RE: And so it continues...

You said EGL is a mash-up of open source. You did not say EGL is an

integration of open source technologies. You used the word mash-up
inappropriately and then argued about it for five more posts.

Did you read the Wikipedia page? It has integration written all over it
Joe. EGL has open source (and open standard as has been pointed out, thanks
for the clarification) written all over it. I was simply offering up a
furthering (new word) of what was being described. I still consider EGL a
mash-up of open source (a good thing). Like you said, expert people, who
know what they are doing, reviewed some open source technologies and
appropriately integreated them for the benefit of their business to offer
data to their customers. That is a mash-up at it's best!

I don't feel any incorrect liberty was taken in my statements about EGL.

Hope that clarifies it for you,
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com



-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:09 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: And so it continues...

From: Aaron Bartell

I didn't change the term's definition. I said you can't have mash-ups
without integration of technologies.

You said:

EGL utilizes the following technologies to come up with an end result:
<snip>
How is that not a mash-up of open source?"

You said EGL is a mash-up of open source. You did not say EGL is an
integration of open source technologies. You used the word mash-up
inappropriately and then argued about it for five more posts.

This is exactly the sort of thing I want to stay away from. I am not going
to argue with you anymore about your use of words; I just wanted to point
out the specific activity that causes problems, at least in my opinion. If
everyone else is cool with it, I will be too. I just won't respond, and
Josh will be much happier <smile>.

Joe