of typing, etc.). While there are minor differences, the situation doesn't change very much from my point of view. It might change a bit more if conventions for avoiding namespace conflicts are defined (and used) - naming your units uk.co.geldenhuys.fpgui.* should be sufficiently safe at least until your DNS record registration expires ( ;-) ) but I don't see this happening on the Delphi side at least (and defining conventions which wouldn't be used by Delphi users doesn't seem to make too much sense if we expect using code/units created in Delphi for FPC). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Networking problem from Linux virtual machine hosting Lazarus
On Sat, February 27, 2016 22:36, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > Bo Berglund wrote: >> I hope this might be acceptable to ask here even if it is FPC and >> Lazarus off topic No problem on this list. . . >> VMWare virtual adapter for vnet8 on main PC: >> IP=192.168.80.1 Mask=255.255.255.0 >> >> >> Linux Mint virtual machine: >> IP=192.168.80.130 Mask=255.255.255.0 GW=192.168.80.2 Wasn't the gateway number meant to be 192.168.80.1? . . >> I don't get any ping response. On the host system I get immediate >> response... >> >> Is there anyone here who has done this and made it work? > > I'm not sure how useful any comment from me it, since I tend to use > Qemu. However the obvious question that has to be asked is whether the > windows system knows how to route to the subnet on which the VMWare > guest resides. Yep - what's the result of 'route print' or 'netstat -r' there? Also, you need to make sure that there's no conflict (i.e. the 192.168.x.x range isn't routed elsewhere there). Also, when trying to sort it out, I'd try pinging from both sides. I assume that 'ping 192.168.80.1' works on the host machine, right (i.e. the virtual interface is up)? If so, would pinging 192.168.80.130 work from that side? Finally - not sure what you meant by the reference to the 'VPN network', but if your machine is connected to a VPN (external), you need to make sure that the VPN client isn't configured to disable all other connectivity. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] helpful information
On Mon, August 8, 2016 08:54, tbc_z87 wrote: Hello, > The information that I've just found seems to be really helpful, just > take a look at ... > > tbc_z87 Obviously, the e-mail above is a SCAM which slipped through the mailing list protection (the From header has been forged apparently). In any case, you should better ignore it. Thanks for your understanding Tomas Hajny, one of the fpc-other mailing list moderators ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Missing messages
On Sun, October 30, 2016 19:11, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2016-10-30 17:24, Sven Barth wrote: Responding to fpc-other, because it's off-topic. >> Same here... I don't miss any messages, i.e. it isn't a general problem (which obviously doesn't imply that there is no problem). > First Lazarus, now FPC. Can we not switch fpc-pascal to a NNTP newsgroup > - no issues, no spam and more control over your own messages. After all, > NNTP was designed from the ground up for group communications. My > company server already hosts a couple of groups for various open source > projects, for over 10 years. Adding one more will take all of 1 minute. Do you get spam from FPC lists very often? I believe that the existing controls block most if not all of it quite efficiently. On the other hand, NNTP is not guaranteed to be free of spam, nor ensuring smooth communication for everybody either (as an example, it may not be accessible from corporate environments). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] OS/2 support and text colors
On Thu, July 20, 2017 12:00, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: Hi Graeme, > Not strictly FPC related, but I know here are some OS/2 software > developers around - and I have no idea where else to ask. > > I'm working on supporting OS/2 in fpGUI Toolkit and creating OS/2 > themes. Looking at some of the OS/2 screenshots I have collected, I > noticed that in the same dialog you sometimes have blue text and > sometimes black text. Anybody know why, and what is the difference > between the two (other than the color alone)? > > Here is an example: > >http://geldenhuys.co.uk/~graemeg/os2_screenshot.png > > > The only pattern I can see is that "static text" (eg: labels and > groupbox captions) use the blue text, but Checkboxes, Buttons, Menu > Items etc use the black text. I still don't understand IBM's reasoning > behind this though - but would like to know out of curiosity. I'm on holiday at the moment and thus nowhere close to my OS/2 machine (or any other PC, in fact). Moreover, I haven't studied the IBM GUI recommendations, nor analyzed the implementation from this point of view. Your observation looks correct to me (descriptions in blue and values in black). However, I'd like to remind you that standard OS/2 dialogues may be modified using the Font Palette, Color Palette, etc., using drag and drop, and thus this pattern may change easily - that part may be actually more important than the default setup if you intend to provide OS/2 native behaviour to your fpGUI port. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
On Wed, May 24, 2017 16:03, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2017-05-24 14:38, Luca Olivetti wrote: >> $ LC_ALL=C git gui >> git: 'gui' is not a git command. See 'git --help'. > > I guess you can blame your Linux distro's rubbish package management > requirement policies for that. They probably split Git into two or more > packages. F**ken annoying if you ask me - hence I don't use Linux any > more. > > I compile Git from the original source code, and it includes > everything... Console, GUI and SubVersion support. I have my doubts about availability of the GUI component for OS/2, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. ;-) Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
On Wed, May 24, 2017 16:51, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2017-05-24 15:30, Tomas Hajny wrote: >> I have my doubts about availability of the GUI component for OS/2, but >> you're welcome to prove me wrong. ;-) > > I haven't personally tried Git under OS/2, but I have two OS/2 VMs > available, so I'll test. > > Does OS/2 have a port of TCL/TK? That's what those GUI's are written in. I could find a port of Tcl/Tk version 8.3.5 on Hobbes. No idea if there are newer ports somewhere else. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-devel] Object upgrades
On 2019-06-17 02:05, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote: On 6/16/19 4:41 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote: Am 16.06.2019 um 17:43 schrieb wkitt...@windstream.net: Switching to fpc-other, since this is certainly not on-topic on fpc-devel... if gmail can determine that a message coming in from a list is one you sent, it does not pass it on back to you... there's no way to turn this off that i've found... they want you to use their interface to read conversations and your sent message is included in there slotted in where it should be... I see my own messages both on the GMail Android app as well as Thunderbird. that's weird... i pull my gmail via pop3 in to my tbird and never get any of my list posts back... i'm on 10+ lists... some with this account and others with my gmail... the gmail account never sends back my messages when i pop them... I guess that this may be due to your GMail configuration - if you have your own messages in GMail moved to folder Sent automatically (even though they're not Sent via the GMail UI), those messages may not be available for POP3. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] please try to consider add info about Pandroid to the official Lazarus wiky page
On 2020-08-10 12:58, Mgr. Janusz Chmiel via fpc-other wrote: Hello, I would like to kindly ask you if you would try to consider adding information about Pandroid for Linux and about Pandroid for WIndows package to The official Lazarus wiki page? There are info about various project, but this project is missing. And The reality is, that authors have do their best to support even most complex interactions between Android API functions and Pascal program code. I believe that elite members here will try to think about this. Because Pandroid can be interesting alternative to The Lamw. I'm not sure where exactly you wanted to have the project mentioned, but anybody can add information to the Wiki pages (except for the front-page, which is restricted from this point of view, but that contains mostly links to other Wiki pages anyway and thus the real content must be added/created elsewhere first anyway). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Hello
On 14 April 2023 18:45:42 +0200, Steve Litt via fpc-other wrote: Hi Steve, >I'm here because of what's going on with the #fpc IRC channel. Welcome! :-) Just FYI - I'll discuss with other members of the core team whether we should keep the reference to #fpc IRC channel on our website - if we have no control over the way the moderation is performed there, it might be more appropriate to remove the reference altogether, or at least add a disclaimer that we don't consider it an official FPC communication channel (in the latter case, #alt-fpc might be mentioned as well). Or actually, I'll wait if some core team members don't respond here first, but not all of them track this list - let's see... Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] #fpc irc channel
On 18 April 2023 18:12:49 +0200, James Richters via fpc-other wrote: >I can understand keeping bots off the channel, but it seems like there should >be some easy way to test if you are a bot without annoying real humans. >Why doesn’t she just send them an email or a text message if their >conversation is not convincing or >If they are someone who is on the FPC mailing list, then it’s super easy to >confirm that just ask them what their email used on one of the FPC lists. If >I do a google search for: james richters fpc-pascal >I get all kinds of posts that I have made over the years from the archives. Indeed - moderation should be driven by actions, not by suspicions. >The comment was made that lurkers are not allowed on the channel.. that is >just dumb, if there are not lurkers, then the chances of someone being on who >knows how to help with any give issue is much less. So the only people on the >channel will be people with questions, and no one with answers. Also a LOT >can be learned from other people’s questions. I learn SO much from the >FPC-Pascal List.. things that I would never even think about. That's exactly one of arguments I raised to Joanna, but she didn't seem to either understand or care (neither is good). >I don’t know, I like the mailing lists, I didn’t even know there was an IRC >channel…. Look… I learned about something I didn’t know about from what would >be considered lurking if I was on IRC. Yep. I'll post an update regarding the FPC team decision and associated action tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Rescue #fpc: was fpc-other Digest, Vol 150, Issue 6
On 22 April 2023 01:52:26 +0200, Steve Litt via fpc-other wrote: Hi Steve, . . >This is a step in the right direction. Thank you Joanna. > >Tomas (Hajny), I beg you, please step in and take temporary control of >#fpc until the project itself can take control. If #fpc is left for >just anybody to register, things could go from bad to worse. I'd do >it myself, except as a banned individual I can't register a channel >I'm banned from. I'll be glad to help you. And please ASAP unban those >52 people, or at least the 43 banned by Joanna. Thanks for your trust, but I'm not going to take control of #fpc, because I don't use IRC myself (I have no capacity for that) and it makes no sense to take responsibility for something I cannot take care of. That's exactly the reason why I changed the information on the FPC web pages to make it clear that the project team doesn't have control of the channel to avoid negative impact of Joanna's moderation style to the image of FPC. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] It’s easy to judge
On 2023-04-26 16:58, HSN via fpc-other wrote: . . https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,63036.msg477096.html#msg477096 It’s easy to judge a person you don’t know doing a job you don’t want in a place you have never been to from propaganda of crusading strangers who showed up recently. I'm sorry, but what's the point of bringing references to these forum discussions here? To show that discussion in one communication channel is similar to discussion here? It's easy to label everybody not agreeing with you as being influenced by propaganda or by trolls, or whatever - much easier than facing the arguments, right? If your accusation of authors of certain messages being bots becomes indefensible, you come up with a theory that the same nick might be shared by a bot and a real person - really? In your updated rules, you assign yourself the right to judge whether a lurker is a honest Pascal programmer, or a stranger with unclear intentions. Not by their actions, but simply due to the fact that you cannot track their history and they are not willing to answer your "entrance admitting questions" about their history. History of other people should be considered their private thing. Current actions is what counts. If these actions are clearly breaking the defined channel rules, it's appropriate to warn the person performing these actions and possibly ban him/her if the warning doesn't help. As simple as that. Note that this is my last post directly participating in this discussion. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] #fpc irc channel
Hello everybody, As promised, I raised the topic of the #fpc irc channel in the FPC core team. The conclusion is that since the FPC core team has no control over this channel and we don't want to be associated with the moderation style there, we will change the information about this IRC channel on our WWW pages and in the Wiki. In particular, we'll mention that there are at least two IRC channels used by some people for discussing topics related to FPC, but that neither of these channels should be considered as an official one and that the FPC teams has no control over them. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] #fpc irc channel
On 2023-04-19 23:33, Steve Litt via fpc-other wrote: Tomas Hajny via fpc-other said on Wed, 19 Apr 2023 23:15:41 +0200 Hello everybody, As promised, I raised the topic of the #fpc irc channel in the FPC core team. The conclusion is that since the FPC core team has no control over this channel and we don't want to be associated with the moderation style there, we will change the information about this IRC channel on our WWW pages and in the Wiki. In particular, we'll mention that there are at least two IRC channels used by some people for discussing topics related to FPC, but that neither of these channels should be considered as an official one and that the FPC teams has no control over them. Thanks! Can you please not only say all the alternate channels exist, but say what they are, so people can flock to them? I know of #fpc-alt and ##fpc-alt, but I imagine there are others besides. My guess would be that as time goes by the bunch of us would decide on one semi-official and one offtopic channel to use. Indeed, that's what I meant. I intended to mention #fpc-alt and #fpc as the two IRC channels specifically. It seems that there's also #fpc-dev, but I have no clue on whether it's used, etc. I can mention ##fpc-alt as well if necessary - what's the associated irc:// URN of this channel? Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] #fpc irc channel
On 2023-04-20 01:20, Steve Litt via fpc-other wrote: Tomas Hajny via fpc-other said on Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:33:41 +0200 I can mention ##fpc-alt as well if necessary - what's the associated irc:// URN of this channel? I don't know anything about irc:// urns. What would I use to find out? Sorry, I don't know. You can find examples of these urns e.g. on the Wiki (https://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_IRC_channel). Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] I thought it was going to get better, but no
On 28 April 2023 23:31:02 +0200, Jacob Kroon via fpc-other wrote: >On 4/28/23 23:20, Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-other wrote: >> On 4/28/23 23:48, Jacob Kroon wrote: >>> After reading this email that I am replying to here, and revisiting the >>> #fpc logs, the only conclusion I can make is that Nikolay Nikolov == >>> "Joanna". >> >> Are you joking? > >No, this is what it looks like to me, you are "Joanna". > >But I encourage everyone else to make their own conclusion given the >information provided. Please, stop this witch hunting game. No, Nikolay isn"t Joanna. I thought that there was only one person throwing accusations without any evidence in this whole discussion, but it seems that I was wrong. :-( Please, be better at least by being able to admit your mistake. Asking Nikolay for an excusing you would be the right thing to do if you want to know my opinion Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] I thought it was going to get better, but no
Hello everybody, Please, note that this thread (already very long) will become moderated now and no further posts will be let through unless I or some other list moderator believe that there"s a very good reason for it. Thanks for your understanding Tomas (one of FPC mailing list moderators) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] fpc-other Digest, Vol 150, Issue 8
On 2023-04-24 01:56, Alexander Stohr via fpc-other wrote: Am 2023-04-22 um 19:55 schrieb HSN via fpc-other: Hello Alexander, . . See you in irc or forums I’m done with this mailing list. Thank you for reading and have a nice day :) Have fun wherever you want to go now. . . Please note that Joanna unsubscribed from the mailing list right after having sent her last message you responded to. Obviously, she might read further responses in the mailing list archive or some other places (if she's interested in them - anybody may guess how much likely that is), but she wouldn't receive this response (or potentially other responses) directly. Tomas (one of FPC mailing list moderators) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] I thought it was going to get better, but no.
On 23 April 2023 04:16:41 +0200, Steve Litt via fpc-other
wrote:
Hi wrote,
.
.
>I said nothing about Joanna on #irc or #pascal, so she's basing it on
>what I said on fpc-other. You guys have read what I said. Did that
>sound like slander and harassment to you? To me it sounded like an
>honest critique of her moderation practices.
Indeed; it's pure revenge. :-( I believe that you might contact the server
administrators and ask them if they consider this an acceptable behaviour.
>I had thought that Joanna meant it when she said she'd step down from
>her operator status at #fpc to allow for somebody else to take that
>over, and I thought we were all going to be happy, but obviously I was
>wrong.
I believe that you misinterpreted her statement. If I understand it correctly,
she just wrote that somebody could invite the banned people to a different
channel, but she never considered to free her supposed kingdom. :-(
.
.
>I suggest the FPC project remove channel #fpc from
>https://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_IRC_channel . There's no need to
>subject any FPC using people or people who want to use FPC to the kind
>of moderation that now happens on #fpc. Like it or not, the extreme
>moderation practices on #fpc reflect very badly on the FPC project.
I would think that the disclaimer added to those pages should be sufficient?
>Speaking for myself, I'll continue using Lazarus, but I'm setting aside
>my plans to start doing more new construction of regular executables
>using Free Pascal.
Well, it's up to you whether and how you use FPC, but deciding it depending on
somebody's behaviour on an IRC channel is kind of similar thinking to Joanna's
actions ("since somebody wrote something somewhere, I'll do something somewhere
else")...
Tomas
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Downward spiral
On 2023-05-26 05:31, HSN via fpc-other wrote: Hello, All other large projects and enterprises have reliable real time chat support, but not us! The obvious difference between FPC and "enterprises" is that FPC is an open-source hobby project, whereas enterprises having some sort of chat usually pay this using small part of money collected from their customers. BTW, those enterprises having chat try more and more to involve bots in those efforts in order to reduce the associated costs, i.e. not all of these chats are human powered. It is not true that "all other large projects...have real...time chat" (reliable or not). In reality, many projects moved from real-time chat to other forms of support (if they had such a support at the beginning at all). Even the #fpc-dev channel is all but abandoned. It used to have a bot giving information about things happening with fpc. But not anymore. Something needs to be done about this. Why on earth are we not allowed to have an official chat support channel anymore?? It is not about allowing or disallowing anything, but simply matter of not having members of the project team interested in this form of communication and having sufficient capacity for it. Anybody interested is still free to use IRC for FPC related discussion, that has nothing to do with some channel being official or not. This is a severe handicap and puts us at a big disadvantage compared to other projects wherein developers can discuss things in real-time whenever they like without any interference. Not true. FPC users and developers have several other possibilities to get support and discuss things. The manpower is the limit, not the channel. Lack of proper chat channels also discourages talented people from joining our community and participating. I keep hearing people saying that pascal is a dead language everywhere I go and to be honest the condition of our chat channels does little to disprove this. Not true. Real-time chat is anything but a modern and fancy communication channel which might attract people interested in modern and fancy languages. Sometimes people have difficulties such as setting up the Lazarus ide on their computer and need someone to help or at least the assurance that help is available if needed. It’s not a good experience to suddenly have a strange problem and have nobody to talk to. Forums and mailing lists are great but they cannot replace real-time help. The response from forums and mailing lists is often much faster than support provided for commercial products, yet these products still have their customers and users. Potential users of fpc/Lazarus see that we don’t have chat support and don’t even bother getting involved or give up as soon as they have difficulty installing or using. Not true. Real-time chat is very likely not the first/most preferred support option for most new users of FPC/Lazarus and no, it is not true that comparable projects all have this kind of channel available. It’s currently nearly impossible to get any real-time help with fpc/Lazarus related problems anymore because the people who are best qualified to do this are either absent or inactive. That situation has nothing to do with the particular communication channel and/or the status of that channel. It’s about time we had a active functioning real time irc chat support again with active developers and fpc/Lazarus experts like other serious projects do. Yes I understand that people have real life responsibilities and no I don’t want developers to take time away from writing code. However I believe that this is more a problem of complacency that can easily be solved if all users of fpc just contribute whatever time they can spare to helping others in real time chat when they are able to do so. Again, it is not like that real-time chat is the only option for users. Yes, some users may prefer this channel, but the more communication channel, the higher overhead and thus less capacity for the real problem resolution. . . It would be far better to have people who are skilled developers endorse the irc channel and generate the content. I prefer a more minor role of just helping with moderation and possibly answering questions that are within my skill level. . . Understood. However, as already stressed many times, the main reason of FPC developers not being involved in the IRC channel is not related to your role. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re downward spiral
On 2023-05-29 04:55, HSN via fpc-other wrote: Hi, I’d like to say, just because a bunch of people follow a trend doesn’t mean that’s a good idea. History is full of stories about foolish people following trends and bad ideas which lead to their demise. . . I don't tell anybody to follow the trends. I just state that the reasons of your supposed "downward spiral" are different from those you blame and that regardless of my or your preferences or thoughts about those trends, reverting them is less than likely... Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re downward spiral
On 2023-06-02 02:58, Steve Litt via fpc-other wrote: HSN via fpc-other said on Wed, 31 May 2023 21:50:20 + I will continue to maintain a high quality place to discuss fpc for those who need it. . . Everyone else: If you want a non stressful, non judgmental venue in which to get quick answers, check out #fpc-alt for ontopic, and ##fpc-alt for offtopic. Thanks to both Steve and Joanna for letting FPC users know the alternatives. I'd like to ask everybody not to continue the discussion about moderation styles - I believe that anybody interested in details can easily find all the arguments and opinions in the mailing list archive and there's no reason to repeat them here. Tomas (putting my mailing list moderator hat on :-) ) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re downward spiral
On 2023-05-30 02:24, HSN via fpc-other wrote: Tomas I’m curious if you have ever been to irc at all? If so can you elaborate on your experiences there? . . No, I will not elaborate on my experiences, because it's completely unrelated to my arguments (similarly to the remainder of your message), and I will not continue in this discussion either, regardless from how much you pretend as if IRC were the only relevant and/or valuable support channel. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re Downward spiral
On 2023-05-27 14:05, HSN via fpc-other wrote: Joanna, . . One of the ways that they can do this is by helping other users in real-time chat. I suspect that many people who use fpc/Lazarus are either unaware of irc real-time chat, have been chased away by people sabotaging it or have been discouraged from trying it by people who want this project to fail. . . I'm sorry to say that, but your continuing attempts to blame external enemies for limited/declining IRC channel popularity rather than accepting or at least just considering repeated arguments clearly showing other reasons won't change anything. See e.g. the Wikipedia article about IRC showing clear trends (unrelated to FPC). The reasons of these general trends should be very understandable for people with good analytical skills (as expected for most developers). . . People using project are more likely listen to the advice of developers that announce where the chat channel is than someone whom they don’t know promoting a channel. I want to let you know that Nickolay is both a Lazarus developer and the owner of #fpc on Libera irc. Nicolay is well known in this community. Everyone who appreciates the work that he does should help support his channel whenever they have a chance and hopefully chat with him when he is online. There is also the #fpc-dev channel on Libera to meet at. Nikolay and Charlie, two FPC core team members at least occasionally joining IRC, both explicitly confirmed that their IRC availability had been limited, which was one of the reasons why the FPC core team decided that no IRC channel should be considered as official. Both forums and mailing lists provide higher chances to get response from one of the FPC core team members in case of complex issues where support of other FPC users and developers may not be sufficient. There are no guarantees to get answer for just any question for any of the channels (it's a hobby project and nobody gets paid for support), but the probability is clear (chances for finding a solution is further improved by possibility to search through previous discussions in the forum or the mailing list archive). Obviously, anybody can still use whatever channel meeting their needs and preferences and people providing support in whatever channel rather than just seeking for help with their own issues are very welcome in any case regardless from the used channel, but that doesn't change the overall situation. Tomas ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
