Talk:The OS/2 API Project: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:02, 5 December 2017

Martini (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2017 (CET) Andreas, where did you move all the "OS/2 Ported APIs" table?

Martini (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2017 (CET) I found this KLIBC Ports it is very sad that you deleted my table for this page. I'm switching it back. Let me know if you don't like it so I will protect this page.

Martini (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (CET) Andreas, I don't like what you did to this page. I will be reverting the changes and protecting this page since you don't seems to understand that this page is a quick view of the APIs that are available for the OS/2 platform. When you separate the pages you are making it harder for developers to know which APIs can be used on OS/2. You also created categorized pages to separate this page which I think it is not right.

Unfortunately this page makes wrong claims. First there is written "This are the APIs included on the IBM's OS/2 Warp product." And then follows a table that contains also stuff that is definitely NOT included. Again I destroyed nothing, You removed my corrective edits without discussion. I concentrated first on the content to be right, the next step to create a template for better formatting is now no longer possible for me. It's sad that you also removed my fixes of wrong spelling. You are making it harder by inventing APIs that are simply not existing or introducing programming language specific stuff to this area. And much worse compiler specific and library specific things like this kLIBC halfbaked ports. The categories should help to maintain everything in a more effective way and preventing name space problems (that were introduced by your clueless usage of ":"). --ak120 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2017 (CET)

Too bad Andreas that you are not able to communicate in an educated matter. You are free to spin off your own page. This page will be protected for the moment. Martini (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2017 (CET)

I cannot realise your "educated matter". What does your communication mean - answering after nine months? What does a German oak care about?--ak120 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2017 (CET)

See Andreas,you are doing it again. Why instead of complaining about the nine months don't you just list what needs to be fixed? You enjoy too much correcting people and getting into nonsense discussion with your "over the shoulder" and/or sarcastic arguments, that is just so wrong. Please Andreas try to cool off. 20:21, 4 December 2017 (CET)

Unfortunately I already mentioned the parts which need a major rework or at least some kind of clarification. Perhaps the first step would be to narrow the scope to "OS/2 API". It should not stand for "abbreviated potpourri inside". Everything that makes use of a libraries (that interface with the OS/2 API itself) should be branched out - because it's creating to much bloat here and leads to confusion. It's not an enjoyment to write all the time about almost the same simple principles. My main objective is an improvement of range and vigour. As the adminstration of this side keeps all statistical data secret I can only use available public services for optimisation tasks. It's uninteresting for potential readers to see in every second page the same copy-pasted stuff that proves almost everytime wrong after closer investigation. Search engines use similar models for the ranking mechanism. Can you still follow?--ak120 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (CET)

I think you should try your own idea fork of this page:

I'm trying to document all OS/2 related APIs that are available. Not only the "IBM Brand OS/2 API", and I have it separated in three se4ctions on the page. I don't think that what is it not IBM's should be branched out.
I don't think that the page is bloated nor creates confusion. I notice that you don't like tables on wiki pages, I have a different opinion.
Can you put an example of the "same copy-pasted stuff that proves almost every time wrong after closer investigation" ?
I don't understand what secret information do you require? I don't think that you need to optimize every nanosecond of loading page time if the user will not notice any difference.

Martini (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2017 (CET)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Unfortunately I already mentioned the parts which need a major rework or at least some kind of clarification. Perhaps the first step would be to narrow the scope to "OS/2 API". It should not stand for "abbreviated potpourri inside". Everything that makes use of a libraries (that interface with the OS/2 API itself) should be branched out - because it's creating to much bloat here and leads to confusion. It's not an enjoyment to write all the time about almost the same simple principles. My main objective is an improvement of range and vigour. As the adminstration of this side keeps all statistical data secret I can only use available public services for optimisation tasks. It's uninteresting for potential readers to see in every second page the same copy-pasted stuff that proves almost everytime wrong after closer investigation. Search engines use similar models for the ranking mechanism. Can you still follow?--[[User:Ak120|ak120]] ([[User talk:Ak120|talk]]) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (CET)
+I think you should try your own idea fork of this page:
+* I'm trying to document all OS/2 related APIs that are available. Not only the "IBM Brand OS/2 API", and I have it separated in three se4ctions on the page. I don't think that what is it not IBM's should be branched out.
+* I don't think that the page is bloated nor creates confusion. I notice that you don't like tables on wiki pages, I have a different opinion.
+* Can you put an example of the "same copy-pasted stuff that proves almost every time wrong after closer investigation" ?
+* I don't understand what secret information do you require? I don't think that you need to optimize every nanosecond of loading page time if the user will not notice any difference.
+[[User:Martini|Martini]] ([[User talk:Martini|talk]]) 01:02, 5 December 2017 (CET)