|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Frank de GrootFrank de Groot
Date: Jan 18, 2007 09:39
"Rudy Velthuis" wrote
> You were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and now you try to
> wind out by insulting others and justifying it by something Borland
> allegedly did to you.
For what Borland did to me, morally spoken (following the Bible's rules of
the Old Testament) I am allowed to inflict similar damage to Borland.
If we look at it percentually, I am allowed to bankrupt Borland.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Frank de GrootFrank de Groot
Date: Jan 18, 2007 09:38
"Rudy Velthuis" wrote
> You posted here, not somewhere else, and I happened to see it. Your bad
> if people call you on asking for an illegal copy of something.
Then again, your bad if I explain how Borland screws their customers.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Frank de GrootFrank de Groot
Date: Jan 18, 2007 09:37
"Rudy Velthuis" wrote
> We are not. We are independent, unpaid volunteers.
Double lie.
#1: You have to abide by the rules Borland stipulates for you,
#2: You get paid many thousands USD in free merchandise.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Frank de GrootFrank de Groot
Date: Jan 18, 2007 09:36
"Rudy Velthuis" wrote
> When have I "poisoned" you, and where is that money I allegedly got for
> it? When was there a situation you had to trust me?
When did you stop beating your wife?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: J FrenchJ French
Date: Jan 18, 2007 05:37
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:55:49 +0100, "Frank de Groot"
moyogo.com> wrote:
>"J French" wrote
>
>> Easy Frank, Rudy might be a dentist, but he is a pretty darn good
>> programmer - so he can't be all bad.
>That's an illogical statement if I ever saw one.
>How does being a good programmer makes up for deliberately poisoning people
>that trust you, for money?
Well it is a redeeming feature ...
>> Actually I think he is on Team B - which is rather impressive.
>Team B are shameful Borland employees.
>All they do is "push the party line" by censoring people who love Delphi.
>Borland/CodeGear's party line is Microsoft's (main share holder) party
>line - the destruction of Delphi.
They are not employees - more enthusiasts
Are you sure that MS still have a shareholding ?
- my understanding is that they got rid of it quite some time ago
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Frank de GrootFrank de Groot
Date: Jan 18, 2007 01:38
"Rudy Velthuis" wrote
> It is illegal for others to send it to you. Do you want others to break
> the laws for you?
Why don't you go moralizing somewhere else, like to your colleagues who
poison the planet and their inhabitants with mercury fillings and synthetic
fillings (they cause cancer).
Jeezes. Defending scum like Borland, who has singlehandedly left their
entire customer base in the cold - deliberately, and yourslef being part of
an evil mass-murdering bunch of serial killers (dentists have known for
decades about the effects of fillings on the human body).
Admonishing me about some fucking file, sheesh..
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Maarten WiltinkMaarten Wiltink
Date: Jan 18, 2007 00:47
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:09:18 +0100, "Maarten Wiltink"
> kittensandcats.net> wrote:>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:48:04 +0100, "Maarten Wiltink"
>>> kittensandcats.net> wrote:>>>> Ethics is like dictionaries - descriptive only. Morals are personal.
>>>> Laws are for everyone... in theory.
>
>>> I have ethics, but no morals.
>
>> That's surprisingly difficult. ...
>
> Amorality does not preclude a lack of ethics
Having no morals is difficult. As I said, ethics is just the study of
them. Having no ethics means not thinking about the whole subject: the
standard way that most people go through the day, that is.
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rob KennedyRob Kennedy
Date: Jan 16, 2007 11:20
HanslH wrote:
> 'Find in files' after 'HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT' reveals only use in this
> code. I would never use this key it's just here in the code for
> completeness.
>
> if I ctrl-click on HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT I go to the windows unit, I
> always assumed that scope priority for compiling and ctrl-clicking
> match.
You can make the scope explicit by saying Windows.HKey_Classes_Root.
--
Rob
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Nicholas SherlockNicholas Sherlock
Date: Jan 15, 2007 17:08
Christakis John wrote:
> Looking only at the uncompressed sizes, I know that the difference is not
> bigEXE-BPLs = SmallEXE because the big exe only links in those routines it
> uses, as I understand it. So, is there a way to determine what routines are
> linked in and have them compile to some kind of single BPL so that I can
> have the small exe and one large BPL?
>
> Or should I just leave things alone and do some real work?
What would be the advantage over a single .exe? You wouldn't be able to
distribute an updated .exe and leave the .bpls alone, since the .bpl
might not contain the routines that the new .exe uses.
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
