#96678 - 2002-12-07 02:23 PM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Dear Brian,
We agree with you about a lot of things.
- people shouldn't steal other's work. it is nearly impossible to create the same
structure with specific Scriptlogic input.
At this moment "helpdesk.kixtart.org" is supporting the KiXtart 4.12 documenta-
tion. The strange thing in this case is: the outside looks nearly the same, but
both versions aren't the same at all. It looks like a new compilation has made
without a clear message on it.
Each programmer is using his own way of writting. It will never be the same. - we love the effort of your organization supporting also the none-commercial
part of kixtart community. We don't think about the creation of own CHM help file,
because your version is very easy to use and it is always very accurate. Also the
elements you have add are great.
It is much easier for to verify on regular base "are the URL still working". In
some situations you are very glad that people are mirroring those great things.
We are glad to be one of them.
For most of kixtart users it is enough to add those great URls to their favorites.
An own homepage isn't necessry for that.
Your new link KiXtart 4.12 keyword index we loves also.
During some redesigns of our site we like to add this URL link to it. - we agree with you "simply try asking for what ... omeone that already did it.".
Most of the people implement good feedback. No feedback, no implementation of your
needs. - about Lastly, I'm not sure I understand your last statement about the kixtart
forum @ scriptlogic.com. Are you saying that it is not as busy as this board, there-
fore should be discontinued? Remember: ScriptLogic's site was the first to introduce
the Beta and Wish List (Suggestions) forums for KiXtart. That ideas was promptly co-
pied here. A lot of good ideas and helpful work come out of ScriptLogic (obviously
good work, since so much of it is copied). I think that the more they contribute to
the KiXtart community the better!
It will be a big lack when Scriptlogic doesn't support kixtart as it did and does.
- Always you are the first to publish a new distribution.
- Always you are the first we create a very handy help file.
- Always shows the latest and historical news about kixtart developments.
- At lot of nice UDFs on your site are implemented already in the kixtart product.
- In our opinion "kixtart" forum doesn't want to be a replacement for "kixtart.org" forums. Most
of feedback to this forum is related also to the other Scriptlogic forums.
On the planet "kixtart.org" and "scriptlogic" aren't the only forums which handles
about kixtart, but it aren't only the most popular ones but also it are the
most accurate ones. See for yourself on the WWW.
Most feedback from Ruud goes directly back to Scriptlogic and this board.
The feedback about possible problems with new releases we see is nearly a fraction.
In a very early state Scriptlogic has already reporting significant problems
with it.
greetings.
btw: keep on going the your great input to the kixtart community.
[ 07. December 2002, 17:22: Message edited by: MCA ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96679 - 2002-12-07 02:23 PM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Dear Lonkero,
About I have no hard copy of what everyone has done, so how could I know it is direct copy?.
When we analyze both versions and we trace back the history of CHM files is
it impossible that "helpdesk.kixtart.org" presents in their version
- same structure
- same mistakes
- same additional information
- same internal names
and claim it as their effort when Scriptlogic has already published his version.
Also we think Scriptlogic will not have copyright problems by stealing others
work. Negative publicity can be catastrophic for their organization. We don't
think also they will risk it with an issue which isn't really necessary to have
for their core business.
About I have no hard copy of what everyone has done, so how could I know it is direct copy?.
We have it are the CHM files. It cost only some effort to analyze it.
greetings.
[ 07. December 2002, 17:23: Message edited by: MCA ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#96682 - 2002-12-07 06:13 PM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
Les
KiX Master
Registered: 2001-06-11
Posts: 12734
Loc: fortfrances.on.ca
|
Brian,
I understand how you may get upset if someone took your work and passed it off as their own, but before you make inflammatory remarks, make sure you have all the facts straight.
To quote you, "The pages at helpdesk.kixtart.org are identical to those of the CHM (and online reference) from ScriptLogic.com". This is not accurate. A cursory glance shows your CHM and on-line doc (version 4.12 - http://www.scriptlogic.com/kixtart/htmlhelp/Reference/!keyword-index.htm#A ) make reference to Abs() but no such reference exists on the http://helpdesk.kixtart.org/KixManual2001/Reference/Keyword-index.asp#A version. It would appear that the helpdesk.kixtart.org manual is based on version 4.02.
There was also your accusation of NTDOC which you have since taken back. Unfortunately you also edited the original post so it is difficult for others to review the entire thread objectively. As I said, choose your words carefully, review them for accuracy, and them leave them intact so that subsequent comments may remain 'in context'.
With regard to your on-line manual, it lacks some of the content of the CHM and original DOC. When we post replies, we often like to make reference to those other portions of the manual and not just to those covered by keywords. A search tool would be nice so that we may quickly find those references and if I may reiterate, a link to download the CHM.
_________________________
Give a man a fish and he will be back for more. Slap him with a fish and he will go away forever.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96684 - 2002-12-07 06:33 PM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Dear Lonkero,
Thanks, we repair the URL specification.
Amongst the fatest always, of course it can be possible that Ruud is
distributing his new version when Scriptlogic is sleeping.
Our experience is that during working hours of Scriptlogic there is not much
time between distribution and publishing. Sometimes they are making a fast
update during other hours.
As reaction on your latest reaction.
the help on helpdesk.kixtart.org is not the same as in chm-file means that
they don't did a simple binary edit on the CHM file from Scriptlogic. With
a binary edit you can replace f.e. the name Scriptlogic with another one or
with spaces.
In this case they have made a new compilation of it. The result will be influen-
cing by the environment using during compilation. Also different releases of
software using influences as the binary result.
For that reason we must make a comparison in a different way to see are f.e. the
structures and the internal names the same or not.
Also when you see the example of WriteProfileString description someone makes
a copy of it. It is impossible to claim copyrights by both, when two people
are writting something and the results are exactly the same.
Compared with both HTML versions the results are very sensational. Scriptlogic crea-
tes it with FrontPage and "helpdesk.kixtart.org" gets nearly the same results
without using it.
For us it is very clear, who is the owner of it. Scriptlogic is publishing during
a lot of year CHM files. helpdesk.kixtart.org (or kixtart.org/helpdesk) pass just
his first anniversary.
The related topics were
- Which KiXtart site to use (30.9.2001)
- Patriotism (9.11.2001))
- System Uptime (4.12.2001)
An extraction of KiXtart_Helpdesk quote:
Thanx guys,
MCA: I started KiXtart HelpDesk as a spare-time project.
The goal is to promote the KiXtart language and to offer sample scripts.
The users would be anyone interested in KiXtart.
The reason why it is located at kixtart.org is that Henri offered space on his server.
Shawn:
Glad I could help!
Cross-postings would be nice! I don't have that many to offer though...
I am really interested in sample scripts. New-commers likes cut-and-paste, right??
/Brian
Btw: I'll fix the links ASAP. Also working on a html-version of the 2001 manual.
- Off Topic: KiXtart Help Desk (24.6.2002)
greetings.
btw: Les, we will react on you feedback when necessary.
(our reaction 3900 to the board)
[ 09. December 2002, 02:00: Message edited by: MCA ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96685 - 2002-12-07 06:57 PM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Dear Les,
- In the past we were saving the relevant CHM files from Scriptlogic. At the moment
the site "helpdesk.kixtart.org"/"kixtart.org/helpdesk" doesn't exist. December
2001 the "helpdesk.kixtart.org" was announcing his first HTML version of the 2001
manual.
Very specific and old mistypings in Scriptlogic releases - which we doesn't find
in Ruud's document - we find back in the files on the "helpdesk.kixtart.org" site.
Based on a very deep comparison it is for us clear, that one makes a copy of an
existing version. Based on above information it should be clear who makes the
copy.
Missing Abs doesn't means someone doesn't make copies of it, but mostly
it means he couldn't make copies of it. Mostly the URL had been changed and the
new URL wasn't published.
We think that everybody has the rights to make clear what is going on. Mostly it
can be necessary to use clear talking. - We agree with you that people doesn't edit original post. Except of course URL
link mistypings. - About our reference. You have ask Henri it too, but the benefits for making our
suggestions public are: people aren't doing the same work again.
greetings.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96688 - 2002-12-09 01:39 AM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Lonkero / LLigetfa - I really wish you would perform a closer examination. When I state 'exacly the same', I am obviosuly referring to the 4.02-ish version of the manual. That is the time period when Brian ripped his pages from the ScriptLogic produced CHM.
When he ripped the content, he obviously edited the pages and added the appropriate banners to make it an integrated part of his web site. This is apparent on the KeyWordIndex page: There were only two changes: 1) He added his web site header and 2) he removed the last line of the page which read "This HTML help system is maintained by ScriptLogic Corporation. For updates to KiXtart and this help system, please visit www.scriptlogic.com/kixtart"
He has obviously not re-ripped it recently; probably because he would have to re-invest the necessary time to re-brand it for his site.
LLigetfa - You have probably realized this, given your post
http://www.scriptlogic.com/support/Forums/display_message.asp?mid=5308 over at ScriptLogic's forum earlier today. There you helpfully point out that the HTML pages had 'curly quotes' on some pages and that two TOC pages have wrong links -- specifically the QUIT command links to the rd.htm page. Now it comes as no surprise to me that Brian's pages over at helpdesk have the exact same mistake. Coincidence? I think not.
MCA - I appreciate you actually spending time and doing enough research to 'see the light.'
Lastly, LLigetfa - you stated: "There was also your accusation of NTDOC which you have since taken back. " Allow me to clarify: I did not 'take it back', but rather I corrected a typo -- I was not accusing NTDOC, but I mistakenly typed his website instead of helpdsek.kixtart.org (they are similar you know).
-BSTYLES
PS. Again, please remember that I personally don't have a problem regarding the html pages that were created by ScriptLogic and later reposted at Brian's site, nor would I have a problem if they were reposted at other sites. What I have a problem with is that Brian Peterson still does not give proper credit (and linking) to ScriptLogic for creating the compilation and that he is still not confessing to what he did.
* * * * * * *
Old versions of the CHM produced by ScriptLogic are still available online:
http://www.scriptlogic.com/downloads/kix/kixtart363.chm
http://www.scriptlogic.com/downloads/kix/kixtart402.chm
http://www.scriptlogic.com/downloads/kix/kixtart410.chm
http://www.scriptlogic.com/downloads/kix/kixtart411.chm
http://www.scriptlogic.com/downloads/kix/kixtart412.chm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96690 - 2002-12-09 02:19 AM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
I want everyone to know that this whole pissing contest is shit.
bstyles, you jumped all over Les' comments about the exact same curly quotes that appeared in "Exist(), SetASCII(), and USE" in both ScriptLogic's CHM and the http://helpdesk.kixtart.org/ site. These same exact curly quotes are exactly the same in the 4.02 Kix2001.doc word document supplied in the 4.02 distribution.
So I guess the fact the ScriptLogic ripped the text from the word document first give you bragging rights or something. So since it appears that ScriptLogic just copied someone else’s hard work (Kix2001.doc), unless you wrote that too, then you should be less vocal in your criticism. If you could do that, why couldn’t he?
Based on this particular evidence (the curly quotes), I don't think you have much to piss & moan about at this time.
If you did write the Kix2001.doc file, then you have my sincerest apologies for the above comments.
[ 09. December 2002, 02:20: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96691 - 2002-12-09 02:24 AM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
MCA
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-04-28
Posts: 5152
Loc: Netherlands, EU
|
Lonkero,
We based our opinion on facts. We made a depth analyze of both results. Not only from
the outside but also from the inside. Based on that information someone must have
make a copy.
We shouldn't use the words "he is a liar" and we will not jump to conclusions, but based on
our analyze we can come to conclusions.
Of course everybody may made a copy of stuff, but in our opinion everybody should respect
the rights of authors. Not respecting the rights means for us "someone is 'stealing' other's
work".
So we subscribe the PS from Brian.
Brian,
We have enough experience to know, that it is impossible to create independent of
each other same result.
Before taking position in it we want to be very, very sure about it. With the informa-
tion on the internet such analyze was easy to made. So we absolute doesn't understand
why someone is doing such things. It is of no use.
greetings.
btw: we repair 3900 value. the format was just copied from an old one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#96695 - 2002-12-09 08:12 AM
Re: KiXtart LightWeight Manual Reference
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Ok, I'm done here. In closing...
Howard,
There is a big difference here. ScriptLogic never claimed to be the original author of the DOC manual! Why you've chosen to cloud this discussion with that is beyond me...
Of course the HTML help was based on the original DOC file, duh... But that's not the debate here.
ScriptLogic converted the DOC to HTML to benefit the KiXtart community as a whole. The original has been improved. In some cases better examples were given, typos corrected, and the 'see also' hyperlinks were added (which exemplifies the purpose of converting to HTML).
Shawn - In converting the manual, there have been many other typos & mistakes caught and reported to Ruud over the years, which were then subsequently fixed in the 'original' DOC file. There have also been suggestions on how to make things more readable and understandable. I see this is as a collaborative effort. I also see it as adding something substantial. Am I seeing it wrong?
It is obvious that this topic has gone astray, and that was not the intention when I first posted to it. I contributed to the topic to offer the HTML source to Lonkero, so he wouldn't be duplicating effort.
Maybe no one likes me calling Brian P. a liar (personally, I don't consider that 'name calling'). But hey, facts are facts -- and I have every right to state them publically. You may not like what I have to say, so don't listen. ...At least what I say is the truth.
I know how many man-hours when into the DOC-to-HTML conversion and how many hours it takes to update the HTML each time a new version of KiX comes out. I know the next plan was to convert the help system to an online searchable database, with visitor contributable examples and hyperlinks to UDFs that use each keyword. But, based on this feedback, I would guess that it would not be appreciated either. Without appreciation, there is no return on what I have invested.
LLigetfa - thank you for treating me fairly. I would ask no more and deserve no less. I think you need to re-read the 'case' as you call it. ScriptLogic converted the DOC to CHM for KiX 3.62 and has maintained it ever since. Believe who you want - I give up...
-Brian
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Arend_, Allen, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 370 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif){kind=icon}
