arndt at jjj.de
Mon Jun 2 14:39:10 CEST 2008
* Brian Gladman <brg at gladman.plus.com> [Jun 02. 2008 21:00]:
> Joerg Arndt wrote:
> > * NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail.com> [Jun 02. 2008 16:17]:
> >> Replying off-list
> > Well, you didn't.
> Yes, he made a mistake, one that you are evidently not prepared to
> forgive since you insist on responding to a message not intended for
> you. Such disrespect seems to be the norm here (both ways).
I decided to answer the mail because it continues to promote camp
thinking and politics. You may have noticed that a tried more than
once to obtain pertinent information but essentially got zero reply.
Was it not for the "Soprano" mail from librik at panix.com I'd be little
wiser than at the point where this whole mess started. I expect that
the mentioned mail will lead to some fruitful discussion for a change.
> >> so I thought I'd email you. Right now, the
> >> "Gcc on Win64" team consists of myself, and Kai (Kai does 99.999% of
> >> the coding work). What can we do to get to a viable solution for GCC
> >> on this platform? How can we work with Torbjorn to get GMP fixed?
> > ***Again*** a suggestion the GMP is "broken".
> > Could you kindly explain what you consider broken?
> From _his_ perspective it is broken because it doesn't work on win64
> systems. From _your_ persepctive it is not broken. These are his and
> your _opinions_, they are not facts.
I am afraid you are very wrong here. GMP was designed to compile and
run on Unix-ish systems. It actually does that, and very well.
There is absolutely nothing broken with it _what_so_ever_.
Requesting to support a further platform (arch/model) by publicly stating
the code is broken is a slightly suboptimal way to proceed. Painting
the developer(s) as 'Anti-Win', 'zealots' does neither help the matter.
TG has devoted a macroscopic part of his lifetime on GMP and
is being treated like sh*t no less by certain folks here because
he doesn't do what they want him to do. At the same time there
is zero information forthcoming about the technical issue.
Yes, that makes me more than just a little bit unhappy and
indeed I feel entitled to have my remarks, how bad is that?
> The only fact here is that Torbjorn's 'proper' GMP doesn't work on win64
> systems, something that he has admitted.
Should he feel guilty now?
GMP doesn't compile and run on my coffee machine either!
So when I want my coffee machine supported I'll write:
"TG, admit it! You just do not care about my coffee machine!
GMP is broken! You Anti-Coffee-Machine, corrupted, bad dictator!"
Or should I consider a different approach?
> Moreover he has been very
> honest about the very low priority he attaches to getting GMP to work on
> win64. This is hardly a surprise given his intense dislike for
> Microsoft and users of Microsoft products.
OK, so he is guilty of not sufficiently caring about a system he is
likely not ever using? It never fails to amaze me why people can get
infuriated by that.
Could you kindly port libXYZ to my coffee machine? No?!? You do not
even care! You should be publicly exposed for that absolutely
intolerable attitude! [add flames and obnoxious repetition as you like]
> As a Windows user I have a total disinterest in his position on all of
> this. If he wants to see the GMP community split into Windows friendly
> and Windows unfriendly components, as he evidently does, that's fine
> with me, albeit not the decision that I would take.
The bad TG! How can he not jump to start working for the people that
treat him soooo nicely!
And, you know what, you just added one more item to the list
of accusations, evidently.
> But what this means is that those who want GMP to have a long term
> future on Windows have _no_option_ but to fork GMP.
We have that already, don't we?
I am not happy about this but IMHO the universe will not
collapse as a result.
Nobody stops you or anybody else from forking GMP.
The tiny little problem will be that there will be a bit
of a workload on anyone that will do so, while flaming TG
is so much easier.
> This should please the zealots here as they won't have to interact with
> Windows users at all.
zealot := person who does not want to interact with Windows.
Can we add to the definition those nasty folks who do not care about
my coffee machine?
> However, the more thoughtful people on this list, those who see the
> dangers of such a split, have good reason to fear the wider damage that
> this might easily cause.
I think the dangers of a split should be clearly spelled out, else we
have yet another yada-yada you-know-what-I-mean going on. It _might_
turn out that under the given circumstances a split is not unwise.
Anyone addressing this: kindly refrain from propaganda, and open
a new thread.
> But when people shout at each other 'like angry ghosts passing in the
> night', reason and common sense are the very first things to suffer.
> Brian Gladman
More information about the gmp-discuss