Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: CS DevKit
Re: CS DevKit
From: Linus Nielsen Feltzing <linus_at_haxx.se>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:25:16 +0100
> 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
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?
Received on 2006-02-12