RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Meeting - Summary online

> From: Bertrand Mansion [mailto:bmansion@mamasam.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:08 AM > <paj@pearfr.org> wrote : > > > On Fri, 16 May 2003 23:22:37 +0200 > > Bertrand Mansion <bmansion@mamasam.com> wrote: > > > >> <paj@pearfr.org> wrote : > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> The PEAR meeting summary is now online. Please find it at: > >>> > >>> http://pear.php.net/news/meeting-2003-summary.php > >> > >> I don't agree at all with the statement : Macosx is not a widely used > > > > You do not have to agree or not. This is a summary of the meeting, where > > you were. > > Indeed I was there, and we never came to the conclusion that Macosx was > not > a widely used platform, this statement comes direct out of your > imagination, > just like the one about ITX vs Sigma that was NOT discussed at the meeting > but that you introduced in your summary because you just can't accept the > situation. Actually both of these points were written by me. Regarding Mac OS X: As to the first we did not have a formal vote on this. I know that you had a different opinion on this issue. However most of the others felt differently, including George who even is a Mac user. He pointed out that support should be quite decent still thanks to the fact that *BSD is labelled as a target platform. Solaris was not that much disputed iirc. However Derick (who is in a good position to know) said it’s a widely used platform. Regarding ITX-Sigma: We did not have a detailed discussion of this. However there were even some direct references to this being a good example of where a PEAR Group might have prevented greater harm. I know that George touched upon it briefly and I am very sure that I actually explicitly mentioned it as well. The example itself was mostly a cut and paste from a comment from Wolfram who commented on the prelease version (see below). Actually I am very embarrassed because I send most people who attended physically a copy beforehand. However I was really swamped this week with work (same goes for Pierre) that we even had a hard time to get this done, so I did not take that much care in making sure that everybody (actually I think I only got about 60% of the attendees) got a prelease version of the summary to prevent these kinds of confusions. I hope you accept my apologies. Finally we mostly worked off our memories here as we don’t yet have the audio feed to double check. If you still feel we incorrectly portrait parts of the meeting please send a patch. Regards, Lukas