Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: (was Re: BUGS - ARGH)
From: BlueChip (cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net)
>what is it with you and picking fights with core developers?
I find it very disrespectful to ignore a direct question. So let me
enlighten you with accurate information, most of which can be verified in
the Rockbox archives.
If you want ALL of the story, and I'm sure you may...
You may first wish to consider that one the reasons (fwiw, my last of
several attempts) that the Othelo patches were not included was down to DS
who asked me to prepare the files in a specific way (which took me a
day-or-so to work out due to a lack of documentation on patch creation) and
send them to him so that he could help. ONE of us [BC/DS] held up their
end of the bargain, the other didn't.
Then you may like to read back over the original WAV support debate, where
every attempt I made to get the information was shot down by DS ...this is
not so much of an issue as one of the other core developers has since
apologised for his attitude to me at that time.
BEFORE I made my "bugs-argh" post - I confirmed as much as I could with two
...But as I had only JUST got the new dev kit working, I was concerned that
some of my findings MAY have been caused by my "botched together dev kit"
...the reason I chose the OFFICIAL RELEASE CODE to test the new dev kit,
was to ensure that any errors I found would NOT be the result of a daily
build slip-up. ...I was told (by DS) that my _confirmed_ errors were a
figment of my imagination, because I was the first to report them. When I
asked for confirmation of this, I was told quite simply to "back off"
...The next confirmed error (no MAS_3587 support in win32 sim) was equally
dismissed with the additional comment that DS had dismissed the report
without actually checking it first.
...When I asked for an idiot-proof (me being the idiot in this case) DIFF
instructions, I was directed to the docs page on the web site ...as if I
hadn't bothered to read that first!
So it would seem that, given ^those^ confirmable facts, your question
carried one very big error in presupposition. I have never started a fight
in my life - but when UNFAIRLY criticised, I WILL stand up for myself.
*Apparently* the problems go right back to when I joined (from a private
conversation with a "core" developer) ...There was much debate about memory
issues at that time, so I offered the service that I am best at, code
optimisation ...instead of "cool, thanks" it was taken as some kind of
criticism and I was tarnished as a trouble-maker from day one. And as we
all know, first impressions, even WRONG impressions, can only be shaken by
a certain class of people.
...in fact unless it has been changed since 2.1, we STILL, to this day,
have TWO random number generators compiled into Rockbox! And given the
clever shuffle-algorithm, I still think that the Twister is overkill ...but
as we no longer (since plugins) have memory issues, it's not really that
relevant any more ...and the Twister is quite a nifty rnd() :)
I have spent months obtaining hardware documentation for the "core"
developers which was allegedly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain - complete with
permission to use it. And I have spent weeks working on the new dev kit
with roland. And perhaps it is wrong of me, but when I take the time to
neatly format a bug report and ask for confirmation, I would like to be
taken seriously and not have my (confirmed) findings dismissed without ANY
As for your unfair comment about Bjo"rn ...Why you want trouble there is
beyond me - but in fairness, your agenda is your own.
I am sure that if you choose to shake the archives hard enough, the truth
will fall out. In the mean time, I hope you are enlightened by the above
information. And with respect to the newsgroup, perhaps you would address
further questions to me privately ...or not. It is your choice to make :)
>daniel sounded like he was trying to be helpful to me, but instead of
>answering his questions you
>chose to go on about how he (one of the people who's been with rockbox
>since the beginning) knew
>absolutely nothing about rockbox, and was "full of it."
>watch out björn, looks like you're next on his list.
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew