8051 Keil C site updated!
in [Embedded]
|
From: Chris H on 9 Jul 2010 07:13 In message <a2f419b1-343e-4cb8-b7ad-c37050b7f3ef(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups ..com>, Didi <dp(a)tgi-sci.com> writes >On Jul 9, 1:48�pm, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >> Didi wrote: >> > On Jul 9, 3:46 am, "Chris Burrows" <cfbsoftw...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >.... However, I can see no >> > > particular problem with Mr Van Luyn's post - at the very least it was on >> > > topic. I also checked the charter of this newsgroup and could find no >> > > reference to any problems with posts that referenced the sale of >> > >commercial >> > > software. >> >> > Thanks for posting this, I was about to write something in that >> > spirit. >> > I have neither looked at the OP code nor do I use any 8051 nor do >> > I buy software, for that - but there is nothing wrong with his >> > single commercial post. We do post links to new products of CPU >> > vendors etc., so why is he not allowed to post one, just because >> > he is small or because his code is supposedly no good (no idea >> > about that, might be great)? >> > Could it be the entire load of hatred which was poured comes >> > from people who are wanna-be self employed programmers like >> > he apparently at least tries to be? >> >> There is nothing wrong with the website or products. There >> appears to be something fundamentally dishonest with the >> use of Keil's name on the thread and logo on the site to >> promote the op's products. There is an implication in the thread >> title that Keil supports / endorsees �the software products. As far >> as I can tell from the responses that is not true. >> >> w.. > >Hi Walter, >the subject line may be misleading but we have seen a lot >less meaningful ones. Dishonest - I am not sure, what if >it had been "Intel C ... whatever site updated". He appears >to just indicate he is using some sort of compiler >people are supposed to know about (I don't). >But then this is in your line of busyness and not in mine >so I may simply be missing something. > >Dimiter Part of the problem is the use of the Keil /ARM trade mark on his web site. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 9 Jul 2010 07:46 Am 09.07.2010 06:10, schrieb Didi: > I have neither looked at the OP code nor do I use any 8051 nor do > I buy software, for that - but there is nothing wrong with his > single commercial post. Neither was there anything wrong with people (quite objectively, at least initially) replying to that post pointing out that fact that it is SPAM, and criticism of the offered code's quality. What has fuelled this thread since is Murry flying completely off the handle in reaction to that. From that point on, it's been classic escalation. > Could it be the entire load of hatred which was poured comes > from people who are wanna-be self employed programmers like > he apparently at least tries to be? No. For starters, that's not what he claims he tries to be. He claims he tries to be a philanthropist; a benefactor. But several people here, me included, judged that to be a white lie. What he describes as a "benevolent offering to the community", we perceived as a failed attempt to disguise a commercial venture as something else.
From: Muzza on 9 Jul 2010 07:50 On Jul 9, 7:13 pm, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > In message <a2f419b1-343e-4cb8-b7ad-c37050b7f...(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups > .com>, Didi <d...(a)tgi-sci.com> writes > > > > > > >On Jul 9, 1:48 pm, Walter Banks <wal...(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> Didi wrote: > >> > On Jul 9, 3:46 am, "Chris Burrows" <cfbsoftw...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >.... However, I can see no > >> > > particular problem with Mr Van Luyn's post - at the very least it was on > >> > > topic. I also checked the charter of this newsgroup and could find no > >> > > reference to any problems with posts that referenced the sale of > >> > >commercial > >> > > software. > > >> > Thanks for posting this, I was about to write something in that > >> > spirit. > >> > I have neither looked at the OP code nor do I use any 8051 nor do > >> > I buy software, for that - but there is nothing wrong with his > >> > single commercial post. We do post links to new products of CPU > >> > vendors etc., so why is he not allowed to post one, just because > >> > he is small or because his code is supposedly no good (no idea > >> > about that, might be great)? > >> > Could it be the entire load of hatred which was poured comes > >> > from people who are wanna-be self employed programmers like > >> > he apparently at least tries to be? > > >> There is nothing wrong with the website or products. There > >> appears to be something fundamentally dishonest with the > >> use of Keil's name on the thread and logo on the site to > >> promote the op's products. There is an implication in the thread > >> title that Keil supports / endorsees the software products. As far > >> as I can tell from the responses that is not true. > > >> w.. > > >Hi Walter, > >the subject line may be misleading but we have seen a lot > >less meaningful ones. Dishonest - I am not sure, what if > >it had been "Intel C ... whatever site updated". He appears > >to just indicate he is using some sort of compiler > >people are supposed to know about (I don't). > >But then this is in your line of busyness and not in mine > >so I may simply be missing something. > > >Dimiter > > Part of the problem is the use of the Keil /ARM trade mark on his web > site. > -- > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Chris, I can assure you that I am on very solid ground with all 3 companies whose products I link to, promote or feature on my website, Chris. The Internet is a very public place, and you won't get away with underhanded stuff for very long. If you still have a problem, then by all means take it up with Mum. Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn.
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 9 Jul 2010 07:54 Am 09.07.2010 02:46, schrieb Chris Burrows: > On the subject of what is or what is not spam, only today there were five > new posts here with the following subject titles: > > New Era Hats > Discount ca caps > paypal wholesale fashion shoes > Jordan shoes > wholesale men's shoes I don't know where that "here" of yours is, but FWIW I saw none of those posts. Looks like some USENET service provide do a better of job of sanitizing content than others. You might want to change. > I have no difficulty identifying those posts as spam. They obviously are. But there's a difference. Those are bona-fide scumbags with no intent to be taken seriously --- or to ever read responses to their posts, for that matter. Replying to those posts is completely pointless. Murray, OTOH, reads and writes here on at least an irregular basis, so there's a remote chance he can be taught better.
From: Muzza on 9 Jul 2010 08:48
On Jul 9, 7:46 pm, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroe...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > Am 09.07.2010 06:10, schrieb Didi: > > > I have neither looked at the OP code nor do I use any 8051 nor do > > I buy software, for that - but there is nothing wrong with his > > single commercial post. > > Neither was there anything wrong with people (quite objectively, at > least initially) replying to that post pointing out that fact that it is > SPAM, and criticism of the offered code's quality. > > What has fuelled this thread since is Murry flying completely off the > handle in reaction to that. From that point on, it's been classic > escalation. > > > Could it be the entire load of hatred which was poured comes > > from people who are wanna-be self employed programmers like > > he apparently at least tries to be? > > No. For starters, that's not what he claims he tries to be. He claims > he tries to be a philanthropist; a benefactor. But several people here, > me included, judged that to be a white lie. What he describes as a > "benevolent offering to the community", we perceived as a failed attempt > to disguise a commercial venture as something else. Hi Didi, Please allow me to resist Hans' efforts to deceive you. Hans feels that criticism of unseen code is legitimate, and rejects my right to ask for those uninformed critic's qualifications. He claims that I could not know who has, and who has not seen my code. PayPal send me a detailed transaction notification each time a valued customer contributes a small sum to my distribution costs. I am quite able to identify those that 'expertly' claim the code is bad, yet who have never had any of my code in their possession. Hans vilifies me as a self-promoting saviour to all embedded-kind. I have merely countered his fallacious assumption that I am a profit seeker, by informing him otherwise. He arrogantly states that I have adopted a 'holier than thou' approach. In relation to Hans' position as a negativistic, 'drag-em-down' non-contributor to the communities cause, this may be a true reflection of my standing. Numerous detractors, including Hans, have maliciously misrepresented me, by stating that I have either used a fallacious return e-mail address in my postings, or that I have attempted to conceal my name. It seems to have escaped each of them that I have signed each and every posting in this thread, with the same contraction of my full legal name, as is also featured on my website. It also seems to have escaped these deceitful detractors, that the return email address associated with each newsgroup posting is the same as that on my website. Not one of them has thought to try the e-mail address to see whether they were telling the truth, or not. Yes, anger is blind. Those that are so readily offended by what they mistakenly regard as being spam, and who act out of sightless negative instincts, truly do the most harm in this world. Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn. ....and again for those sentimentally non-sighted individuals. Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn. |