[gccsdk] Further ArcEm development (or not)
peter at chocky.org
Wed Oct 7 05:09:44 PDT 2009
Ian Jeffray wrote:
>> Please don't top-post.
> Understand common business practice and avoid the pettyness.
This is a serious development discussion. Proper inline posting
means the points can actually be replied to. Unfortunately
your response seems to be full of insults towards me, for
whatever reason, so it's doubtful we'll make any progress here.
> > riscos.info is not "private", any more than any other well-known
>> > RISC OS site is.
> It is private. It is, afaik, your personal website.
No, my personal website is http://www.chocky.org/. riscos.info is
a public RISC OS resource, with more than one admin (and which
I happen to pay for). All the content is (or should) publically
accessible, and substantial recent updates were not made by me.
My intent is to make the relevant MySQL databases public too (especially
the wiki). Indeed, what I really don't want is for it to turn into
another riscos.org or riscos.net. No doubt you can find
criticism in this arrangement, but I only have so much time.
>> As a
>>> contributor, supporter and user of this project, I do not support
>>> this move.
>> Are you saying you are contributing to this further? In particular,
>> the ArcEm SF page links to:
>> Where is this now? Do you have plans to develop it further?
> Complain to whoever maintains the web page, not myself.
Sorry you can't answer the question - it points to your webspace,
does it still exist or not, and should the port be considered part
of the project?
> not had a GP2X for years. Does this mean I'm not using ArcEm or
> playing with other ports? No.
I have no idea; that's why I asked. Your implication is that
development is on going. I cannot guess the state of your GP2X
involvement, especially if your website contains several projects
> Yes. The point is that you are widely known to steal projects,
Sorry, I have no idea what this is about; nor is this the
appropriate forum for you to air whatever repressed anger you have
towards me, over things that presumably happened a very long
time ago. Perhaps you can save this for private email.
Did you have anything constructive here towards the future of
this project? I really am disappointed here that you couldn't
show a more mature attitude.
The point of this is nothing to do with my ego, as you so
feel need to throw out. Rather, it's a response to looking over
the various stagnating BBC resources now out there (and if
we want to go back further, we can even draw a very rough
comparison with the Domesday project). ArcEm has become
yet another project which has a news item which is most
recently from many years ago, promising future updates
which are unlikely to happen.
Obviously this is a contentious issue for you, but I fail
to see how your attitude helps in the slightest. If I
was so obviously cast in the mold for which are you
insisting for me, then I would have just moved it, no
More information about the gcc