From: Zakk Roberts <midkay_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 23:27:59 -0700

Very well said, Paul.

I was originally in the "let's just get this out of the way so we can
end the freeze" boat, but I've almost completely changed my mind. I
think that either the H300 should remain unsupported, or the issue
fixed - as Paul put it, people consider 3.0 "working how it should",
and when they realize that's not the way they want it to work, they're
gone.

I'll personally try to get things cleaned up on the bug and possibly
feature-request trackers tonight, and fix a couple bugs if I have the
time - I'd like 3.0 to be released ASAP, but I agree that it's not
quite at the 'ready' stage at this point. If all I can really do is
fix some minor stuff, that's what I'll do. :)

Is there any update on the release date? We've already overshot the
4th anniversary of Rockbox 1.0. :( (BTW, I think an announcement on
the front page about the 4th anniversary would be cool.)

On 6/1/06, Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to state that the intent of my message was not to imply that
> users are lazy, stupid, or incapable. Simply that they are users.
>
> When something is stated as "released" it is a stamp saying "this works how
> it is supposed to." It gives the user the implication that everything is
> functioning as it should, or as reasonably close as feasible. With something
> like freezes, a user will instantly realize either they're doing something
> wrong, or something wrong is with the software, and seek answers. If you
> tell them something is 'released' and it halves the battery life of their
> player, the simple assumption is 'this software draws more power'. It's
> Occam's Razor. It may be incorrect in this case, but the majority of users
> will make that assumption. In fact it's not a stupid one at all, really, but
> it's one that we don't want to be made.
>
> I just wanted to clarify that the mentioned view of users is definitely not
> why I feel the way I do. People will trust us when we release it, and to
> give them something like that is a betrayal of their trust. I mean, it's
> clearly possible to put it in large red letters on the download page, or
> something else, but users can also get it from their friends, or a direct
> link in the forum, or somewhere else entirely. We can't control the
> circumstances under which they receive the software, and as much as we'd
> like to try, we can't guarantee that they receive the proper documentation
> with it, or even know that the resources at rockbox.org exist. But we can
> avoid putting our stamp of approval on what is essentially an unfinished
> project.
>
>
> On 6/1/06, Jonathan Corbet <corbet_at_lwn.net> wrote:
> > Andrew Hart <ahart_at_dim.uchile.cl> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments below concerning the typical
> > > user who is too lazy, stupid or incapable of taking five minutes to read
> > > the release notes.
> >
> > Wow. Is that really how this project views its users? That will put
> > off more people than the battery life issue ever could.
> >
> > I guess I would counter that users who cannot be bothered to read the
> > written materials will never succeed in installing the bootloader, and
> > thus will not be affected by the battery life problem. For the rest, a
> > prominent note in the installation instructions should be a sufficient
> > word to the wise.
> >
> > I still think that H3xx Rockbox is an improvement over the stock
> > firmware in enough ways that it is worth making generally available. If
> > the project would rather leave it out of the 3.0 release, it's not a
> > huge deal, though; as has been pointed out, those of us who want it can
> > still find it.
> >
> > jon
> >
>
>

-- 
- Zakk
midkay_at_gmail.com

Received on 2006-06-03