Re: Pop window for 4gl modules

---- Jerry Denman wrote ---- >---- original message from John H. Frantz ---- >++ >++ omer@rorqual.cc.metu.edu.tr (Omer OZTAN) wrote (shortened): >++ > >++ > A few weeks ago, my partner, A.Ergul, posted a mail about the pop window >++ > code that we use in our modules. Here is the code of this function which may >++ > be useful for your codes. An explanation for the use of this function is given >++ > as a remark lines ... >++ >++ This pop window code is primitive and not sufficient for the >++ requirements that todays customers demand. In todays world of >++ client server and GUI's, Informix-4gl code must be hoisted up >++ to new levels of sophistication. >++ >++ The Power-4gl package offers this kind of advanced user interface >++ including vertical cascading menus, sophisticated pick-lists (pop >++ windows), advanced report generation and more. > >Mr. Frantz, > >I suggest that you think before you write. Not only did you spam code >that was donated to the group, but then you went into a shameless >commercial for your own product. I would also like to point out to >you than this group is to share code and ideas, not your personal >commercial channel. I request that you respect the members of this >group and their individual contributions since, unlike you, the >articles they submit are for the benifit of the group and not to make >a buck. Jerry, ********************************************************************** WARNING TO NEWSGROUP MEMBERS: This response contains a moral diatribe which may be boring to you or otherwise harmful to your state of mind. It is a public response to a public attack. If you do not wish to read further, press the "N" key NOW - or click your mouse on "next message". If you read this and become offended, bored, or confused, it is your own fault, I will take no responsibility for your actions. If, however, you wish to be challenged - read on. Please send all personal attacks - or thanks - via private e-mail so as to avoid further contamination of this newsgroup. Thank you. ********************************************************************** "I suggest that you think before you write." I would have preferred to respond via private e-mail, but since you senselessly attacked Mr Frantz (whom I have never met nor communicated with) publicly, I feel compelled to respond publicly in his defense, knowing he will not be likely to do so. I took Mr Frantz's message as being an indication that there was an alternative available if the original pop window code turned out not to be good enough at any particular site. The fact that this code is commercial, instead of free, is not a reason to attack the author publicly. Further, you can say what you will about Mr Frantz's so-called "spamming" of another person's code, but - he happens to be *right.* I also appreciate the fact that Mr Frantz let me know about his product: I might require it. Code which is donated to the public domain should not be viewed as having any particular moral superiority simply because it was donated. I think it extremely odd that someone in the manufacturing business would object to another person trying "to make a buck", since business people should know, above all else, that making those bucks, e.g., *earning* them, is the only rational way to survive - the alternative being to take one's food, etc., by force (after some one *else* produces it). I realize this is not in the original spirit of the Internet, which upholds the irrational and unworkable idea that all ideas should be free and that no one should profit from his or her own efforts in any way. The kind of self-sacrificial ideas propagated by these so-called "free spirits" ignores the fact that one's effort is the only rational means one has of surviving, and that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). The taxpayers are certainly paying for the Internet, and the idea of making it more commercial, e.g., making it a pay-as-you-go system rather than one created and maintained at the point of a gun (taxes), is not merely a good idea, it is the only moral idea. I, for one, think the Internet should be completely commercial. (I'm ducking all the thrown rotten tomatoes and cabbages, but I stand by this statement.) Forcing John Q. Public to pay for something he may or may not ever want or need is not merely foolish - it is criminal. At least a mugger possesses some shred of honesty: his theft is obvious, above-ground, and does not rely on the victim's willing participation. I would like to add that I neither exist for, nor act for, the "benefit of the group", but rather that I exist and act for my own sake. I suspect Mr. Frantz is operating under the same principle; I hope he does. And so should you and everyone else. I sincerely hope not too many people are of the mind that this newsgroup is to be supported through mindless self-sacrifice and the drudgery of senseless duty. I suspect most people are putting their *traded* ideas in this newsgroup to work in their chosen professions - as you must be. This activity is classified as mutual trade to mutual benefit (dare I use the p-word - "profit"?) and must not be confused with self-sacrificial activity. The payment one should expect for posting one's knowledge here is that others post their knowledge, too. To consistently read this newsgroup without posting something useful is leeching of the lowest order, since no other payment is possible. Also: I find I was very properly respected by Mr Frantz, who let me, a professional consultant, know of an alternative to the freeware originally posted. Thank you, Mr. Frantz. May you prosper in your profession. Bill Williams +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: My views, opinions, etc., are not those of AT&T or | | or ATSI, Inc. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+