Post by Andy BowerPeter,
No, I don't believe it is your responsibility. However, if you were being
constructively critical (rather than just critical) you would help us find
out whether the claim is valid or not.
Andy, I am sure that is a legitimate opinion.
Are you admitting that you did not find out whether the claim was valid or
not before making it (or continuing to make it - you do realize that you
publish your website every day)? It seems to me this is central to the whole
issue.
Then, I don't even remember you asking me why I thought the claim wasn't
valid. Maybe I missed it? Instead, I do remember it being said that what I
said seemed to be wrong on all counts and that I had accused you of license
fraud.
If OA wanted my cooperation, perhaps choosing their words differently would
have been a good idea.
Post by Andy BowerPost by Peter van RooijenSo, if you choose to make a claim that compares your product to all other
Smalltalks, it is up to you to check out all other dialects to see if this
is in fact correct. It doesn't suffice to check out only a subset of them.
It is also not appropriate to shift the burden of proof to those who doubt
that what you stated is accurate.
At the time of writing (the release date of Dolphin 5 in May 2002) the claim
was accurate.
If you had written "scoped refactorings directly from the standard browsers
without requiring any use of a source code management system" I doubt you
would have had any doubts or challenges from me.
Post by Andy BowerPost by Peter van RooijenCome on Andy. I said I personally wouldn't know if 'DSE was advertized
with
Post by Peter van RooijenRefactoring Browser'. It's right up there in the section you quoted
yourself!
I don't understand. Are you saying that
[snip-no I was not saying that]
Post by Andy BowerPost by Peter van RooijenYou are using a straw man here, and in a very transparent way at that.
????
O dear. The straw man is this:
I said: "I personally would not know if DSE was advertized with Refactoring
Browser"
You said: "Aha, you admit that you don't know anything about the topic of
this thread" (not a literal quote)
You presented something that I had not said, nor implied (i.e., that I
admitted did not know anything about the topic of the thread), then attacked
me using it. This strategy (a fallacy) is known as a 'straw man'. The straw
man is a stand-in for the real position of your opponent, which you don't
attack, but instead you attack your opponent using another statement that
your opponent in the discussion did not make, but that you pretend he made.
Do I really need to explain this?
Post by Andy BowerPost by Peter van RooijenPost by Andy BowerIMO, your initial post was
tantamount to
an accusation of license fraud (which is theft, of course, and we know
how damaging such a claim can be).
[snip]
Post by Andy BowerI pointed out in another reply that I take issue with the tone of your
posts. I find the tone of the above offensive and accusatory, tantamount to
saying that we did not ask permission to include the RB engine in the
commercial version of Dolphin. Later on in this message you apologize
Hey, there's the straw man again! What exactly do you contend I apologized
for later on in this message? Just give me the quote.
Never mind, I'll get it myself (this is turning into quite a spectacle ;-)):
----[Incidentally, I personally don't believe you need anybody's specific
permission to include any RB code in any of your products, because as far as
I am aware, the entire RB code has been placed in the public domain by its
authors. But this is just my personal belief based on the materials I have
read and the discussions I have had with people concerned with this.
You as a vendor would presumably want a stronger basis than a simple
personal belief for distributing that software. And this is what I asked you
about. I am sorry that you saw this as rude, and even as accusatory. It
wasn't meant like that at all. I am also sorry that instead of asking me if
I was accusing you of doing anything untoward, you responded as if I was. I
hope this has been cleared up now.]----
As is clear to see, I expressed regret about two things you had done (see my
question as rude and even accusatory, and respond as if I was accusing you),
and about one thing that you hadn't done (ask me if I was accusing you of
anything). It doesn't look like an apology to me, but if you want to see it
that way, you are quite welcome to do so.
[snip issue of permission to include RB functionality; I have already stated
that I personally believe you have every right to include it]
Post by Andy BowerPost by Peter van RooijenMaybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product. Then
only
Post by Peter van Rooijenif someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have to do
something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in the
future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you to
accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.
Please tell me again how you have clearly proved anything.
Come on Andy, read it again. The section above is *not in any way* about me
claiming to have clearly proved anything. I am not going to repeat the straw
man story here, because it gets boring.
In an effort to be more constructive (;-)), I will now go on to address your
Post by Andy BowerAs far as I know
1) Does the OA website mislead a prospective purchaser into thinking that
the RB is preloaded/built-in to the Standard Edition of Dolphin?
Well (just reading this now), it could be clearer. E.g.,
"The Value Edition does not include some of the more advanced features that
are available in the higher level products, such as refactoring tools,..."
could easily lead one to think that they are in fact available in the
'higher' versions (even though they aren't listed in the list of extras for
DSE).
Then at the Pro section is says it offers:
"Built-in Refactoring in all browsers". This makes it easy for someone who
already thought that everything above DVE included refactoring support, to
conclude that DPro has it in all browsers, not just some, or some such.
I don't think that this amounts to misleading information, and I am
absolutely sure that it wasn't intended to mislead. But there is ceratainly
room for it to be clearer, and if it had been, perhaps you would have sold a
DPro to Umur to begin with and we would not be having this whole discussion
:-).
Post by Andy Bower2) Is it legitimate for us to include the RB preloaded into Dolphin
Professional?
Absolutely, I have no doubt about that. But you have not preloaded the RB.
You have preloaded the refactoring engine and the refactorings, and also
your own browser integration. All of them totally legitimate. I never said,
nor intended to imply, otherwise (just to be absolutely clear).
Post by Andy Bower3) Is the claim that Dolphin was the *first* Smalltalk to have the RB
preloaded and integrated into the native browsers, true?
RB: no - the RB is not in there (as far as I know)
Refactoring engine and refactorings:
preloaded - yes (as far as I know)
integrated into the native browsers - no (the authors of MED beat you to
that for VA)
Post by Andy Bower4) Is the claim that Dolphin is the only Smalltalk to have *scoped*
refactorings true?
It depends what you mean. VW and VA have always had the ability to define
environments for refactorings and custom rewrites. There is a GUI for
selecting which applications, classes/metaclasses, even method categories
you want to include in your environment. It's very powerful but not as
convenient as it might have been, and a lot of people may not know about it.
I would not be surprised if DPro offered the most *convenient* scoped
refactorings around (at least before the newest versions of VW 7.x).
And in VA, because it has Envy, scoped refactorings from the standard
browser integration menus are easy even without specifiying the environment
in advance.
Post by Andy BowerTo my mind (maybe not yours), I believe I have "proved" (as far as can be
done in a newsgroup) that the answers to items 1, 2 and 3 are No, Yes and
Yes respectively. You certainly have not demonstrated (let alone "proved")
anything else.
Well, I didn't say that I was proving something, so that is not a big issue.
I hope you find my comments above on these precise issues useful.
Post by Andy BowerThe only item of contention is 4) i.e. whether VAST *has* scoped
refactorings (VW does not). At the time this sentence was written April/May
2002 this statement was true. You claim that VAST now does have scoped
refactoring but are unwilling to demonstrate your knowledge on how to do it?
Therefore, once again, you have not proved anything!
Ah well, see above and if there are still questions, ask again. I really
wonder how much experience you have with particularly VA.
Post by Andy BowerBut the point is that, the customer was not unreasonably misled to believe
that DSE contains the RB. If he/she was please show me where. It seems to me
that this is crucial if you wish to further this discussion.
Yes, I agree with you there. The customer can't reasonably claim to be
misled without pointing out why he believed what he said he believed about
your offering (and which later appears to be a misunderstanding).
Post by Andy BowerNote that, as far as this particular customer is concerned, the accuracy of
point 4) is not at issue since Umur actually purchased DSE which does not
contain the RB. I agree that, in general, the accuracy of the "scoped
refactorings" statement need to be validated based on up to date information
(and it will be) or we will remove the claim from the website.
I already provided above a more detailed description of the feature that is
accurate inasfar as my knowledge goes. But it doesn't sound nearly as good
or as uniquely useful as what you have on your website ;-).
Note that I do not usually keep informed about the features of the very
latest VW 7.x builds (although I do work with them from time to time), and
of course in general, I don't use all dialects.
Post by Andy BowerWe had plenty of evidence for all of the above claims at the time they were
written.
You just keep repeating this, and I don't think it makes it more true.
Your wordings on the website at times have a strong element of opacity and
the unclarity resulting from that, I feel, is principally your
responsibility. I am quite aware of the tension between not using too many
words, highlighting the attractive features of a product, and being truthful
enough not to mislead.
I suppose I could ask you to produce your 'evidence' for points 3) and 4).
But I'll wait to see what your reaction is to my remarks above.
Post by Andy BowerOnly point 4) above is in contention now and we will address that
ASAP with or without your help.
I don't think that I have seen your 'evidence' for points 3) and 4). Maybe I
missed it. Otherwise, these two issues are still not at all closed.
Cheers,
Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam
Post by Andy BowerRegards
Andy Bower
Dolphin Support