Bluechip wrote:
> So you* confess to REPEATEDLY saying (ala) "you need to re-run
> configure" ...and getting upset When you* KNOW you* could say (ala)
> "type: ../tools/configure" ...and get positive results.

There is a slight difference here. If the user is used to running
"rbconf", he/she will be confused either way. He will not know what
"re-run configure" means, as all he knows is "rbconf". When presented
the solution "type ../tools/configure" he will think that this is some
new secret Rockbox magic that we never told him about.

Had he used "../tools/configure" from the start, he would probably put 2
and 2 together when we say "re-run configure" and do the right thing.

> The (clinical) term "self-deprecation" springs to mind :(

:-)

> Well. Every positive thing itemised in favour of The DevKit is
> stripped from your replies; solutions to problems are eschewed and we
> are nowhere near a balanced set of reasoning designed to manufacture
> an amicable solution.

Yes, I'm sorry about not commenting on the positive side of the devkit.
It did open a door for the less experienced users back when we didn't
have the cygwin packages.

> I really thought all this crap was over a loooong time ago. You now
> KNOW that my claims about legal incorporation of the WAV codec were
> valid

What does that have to do with anything? Besides, the WAV codec you are
talking about was never going to work, since it was made for a different
hardware solution. Also, you never showed us an official statement from
either Micronas nor Archos permitting us to use it.

> and the inferred 'ploy to undermine Rockbox' was an hallucination.

I don't know what youre talking about.

> Or are we just hanging on to the misplaced hostilities those things
> created such a long time ago in the past?

Why can't you have a technical discussion without making it personal?

Linus
Received on Sun Feb 12 11:27:21 2006