Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: unable to get latest version of rockbox to work on old V1

Re: unable to get latest version of rockbox to work on old V1

From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:13 -0500

Tom Cole wrote:
>
>> Nobody expects him to have to jump through those kinds of hoops. The
>> software is simply made available. You can use it or not, at your
>> choosing. It's not like you're paying for it.
>>
>
> If you had read the previous posts in this thread you would have seen
> that Dominik Wenger was expecting John Covici (a blind user) to
> re-generate the voice file with different Lame parameters and report
> back. My comments were in relation to this.
>
He wasn't "expected" to. He was told that he *could*. There is a
significant difference between these two descriptions of the events.

> It's good to see that you are back in attack mode, Paul.
>
>
Yes, well, I can't abide assholes, and you sir were acting like one. You
didn't try to help, you criticized people who did, and you complained
about people giving you something for free because it they didn't have
enough time to do something you weren't willing to do yourself. The
instant you start contributing, at all, maybe I'll show you a shred of
respect.

Unlike previous things, this was an attack. You've acted like an
entitled asshole, and I have no qualms about saying it.
>
> The 'release' for the Archos consists of 3 downloadable files. One of
> these is the manual, the other two are software. I think it is
> reasonable to expect that the two software files should work together.
>
The voice file is not software. At least no more so than the manual is.
It's no more software than an MP3 on your player is. If you're going to
try to be whiny, at least get your terms straight.

> I don't use version 3.4. If your views are the views of the developers
> and version 3.4 releaser(s), then I'm not happy with the process.
My views are mine alone. And I couldn't care less if you're not happy
with the process since you aren't willing to contribute to help improve
it other than to whine about it.
> As a
> retired software developer myself, I am surprised that the releaser(s)
> (volunteers or not) are satisfied with their performance on this.
>
>
>
Nobody said they were satisfied. Clearly nobody thinks that it's a
*good* state to be in. But there's also no magic way that everything can
be caught with scheduled releases. Seriously, help out or stop acting
like a jerk. You could be trying this instead of rattling on about the
unfairness of the "expectation" that a blind user do it. But you're not
helping, and you're complaining about a person who did help by offering
advice on how we can work toward getting the problem done (Dominik).
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Unsubscribe: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
>> FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ
>> Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.html
>>
>
> I *do* wish that someone would change the mailing list software to
> include the correct signature delimiter line of "-- " (dash dash space)
> prior to this signature that is appended to our posts. It's Mailing List
> 101.
>
Signatures are often hidden automatically. I imagine these links are
actually expected to actually be read.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ
Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2009-09-30


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa