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

Re: [wmlprogramming] I'm getting really fed up with this

Expand Messages
  • Tom Hume
    Jim I think I m not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it s objectionable no
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
      Jim

      I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
      objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
      objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
      just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
      using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
      failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
      yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
      features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.

      Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
      from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
      acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
      been for some time: this isn't anything new.

      If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
      feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
      why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
      well as the software vendors?

      So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
      engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
      they're doing?

      Tom

      On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:

      > I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
      > so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
      > because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
      > This will be my one posting about what I see.
      >
      > Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
      >
      > I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
      > time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
      > weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
      > His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
      > endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
      > one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
      > has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
      >
      > This is a really good example:
      >
      > > Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
      > feature?
      > >
      > > InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
      > > "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
      > > habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
      > most-
      > > commonly surfed sites."
      > >
      > > OpenWave:
      > http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
      > > (see also PDF)
      > > "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
      > > information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
      > > revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
      > > and advertising."
      > >
      > > Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
      > > "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
      > > browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
      > > automatically inserted into headers and footers.
      > >
      >
      > He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
      > because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
      > he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
      > context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
      > my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
      > moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
      >
      > All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
      > operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
      > insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
      > without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
      >
      > A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
      > have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
      > correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
      > So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
      > forum-troll response from Tom:
      >
      > "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
      >
      > Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
      > to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
      > arguing about something else?
      >
      > And the sarcasm!!!!!
      >
      > "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
      > feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
      > they won't do that?
      >
      > Wow."
      >
      > "(that I found with a cursory search)"
      >
      > Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
      > clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
      > What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
      > helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
      >
      > Jim.
      >
      >
      >

      --
      Future Platforms
      e: Tom.Hume@...
      t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
      m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
      work: www.futureplatforms.com
      play: tomhume.org







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Luca Passani
      Bye bye, Tom Luca
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 7, 2009
        Bye bye, Tom

        Luca

        Tom Hume wrote:
        > Jim
        >
        > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
        > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
        > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
        > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
        > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
        > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
        > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
        > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
        >
        > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
        > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
        > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
        > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
        >
        > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
        > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
        > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
        > well as the software vendors?
        >
        > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
        > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
        > they're doing?
        >
        > Tom
        >
        > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
        >
        >
        >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
        >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
        >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
        >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
        >>
        >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
        >>
        >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
        >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
        >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
        >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
        >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
        >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
        >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
        >>
        >> This is a really good example:
        >>
        >>
        >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
        >>>
        >> feature?
        >>
        >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
        >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
        >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
        >>>
        >> most-
        >>
        >>> commonly surfed sites."
        >>>
        >>> OpenWave:
        >>>
        >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
        >>
        >>> (see also PDF)
        >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
        >>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
        >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
        >>> and advertising."
        >>>
        >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
        >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
        >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
        >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
        >>>
        >>>
        >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
        >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
        >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
        >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
        >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
        >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
        >>
        >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
        >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
        >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
        >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
        >>
        >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
        >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
        >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
        >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
        >> forum-troll response from Tom:
        >>
        >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
        >>
        >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
        >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
        >> arguing about something else?
        >>
        >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
        >>
        >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
        >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
        >> they won't do that?
        >>
        >> Wow."
        >>
        >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
        >>
        >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
        >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
        >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
        >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
        >>
        >> Jim.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
      • Simon Maddox
        Luca, I ve read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at your negativity towards anything new. Now, Tom is big enough to speak for
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
          Luca,

          I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
          your negativity towards anything new.

          Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
          ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...

          I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
          are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.

          Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
          ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".

          Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
          money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
          if they're still actively promoting said feature?

          To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
          think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
          anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
          and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
          the odd one or two.

          If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
          without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.

          Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.

          Regards,

          Simon

          On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:

          >
          > Bye bye, Tom
          >
          > Luca
          >
          > Tom Hume wrote:
          > > Jim
          > >
          > > I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
          > > objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
          > > objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
          > > just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
          > > using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
          > > failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
          > > yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
          > > features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
          > >
          > > Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
          > > from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
          > > acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
          > > been for some time: this isn't anything new.
          > >
          > > If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
          > > feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
          > > why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
          > > well as the software vendors?
          > >
          > > So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
          > > engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
          > > they're doing?
          > >
          > > Tom
          > >
          > > On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
          > >> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
          > >> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
          > >> This will be my one posting about what I see.
          > >>
          > >> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
          > >>
          > >> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
          > >> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
          > >> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
          > >> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
          > >> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
          > >> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
          > >> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
          > >>
          > >> This is a really good example:
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
          > >>>
          > >> feature?
          > >>
          > >>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
          > >>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
          > >>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
          > >>>
          > >> most-
          > >>
          > >>> commonly surfed sites."
          > >>>
          > >>> OpenWave:
          > >>>
          > >> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
          > >>
          > >>> (see also PDF)
          > >>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
          > >>> information about subscriber preferences and location � to generate
          > >>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
          > >>> and advertising."
          > >>>
          > >>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
          > >>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
          > >>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
          > >>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
          > >> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
          > >> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
          > >> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
          > >> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
          > >> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
          > >>
          > >> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
          > >> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
          > >> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
          > >> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
          > >>
          > >> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
          > >> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
          > >> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
          > >> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
          > >> forum-troll response from Tom:
          > >>
          > >> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
          > >>
          > >> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
          > >> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
          > >> arguing about something else?
          > >>
          > >> And the sarcasm!!!!!
          > >>
          > >> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
          > >> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
          > >> they won't do that?
          > >>
          > >> Wow."
          > >>
          > >> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
          > >>
          > >> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
          > >> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
          > >> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
          > >> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
          > >>
          > >> Jim.
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
          > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
          > you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Luca Passani
          Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us. Your comments are
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
            Simon, my only regret about this is that I did not ban Tom earlier. He
            was in bad faith, thinking he was smart and simply making fun of us.

            Your comments are unfair. On this list, discussions have always been
            very open and frank, sometimes harsh, but always respectful of those who
            deserved respect.

            Please no more posts about the banning of Tom Hume. This has already
            burned way too many cycles that I could have spent more usefully on
            WURFL itself.

            Luca

            Simon Maddox wrote:
            > Luca,
            >
            > I've read these threads over the recent months, and have been appaled at
            > your negativity towards anything new.
            >
            > Now, Tom is big enough to speak for himself, but obviously now you've
            > ejected him from the list I feel like I've got to say something...
            >
            > I think everyone reading this list agrees that what Byte Mobile (and others)
            > are doing is totally wrong - afaik, nobody disputes that.
            >
            > Tom Hume merely pointed out that almost every transcoder vendor - even the
            > ones which have signed your manifesto - have implemented this "feature".
            >
            > Do you really think that a feature that many companies have spent time and
            > money implementing and deploying will never see the light of day? Especially
            > if they're still actively promoting said feature?
            >
            > To ban Tom for raising that point is, in my opinion, downright ludicrous. I
            > think I've also run my course with the wmlprogramming list - the ability for
            > anyone to question what you say without being publicly insulted has gone,
            > and that has led to this list going from a whole load of posts each day, to
            > the odd one or two.
            >
            > If anyone knows of a place where mobile developers can discuss things
            > without the fear of ridicule and banning - please let me know.
            >
            > Luca - thanks for what you've done with WURFL. It's a great project.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            > Simon
            >
            > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >> Bye bye, Tom
            >>
            >> Luca
            >>
            >> Tom Hume wrote:
            >>
            >>> Jim
            >>>
            >>> I think I'm not explaining myself clearly: if this feature is
            >>> objectionable (and I can see good reasons why it is), then surely it's
            >>> objectionable no matter who supplies it? My point is that it's not
            >>> just the Bad Transcoders (Bad defined by whatever definition you're
            >>> using - non-manifesto signatories, history of abusive deployments,
            >>> failure to listen to developers, whatever) - it's *all* of them. And
            >>> yes, I'm sceptical that they're putting time and money into developing
            >>> features which they are simultaneously committing to not deploy.
            >>>
            >>> Of course the quotes I supply are one-sided: they're copy-n-pasted
            >>> from those vendors sites. I'm not saying I find the feature
            >>> acceptable: I'm pointing out that they're all offering it, and have
            >>> been for some time: this isn't anything new.
            >>>
            >>> If it's OK for transcoder vendors to develop software with this
            >>> feature, and if we want to avoid this sort of thing happening, then
            >>> why not talk to the operators and others deploying the software, as
            >>> well as the software vendors?
            >>>
            >>> So I'll say it again: how about some constructive ideas as to how we
            >>> engage with the folks deploying transcoders, to minimise the damage
            >>> they're doing?
            >>>
            >>> Tom
            >>>
            >>> On 7 Feb 2009, at 11:16, Jim McLachlan wrote:
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>> I've basically stopped reading the threads on this group because I get
            >>>> so annoyed by what I see going on. I have avoided getting involved
            >>>> because I don't have the abundant patience that Luca demonstrates.
            >>>> This will be my one posting about what I see.
            >>>>
            >>>> Seriously Luca, respect to you for not completely losing it by now.
            >>>>
            >>>> I just got my digest and yet again, I see Tom Hume posting his toxic
            >>>> time-wasting arguments. His arguments are a disturbing mix of
            >>>> weasel-words, slight-of-hand, manipulation and political double-talk.
            >>>> His only purpose on this forum seems to be to muddy the waters and
            >>>> endlessly argue in order to waste everyone's time. There *might* be
            >>>> one or two positive and useful contributions that he's made, but he
            >>>> has also post far too much rubbish to wade through.
            >>>>
            >>>> This is a really good example:
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> Are there any transcoder vendors that *don't* offer this as a
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> feature?
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> InfoGin: http://www.infogin.com/solutions.asp
            >>>>> "Customized footers enable end users to continue their PC browsing
            >>>>> habits on their mobile devices, such as: History, Favorites and
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> most-
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> commonly surfed sites."
            >>>>>
            >>>>> OpenWave:
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> http://www.openwave.com/us/products/mobile_internet_services/openweb/
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>> (see also PDF)
            >>>>> "OpenWeb enables operators to leverage their most unique asset -
            >>>>> information about subscriber preferences and location — to generate
            >>>>> revenue from targeted, personalized and context-based merchandising
            >>>>> and advertising."
            >>>>>
            >>>>> Volantis: http://www.volantis.com/transcoder
            >>>>> "Customers remain involved in the delivery chain when subscribers
            >>>>> browse "off-portal", allowing advertisements and menus to be
            >>>>> automatically inserted into headers and footers.
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>>>
            >>>> He is *clearly* saying with this comment that he finds this acceptable
            >>>> because "that's what everyone does". I'm sure that he'll argue that
            >>>> he didn't say that, or that he didn't mean that, or that "in the
            >>>> context of the entire thread... blah blah blah", but this is exactly
            >>>> my point. "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some
            >>>> moments ago." Weasel words and double talk.
            >>>>
            >>>> All those quotes are one-sided and only express the benefits to
            >>>> operators. In each case they are just saying that they enable the
            >>>> insertion of additional (unrequested) content (adverts) into sites
            >>>> without the permission of the site author (copyright holder).
            >>>>
            >>>> A while ago, I saw a series of statements supporting Tom's right to
            >>>> have his say and arguing that Luca shouldn't ban him. If I remember
            >>>> correctly, that was due to "bad faith" arguing about the Manifesto.
            >>>> So, having logged make this post, what do I find, but yet another
            >>>> forum-troll response from Tom:
            >>>>
            >>>> "Thanks for the threat Luca, but I'm not talking about the Manifesto."
            >>>>
            >>>> Does anyone else see this deliberate attempt to wind up Luca by trying
            >>>> to dodge the rules about his behaviour by claiming that he's now
            >>>> arguing about something else?
            >>>>
            >>>> And the sarcasm!!!!!
            >>>>
            >>>> "So none of those vendors will deploy transcoders which use that
            >>>> feature they've all implemented and sell? They've all committed that
            >>>> they won't do that?
            >>>>
            >>>> Wow."
            >>>>
            >>>> "(that I found with a cursory search)"
            >>>>
            >>>> Tom, you are clearly a clever, well educated and eloquent man. You
            >>>> clearly have a good knowledge of the workings of the mobile industry.
            >>>> What is wrong with you? Get your act together. Make some useful,
            >>>> helpful, positive contributions or please leave the forum.
            >>>>
            >>>> Jim.
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>
            >> ------------------------------------
            >>
            >> As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
            >> Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before
            >> you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
            > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • David Tolnem
            ... Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It s been interesting. /David
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
              > Bye bye, Tom

              Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.

              /David
            • James Pearce
              Ditto. I m sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better reputation. The
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 8, 2009
                Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                reputation.

                The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.

                Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                how to do that.

                But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                http://mobiForge.com, folks.

                Sad day indeed.

                James



                2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>

                > > Bye bye, Tom
                >
                > Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                >
                > /David
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Luca Passani
                James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop discussing), and you use
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 9, 2009
                  James, I think I have found a name for you. The jackal. You jump into an
                  unrelated thread (which I had explicitly asked to please stop
                  discussing), and you use it to smear falsity and infamy on
                  WMLprogramming and the Manifesto AND divert attention to the .Mobi stuff.

                  This forces me to set the record straight about a few things:

                  > http://mobiForge.com

                  I never said anything bad about .Mobi, but since you ask, I think that
                  the joke is a consortium that takes the data and the ideas from an
                  open-source project to create a tool they sell for money without feeding
                  anything back.
                  Also, .Mobi is backed by Vodafone, Google and Microsoft among others.
                  Questioning its independence would be more than legitimate.
                  Having the dotMobi ex-CTO accuse WMLprogramming of being a joke makes me
                  sad, because it means that I have misjudged your moral integrity all of
                  this time.

                  > once-respected mailing list has become a
                  > running joke of the mobile industry.

                  this is the mailing list on which WURFL, the GAP and the Manifesto were
                  born. Your attempt to wind me up started on the wrong foot.

                  > Manifesto

                  it was not signed by operators because they had nothing to gain in
                  signing it, but it was very well received, because they built their
                  transcoding requirements on it. Loads of real deployments have been
                  stopped, fixed and re-designed because of the Manifesto.
                  Compare this to W3C's CTG (backed by .mobi) which is still not final
                  after one and a half year of work and, so far, has achieved the following:
                  - allowed Novarra to deploy abusively in the name of W3C.
                  - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to get legitimation for
                  breaking HTTPS (they have not managed yet, but they are still trying)
                  - has become a tool for transcoder vendors to "optimize" already mobile
                  optimised sites(!) (still trying)

                  And of course, let's not forget that CTG's message to developers in this
                  moment is:

                  "Transcoders should leave your content alone, but if they don't, it is
                  your duty to place no-transcode headers on each and every file served.
                  This may work if transcoders are kind and abide by CTG"

                  (compare this to the Manifesto message "you don't need to do anything.
                  If some operator transcodes your content, refer them to the manifesto
                  which a very large share of the industry has embraced and *demand* that
                  your rights are respected").

                  > extremely abusive about other groups' work

                  if you are referring to CTG, the reality is that W3C has turned into an
                  instrument for justifying abusive behavior.
                  My reaction, which was admittedly strong at some point, was
                  proportionate to the actions which were being carried out in W3C's name.
                  Of course, this transcoder issue is embarassing for .Mobi, which would
                  like to build an image as a developer friend, but has vodafone and
                  google among its supporters. This is not my problem and, above all, it's
                  really pathetic that your reaction is to bring WMLprogramming to disrepute.

                  > Tom Hume

                  In almonst 10 years, nobody was banned that was not a spammer or a
                  no-strings-attached idiot. Tom is the first exception to this. The
                  problem is that he was on a scientific mission to create confusion and
                  he had been warned to stop several times. Since it's my duty to keep a
                  3000 developer strong list running smoothly and provide value to
                  everyone, I decided that this had to stop. And this decision came with
                  some regret, because Tom was an old-timer. Yet, it was the right thing
                  to do. I think that 10 years of service for the community buys me
                  credits to do this and be believed that it was the right thing to do.

                  Once more. Let's stop the Tom thread here.

                  Luca


                  James Pearce wrote:
                  > Ditto. I'm sorry to see that a once-respected mailing list has become a
                  > running joke of the mobile industry. Mobile developers deserve a better
                  > reputation.
                  >
                  > The sore point that Tom has touched on is simple but true. The Manifesto
                  > hasn't been signed by any operators. Transcoder deployments are entirely
                  > shaped by those companies' business models and strategies, and getting
                  > lip-service from their vendors should only ever have been the start.
                  >
                  > Rather than squabbling within the list and being extremely abusive about
                  > other groups' work, it would have been helpful to have united to figure out
                  > how to do that.
                  >
                  > But I'll leave you to it. The constructive stuff is all happening over at
                  > http://mobiForge.com, folks.
                  >
                  > Sad day indeed.
                  >
                  > James
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 2009/2/8 David Tolnem <yahoo@...>
                  >
                  >
                  >> > Bye bye, Tom
                  >>
                  >> Bye bye, wmlprogramming. It's been interesting.
                  >>
                  >> /David
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.