PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
Locked
12
12
 
|
And I will again *repeat* (for the 1000th time as well) that:
1. The NetRexx email list is hosted for FREE by IBM. 2. It is administered on a time-available basis by an IBM employee who has many other responsibilities. 3. We are guests on an IBM machine inside the IBM firewall. 4. It is very likely that if IBM management were to find out about us, we would be asked to leave. THEREFORE: We are in no position to request, let alone demand, that we be allowed to upload attachments to this server. Q.E.D. Thomas, what part of the above do you *not* understand? A modicum of patience will reward you with a NetRexx discussion group hosted on René's netrexx.org server soon. No doubt he will implement a way to attach or upload files there. -Chip- On 11/9/10 18:29 Thomas Schneider said: > May I again *repeat* (the 1000's time) that: > > *allowing attachments (of reaonable size) seems to be now a common > ***feature*** * (2010). > > Please *do* allow attachments :-) :-) :-) > Thomas Schneider. > ============================================================= > Am 09.11.2010 18:56, schrieb Fernando Cassia: >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:38 PM, George Hovey<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> I attempted to attach this but it's too large (something over 1 MB). If >>> anyone would like a copy and can handle the size (I think gmail can), >>> drop >>> me a line. >>> George >> You could upload it to one of those free file upload services, like >> Yousendit.com or MegaUpload.com. >> >> Then you´d have to just post the link- >> >> Thanks! >> FC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> >> > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
Hi,
I've been following this conversation, and I'm not a lawyer. I did work at a company, where I did undergo training on maintaining copyright information. Copyright gives legal protection for a given period of time. Updating a copyright date, just to make something "look up to date", is extending that protection in a fraudulent manner. I'm all for accurate maintenance of copyright dates. It should never be done just because it appears better. Bruce On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:50 AM, René Jansen wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
On 10 November 2010 06:39, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote: Here here! Notwithstanding that there's no need to attach any documents to email messages when there are any number of perfectly good (and some are even free) file sharing servers on the web such as Google Documents, Dropbox.com and those mentioned by Fernando earlier [yousendit.com, megaupload.com] This is exactly what hypertext and the interweb are for after all...And I will again *repeat* (for the 1000th time as well) that: Alan. -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Skelly
Amen; Renew the Copyright to reflect changes from the original.
Bobh On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Bruce Skelly <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeff Hennick
Jeff,
one quick reaction-- subversion has optimistic locking and hence no-one has to wait for another person to checkin or checkout. For all text formats like html pages merging can be automatic and is painless most of the time. Wiki's have more restrictive rules, and can be annoying in refusing to checking stuff if someone else opens it. There will be a wiki - very soon. But I doubt if it is the best solution for shared content authoring - although it surely fits some region of the collaboration spectrum. best regards, René Jansen. On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Hennick <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'll ask René Jansen directly for access. Although I won't be able to do > anything for a couple of weeks. > > But here, I'll ask, why not a simple Wiki for this? There is, of course, > the possibility of error introduction, but with a community these can be > quickly fixed. The two big advantages are 1) the big time saving for the > "leader," in this case René Jansen, in having to review each change prior > to others seeing it. And 2) no one needs to wait while someone else has a > section -- or the whole -- "checked out." Finally, simple changes are > handled simply and are encouraged. > > Someone may wish to do a few simple global changes, such as the copyright > attribution and date, before posting. > > I have not seen a HTML version, so do not know how well CSS has been used. > Maybe some of the layout modernizing will be in a single CSS location. > > Broken links are quickly found, even if finding a currently correct one is > not necessarily so. A big job if one person needs to do it all at once. > > On 11/10/2010 4:50 AM, René Jansen wrote: >> >> I think Thomas and Fernando are absolutely right that we must keep dates >> current, especially if they are in large font like the '1998' in >> Pierantonio's document. It is not only the date however that needs revision, >> I am also concerned with the large number of links that are stale and some >> of the content - and the layout could use some modernizing. >> >> Referring back to an earlier remark by KP, we need to find a way to >> maintain this document. First, of course we need permission from >> Pierantonio, whom, by the way, I am addressing on a first name base although >> we never met. So if Mr Marchesini gives us his blessing, we can work on the >> content. >> >> For this I have thought out the following procedure. I have put the >> website in a subversion repository, and I can give access to that to a small >> number of people that want to help. This way you can checkout the website to >> local storage, do work, see the results on a local server, then check in >> your changes. I can then review these and check out to the location from >> which the website runs. I do prefer this method over most content systems, >> though I am not ruling out that we will adopt one in the future - which >> needs to be JVM based and run NetRexx extensions. >> >> So anyone who wants to help out with this, send me an email and I will >> send instructions. >> >> best regards, >> >> René. > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
Please pardon my barging in here: My first mother-in-law was a high-level-editor for a huge publisher; this was long before electrons. She said that editing & revising an article or book could be done by one person only. There had to be one and only one person seeing the revisions et c. Fast forward to the NetREXX articles, programs and such: How are we to keep one final copy of the material?
Thanks for your time and enjoy the Day; BobH _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Hi Bob,
yes, and there used to be a special set of document markup signs to communicate your revisions to someone who would set the text in hot lead and send it back to you. I am afraid those times are long gone, and collaborative editing of documents is seen a lot nowadays. Let us not get bogged down in tooling or copyright discussions. The rules for all contributed material in an open source project are clear; all authors should contribute their work using an open source license. This also goes for documentation. For this reason it is important that RexxLA has an email from all authors releasing their work to open source and testifying that it is all their own doing. This goes, by the way, also for Mr Marchesini's opus, which will not be published in any modified form (at least not by RexxLA) without his consent and originality statement. We have to take care of these minimal requirements. For the rest, I would suggest to keep this list for technical NetRexx discussion. I will make sure that the NetRexx forum will have an advocacy section in which everyone so inclined can advocate a wild array of issues related to NetRexx. best regards, René Jansen. On 10 nov 2010, at 18:18, Robert Hamilton wrote: Please pardon my barging in here: My first mother-in-law was a high-level-editor for a huge publisher; this was long before electrons. She said that editing & revising an article or book could be done by one person only. There had to be one and only one person seeing the revisions et c. Fast forward to the NetREXX articles, programs and such: How are we to keep one final copy of the material? _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 10:50:33 schrieben Sie:
> >> Otherwise anybody will *think* that *NetRexx* is a *dead language* :-( > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> the only thing *I* would do* is to replace the Date (1998!!!) with > >> curtosey of the author to a more newer one.... > > > > Ancient copyrights are an IBM tradition. I remember complaining > > I think Thomas and Fernando are absolutely right that we must keep dates > current, especially if they are in large font like the '1998' in > Pierantonio's document. It is not only the date however that needs > revision, I am also concerned with the large number of links that are > stale and some of the content - and the layout could use some modernizing. > > Referring back to an earlier remark by KP, we need to find a way to > maintain this document. First, of course we need permission from > Pierantonio, whom, by the way, I am addressing on a first name base > although we never met. So if Mr Marchesini gives us his blessing, we can > work on the content. Although his new address (Pierantonio Marchesini <[hidden email]>) is mentioned in the tutorial it, seems none has detected it - my fault to not pointing to it in my first mail. I've already sent him an email requesting permission and what license he prefer. btw: I like the subversion idea kp _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Hi KP,
thanks for this address. I already located him in BluePages and will try to speak to him tomorrow. Did not know he was with IBM. best regards, René. On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, KP Kirchdoerfer <[hidden email]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, 10:50:33 schrieben Sie: >> >> Otherwise anybody will *think* that *NetRexx* is a *dead language* :-( >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> the only thing *I* would do* is to replace the Date (1998!!!) with >> >> curtosey of the author to a more newer one.... >> > >> > Ancient copyrights are an IBM tradition. I remember complaining >> >> I think Thomas and Fernando are absolutely right that we must keep dates >> current, especially if they are in large font like the '1998' in >> Pierantonio's document. It is not only the date however that needs >> revision, I am also concerned with the large number of links that are >> stale and some of the content - and the layout could use some modernizing. >> >> Referring back to an earlier remark by KP, we need to find a way to >> maintain this document. First, of course we need permission from >> Pierantonio, whom, by the way, I am addressing on a first name base >> although we never met. So if Mr Marchesini gives us his blessing, we can >> work on the content. > > Although his new address (Pierantonio Marchesini <[hidden email]>) is > mentioned in the tutorial it, seems none has detected it - my fault to not > pointing to it in my first mail. > > I've already sent him an email requesting permission and what license he > prefer. > > btw: I like the subversion idea > > kp > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by alansam
Hi Alan,
*you are* of course, from the legal standpoint, perfectly right :-) *BUT*, wouldn't it so much easier, nowadays, to attach a small PPT or a small example program (in any Rexxdialect, or even PL/I and COBOL) in a *limited* group as we are ?? I'm nowadays, for various activities, getting some 100 + mails by day. I do have not time, (*and* also no *interest*) to LOGIN/LOGOUT all those various services I did subscribe for historical reasons: When I'm talking to the 'NetRexx' group, I would like to see the *facts*, *all at a glance* ;-) You may like to know that I'm listening a lot: COBOL, PL/I, classic Rexx, Open Object Rexx, NetRexx (of course), Java, NetBeans, etc etc ... and I'm making (personally) a *SYNERGY effort* of all of that ... ...... maybe I will be succsessful. Who knows ??? Otherwise, that whole e-mail stuff becomes detoriating for me..... With kind regards, Thomas Schneider. ============================================================ Am 10.11.2010 16:18, schrieb Alan Sampson:
--
Thomas Schneider Projects ReyC & LOGOS on www.KENAI.com _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hello Robert, again,
*trust me*, *please* :-) 1.) Do rely on NetRexx, as I did: -- it's very well defined bug free, and stable 2.) When you don't like OO Syntax, use Rexx2Nrx. 3.) I personally will be one of the first to make Rexx2Nrx, and it's successor, ReyC (the Rey Compliler) NetRexx compliant, when needs of changes arise. End of long message: Let us all *collect* all the *good documents* available about NetRexx as *fast as we can*. Rene's new www.netrexx.org *is*, and will be, the *central point*. No matter when NetRexx actually does become *open source*. It's the best computer language I've ever seen. :-) And I've seen a lot ... Thus: Trust me, please, and also Rene, who is doing a grat Job to get NetRexx Open source .... Thanks, by the Way. ..... and thank you Mike, to take the time, to integrate the original ......... must have been a hell of a work ... Thomas Schneider (from dark Vienna) ========================================================= NetRexx Supplement into your NetRexx2.PDF. Am 10.11.2010 18:18, schrieb Robert Hamilton: Please pardon my barging in here: My first mother-in-law was a high-level-editor for a huge publisher; this was long before electrons. She said that editing & revising an article or book could be done by one person only. There had to be one and only one person seeing the revisions et c. Fast forward to the NetREXX articles, programs and such: How are we to keep one final copy of the material? --
Thomas Schneider Projects ReyC & LOGOS on www.KENAI.com _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Skelly
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Skelly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi, > I've been following this conversation, and I'm not a lawyer. I did work at > a company, where I did undergo training on maintaining copyright > information. > Copyright gives legal protection for a given period of time. Updating a > copyright date, just to make something "look up to date", is extending that > protection in a fraudulent manner. > I'm all for accurate maintenance of copyright dates. It should never be > done just because it appears better. > Bruce Well, depends on what you consider. If it is the "product" Windows 95 it is copyright 1995, Windows 98 _and all of its contents_ (including Notepad.exe) are copyright 1998. Just by recompiling them and linking with different binaries, SOME of the code has changed, hence it warrants an update in the copyright notice. Or doesn´t it?. In OS/2, however, even in the very late versions, say OS/2 Warp 4.0 (c) 1996 in the main notice, some of the utiltiies contained very ancient copyright dates. Would that mean that IBM did NOT recompile utiltiies for each OS release?. If that´s the case then they were VERY confident about backwards API compatibility. FC > On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:50 AM, René Jansen wrote: > > > Otherwise anybody will *think* that *NetRexx* is a *dead language* :-( > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: > > the only thing *I* would do* is to replace the Date (1998!!!) with curtosey > > of the author to a more newer one.... > > Ancient copyrights are an IBM tradition. I remember complaining > > I think Thomas and Fernando are absolutely right that we must keep dates > current, especially if they are in large font like the '1998' in > Pierantonio's document. It is not only the date however that needs revision, > I am also concerned with the large number of links that are stale and some > of the content - and the layout could use some modernizing. > Referring back to an earlier remark by KP, we need to find a way to maintain > this document. First, of course we need permission from Pierantonio, whom, > by the way, I am addressing on a first name base although we never met. So > if Mr Marchesini gives us his blessing, we can work on the content. > For this I have thought out the following procedure. I have put the website > in a subversion repository, and I can give access to that to a small number > of people that want to help. This way you can checkout the website to local > storage, do work, see the results on a local server, then check in your > changes. I can then review these and check out to the location from which > the website runs. I do prefer this method over most content systems, though > I am not ruling out that we will adopt one in the future - which needs to be > JVM based and run NetRexx extensions. > So anyone who wants to help out with this, send me an email and I will send > instructions. > best regards, > René. > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > -- "It begins with a blessing And it ends with a curse; Making life easy, By making it worse;" -- Kevin Ayers _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Skelly <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, >> I've been following this conversation, and I'm not a lawyer. I did work at >> a company, where I did undergo training on maintaining copyright >> information. >> Copyright gives legal protection for a given period of time. Updating a >> copyright date, just to make something "look up to date", is extending that >> protection in a fraudulent manner. >> I'm all for accurate maintenance of copyright dates. It should never be >> done just because it appears better. >> Bruce > > Well, depends on what you consider. If it is the "product" Windows 95 > it is copyright 1995, Windows 98 _and all of its contents_ (including > Notepad.exe) are copyright 1998. > > Just by recompiling them and linking with different binaries, Sorry I meant "linking them with updated libraries". FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia-2
Well, depends on what you consider. If it is the "product" Windows 95 Alan. -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by Pierantonio Marchesini
|
|
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Alan Sampson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Well, depends on what you consider. If it is the "product" Windows 95 >> it is copyright 1995, Windows 98 _and all of its contents_ (including >> Notepad.exe) are copyright 1998. >> >> In OS/2, however, even in the very late versions, say OS/2 Warp 4.0 >> (c) 1996 in the main notice, some of the utiltiies contained very >> ancient copyright dates. > > If I remember correctly from my Intellectual Property training the copyright > applies to the assets filed with the copyright office that has jurisdiction > over the copyrighted product and that would typically be the source code. > So if the source code is just recompiled without change the copyright should > remain as originally stated when submitted for filing. Any changes to the > source would probably need to be refiled in order to get the copyright > extended. > > Alan. That makes sense. I´m no law expert either, I was just stating the obvious, what the user sees when he clicks on "about" in Windows OS utilities vs IBM OS/2´s. IBM insists on stating the original copyright date followed by the last update "(c)) 1988, 1995 IBM Corporation" whereas Microsoft seems to either change a comma position on every release before recompiling to update the copyright notice. And also they choose to show the last one, not the first copyright date, despite the fact that notepad.exe dates back to the ancient days... FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Thomas.Schneider.Wien
On 12 November 2010 12:01, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
No; particularly as I amongst many others don't use Windows so a Powerpoint deck is completely useless. (Particularly so when reading mail via a mobile device like an iPhone, iPad, etc.) And if your small example program is small enough the best way to post it is in-line as I and others have done many times.
Even more reason to not allow attachments. 100+ copies of the same multi-gigabyte file to everyone on a list does nothing but clog file systems and throttle network bandwidth. By contrast a hypertext link to a file on a remote server is much more concise and polite. It takes very little to do. And as for the 100+ messages a day; I'd consider that a quiet day for my in-boxes.
Likewise, I do not have time and interest in having to deal with managing my mail file when it gets flooded with huge attachments. Coupled to that; a file attachment must by inference be opened by an external application, even if that application is only a text editor. (As an example: most modern web browsers can open PDF format documents directly these days and most modern office suites can export documents to PDF format, so there's very little overhead in opening a linked PDF. Contrast this to having to download a PDF attachment then launch Adobe Reader. I choose 1 click shopping every time.)
See above. If a code snippet is small enough it is appropriate to post it in-line in the message. Anything else can be provided via hyperlinks with very little inconvenience to anyone. Hyperlinks have been around for a while now; it's hardly groundbreaking technology. And how exactly are you able to see "all at a glance" if the content is in an attachment? By implication, if it's an attachment it isn't "at a glance" you need to detach it and open it with some external application. Alan. -- Can't tweet, won't tweet! _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Alan
-- Needs more cowbell. |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |