dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: (was Re: BUGS - ARGH)

Re: (was Re: BUGS - ARGH)

From: Mat Holton <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:27:10 +0000

I agree that Daniel was out of order with his "back off" comment.
I don't see how that could have been taken any other way than offensive.
With regards to any other 'discussion' here, it is very important to NOT read between the lines
and take offense by words people type (let's face they don't say them, when one says something face to face
it is easier to read between the lines and gain more information than what is carried in the words alone)
BlueChip is obviously trying to help and it certainly appears to me that the help is being rejected, right down to
Daniel saying he won't reply to any more of BlueChips posts.

Oh dear, how can we expect the world to get along without wars when people on a bloody mailing list can't get on.
It makes me very sad.


-----Original Message-----From: BlueChip <>To: <>Sent: 18/12/2003 03:16Subject: Re: (was Re: BUGS - ARGH)>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

other developers.

..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 if I

hadn't bothered to read that first!

etc. etc.

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. 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.




"Life's just a mood ring we're not allowed to see."

 They Might Be Giants.


Surface Inspection Ltd
Received on 2003-12-18

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy