Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Re: The Rules of Open-Source Programming

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... How about : * Backward Compatibility is the developer s worst enemy. * Backward Compatibility is the users best friend. Now that s not a
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
      On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:

      > What I meant was that Backward Compatibility is a two-edged sword. You
      > can't live with it, but your users can't live without it.
      >
      > Which we might paraphrase it into this rule:
      >
      > * Backward Compatibility - you can't live with it, but your users can't
      > live without it.
      >

      How about :

      * Backward Compatibility is the developer's worst enemy.

      * Backward Compatibility is the users' best friend.

      Now that's not a self-contradictory identification, is it?

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      There is no IGLU Cabal! The new cabal could not maintain backward
      compatibility with the old one, and as a result the user's switched
      to "The Old IGLU Cabal - The Next Generation"<tm> which did maintain
      backward compatibility.

      > > Tertium non datur, I say!
      > >
      >
      > I'm not familiar with this particular latin phrase.
      >
      > > --
      > > Nadav Har'El | Sunday, Dec 9 2001, 25 Kislev 5762
      > > nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
      > > Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |And now for some feedback:
      > > http://nadav.harel.org.il |EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      > Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
      > Home E-mail: shlomif@...
      >
      > If:
      > 1. A is A
      > 2. A is not not-A
      > does it imply that
      > 1. B is B
      > 2. B is not not-B
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > hackers-il-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >



      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
      Home E-mail: shlomif@...

      "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
      "Wait a second - is n a natural number?"
    • Alon Altman
      ... Hmm... this explains the sh*tty economic situation we are in. Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman (Psycho99@bigfoot.com) ICQ:1366540 The RIGHT way
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
        On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:

        > The original "Rules of Acquisition" contains two rules:
        >
        > * War is good for business.
        >
        > * Peace is good for business.
        >

        Hmm... this explains the sh*tty economic situation we are in.

        Alon

        --
        This message was sent by Alon Altman (Psycho99@...) ICQ:1366540
        The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :)
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        MMM-MM!! So THIS is BIO-NEBULATION!
      • Oleg Goldshmidt
        ... I recall the phrase Backwards compatibility is compatibility done backwards , but I don t recall either the context or the attribution... -- Oleg
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
          Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> writes:

          > * Backward Compatibility is the developer's worst enemy.
          >
          > * Backward Compatibility is the users' best friend.

          I recall the phrase "Backwards compatibility is compatibility done
          backwards", but I don't recall either the context or the
          attribution...

          --
          Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
          "If it ain't broken, it has not got enough features yet."
        • mulix
          ... does this mean you ll come to the meeting? twill be nice to meet you if you do, i ve heard quite a lot about you. -- mulix
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
            On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Chen Shapira wrote:

            > jul, gunax lbh :-)

            does this mean you'll come to the meeting? 'twill be nice to meet you
            if you do, i've heard quite a lot about you.
            --
            mulix

            http://www.pointer.co.il/~mulix/
            http://syscalltrack.sf.net/
          • mulix
            ... apologies to the list, this was meant to go to chen in private. i got by the reply-to header, which indeed should be considered harmful, but reply to
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
              On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, mulix wrote:

              > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Chen Shapira wrote:
              >
              > > jul, gunax lbh :-)
              >
              > does this mean you'll come to the meeting? 'twill be nice to meet you
              > if you do, i've heard quite a lot about you.

              apologies to the list, this was meant to go to chen in private.
              i got by the 'reply-to' header, which indeed should be considered
              harmful, but 'reply to all' tripped me. oh well.

              --
              mulix

              http://www.pointer.co.il/~mulix/
              http://syscalltrack.sf.net/
            • Nadav Har'El
              ... Well, my Latin really sucks, but I think it literally means the third [is] not given . It is an axiom of logics that said that something must be either
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                On Mon, Dec 10, 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] Re: Re: The Rules of Open-Source Programming":
                > > Tertium non datur, I say!
                > >
                >
                > I'm not familiar with this particular latin phrase.

                Well, my Latin really sucks, but I think it literally means "the third [is]
                not given". It is an axiom of logics that said that something must be either
                true or false - it can't be some "third option". You can't have some statement
                being both not true and not false.
                I think in Hebrew it is usually translated as "hashlishi nimna".

                Anyway, I just meant that you can't just start axioms ("rules") that
                contradict themselves. Maybe this phrase isn't all that relevant to this
                situation after all... Never mind...

                --
                Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Dec 11 2001, 26 Kislev 5762
                nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |It is better to be thought a fool, then
                http://nadav.harel.org.il |to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
              • Alon Altman
                ... What meeting? -- This message was sent by Alon Altman (Psycho99@bigfoot.com) ICQ:1366540 The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 10, 2001
                  On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, mulix wrote:

                  > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Chen Shapira wrote:
                  >
                  > > jul, gunax lbh :-)
                  >
                  > does this mean you'll come to the meeting? 'twill be nice to meet you
                  > if you do, i've heard quite a lot about you.
                  >

                  What meeting?

                  --
                  This message was sent by Alon Altman (Psycho99@...) ICQ:1366540
                  The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :)
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  2180, U.S. History question:
                  What 20th Century U.S. President was almost impeached and what
                  office did he later hold?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.