> I apologize for any feather-ruffling; not my intention. I think we just > have a simple misunderstanding here.
Absolutely not. I tried to write my original email several times before I settled on TRYING to ruffle feathers to try to prove a point, so if I didn't ruffle any then I suck. Apparently I don't understand the state of things, because it was my understanding that the MC engine was generally sufficient for what we're doing. At least the second part, about the IDE, is correct. Obviously by "open source" I don't mean you can license it or use it or whatever, but you can hack it, thus the source for the IDE is open, i.e. interpreted, and the engine still operates if you change it. To repeat, I thought that the crux of the engine was open source (in this case, OS means that you can get the source and compile it for yourself). You're absolutely correct that referring to M$ instead of MS is doing exactly what I was preaching against, and it is behavior that I do not tolerate from vendors. In technical discussions, though, it is, IMHO easier to identify than MS, because there is no known (to me anyway) alternative meaning to the abbreviation, so I have taken to using it when referring to that firm. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
