Prev: Network Activity Indicator for Windows 7
Next: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Release Candidate
From: Dustin Cook on 29 Apr 2010 18:19
Bear Bottoms <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote in
news:Xns9D68D45D4805Fbearbottoms1gmaicom(a)69.16.185.247:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:hrang70tha(a)news7.newsguy.com:
>
>> From: "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>| Jeesus. It isn't necessary. It could be set up even now for
>>| incremental updates. It's just not. Like I said, at this point it
>>| isn't really a big deal. It just isn't necessary.
>>
>> You did not write the software so you can not state if it was
>> neccessary or not. You can ONLY state it is not optimum.
>>
> It is always very interesting to see human reaction when faced with
> truths that conflict with their ego and emotions or even failures.
> Only people who never do anything do not fail. Rest your ego David.

You're a real jerk. David and myself are both familar with the signature
process from start to finish via new database file. So, as David said,
you can't state whether or not the methods used by the authors was
necessary or not. The database wasn't nearly this large a year or so ago.
It's grown :) I fully expect at some point incremental update technology
will be incorporated; but as things are now, that will take an overhaul.
So it's not a priority at this point.

Back when everyone still used dialup modems, that technology was far more
important. As many are on broadband now, with more added daily; it's
somewhat redundant.

> I'm stating the fact that the updates did not have to be constructed
> as they were. They do also not have to remain that way. It was/still
> is a choice.

What your stating would be an opinion. It's a fact they are constructed
with a full update required, based on the engine inside the product. The
data has to work with the engine.

> I have also stated that it is not really a big deal at this time that
> the updates are constructed as they are.

Another opinion. I agree, btw.

> While I noted that it is not optimum, you seem to agree and you are
> somewhat angry about it. Move on.

I didn't see any anger in David's post. I did see an ad homiem (sp?)
attack presented by yourself because David pointed out that you don't
know the software, as you didn't write; *any* of it.


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

From: Craig on 29 Apr 2010 18:40
On 04/29/2010 03:32 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote:
> ...such is not

Yoda's back

--
-Craig
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Network Activity Indicator for Windows 7
Next: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Release Candidate