Well, I never imagined that this would happen... well I sorta expected it. In any case I think it is strange...
I am unsubscribed from this list.
I refuse to be treated the way I was treated by the Open G folks and then
turn around and have to listen to the list manager defend them and tell me
not to post as to why I, and probably many others, no longer publicly
contribute to this list, though I previously never named names.
If anyone ever needs support from me, I will freely give it. I can be
reached at this email address.
First of all I don't understand what he means by "treated by the Open G folks", does that mean Jim Kring? Does this mean me? I was the first one to blast him on Info-LabVIEW last year for his personal irrelavent rantings, I mentioned OpenG in my email, am I now one of the OpenG folks he's talking about?
I'm also surprised to read that the list manager has told him not to post, I'm not sure what the real story is there. In any case he should realize that you sleep in the bed you make. I might have been the first to boldly go where no Info-LabViewer has gone before but it turns out from the latest replies to his emails that others have gladly taken over the Guru response job...
>From: "LabVIEW Guru"
>
>I'm not fully convinced that W3C IS the standards organization to end
>all standards organization. I actually don't know who is.
>
>I use Opera, and they claim to be 100% compliant.
>
To take you original point even further - Opera is 100% compliant with
what? You don't know who the "real" standards authority is, so how can
you claim something is standards compliant? I can announce to the
world that the LabVIEW code I write is 100% fully compliant, but I'm
not going to tell you what it is compliant with :)
>Platform independence seems to be a thing of the past.
>Heck, people are talking about how development on one
>version of Windows can't properly translate to another
>version. No, that's not the developers fault, that's
>Microsofts.
That's not a "standards" issue, it's "backward compatability".
Upgrading any software (OS or otherwise) often calls for better ways of
doing things (it's one of the reasons that pushes us to release new
versions), and we can't (and shouldn't have to) always include complete
backward compatability - I'm not still supporting backward
compatability to software I wrote ten years ago, nor should I.
>I always recommend, and try to force, my clients to use Windows
>2000, -- or Windows 98 at the very worst. I KNOW how those two
>versions work, and I have both operating systems.
You "KNOW" how those two versions work? I was unaware that you were an
employee of Microsoft (Forgive me - I couldn't help that one!)
Personally, I think that you have to get over it - some things in the
computer world aren't going to be as perfect as you want (heck, they
shouldn't be, otherwise we're not going to be moving forward very
quickly), and work with what you've got. You are, of course, very
welcome to create a perfect OS for us all to use, that will "work", and
have no backward compatibility issues, and not be open source ('cause
you don't like open source), and adhere to every ISO and
ANSI "standard" ever created - but make sure you don't whine when you
find conflicting standards :) Hey - you might even be able to charge
for such a utopian OS - I'd certainly pay for it! PS: make sure that
it has the LabVIEW RTE embedded in it's core :)
Completely off topic: I remember when you were having those final
problems on zone.ni.com, you mused that changing your "LabVIEW Guru"
moniker to something a little less authoritive might not give other
developers an assumed inferiority complex - have you given this any
more serious thought? Just curious... :)
cheers,
Christopher
Christopher G. Relf
Certified LabVIEW Developer
