Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: GUI
From: Dave Hooper <dave_at_beermex.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:52:05 -0000
>> If we're *not* confident that we've
>> succeeded with this, then we should look to make improvements. That
>> mean borrowing some ideas from elsewhere, but the driving force should
>> be "let's make it work more like X", it should be "let's improve RB; what
>> are the superior ideas?"
>> So, I'd say that if that's what we're doing here, then fine. But if
>> just trying to placate refugees from inferior products who don't want to
>> "learn the local language", then we'd be better served by concentrating
>> our efforts elsewhere.
> Very well said, Ray! I totally agree.
Yes. That is what I was trying to say. IMO, the iriver firmware had some
"superior ideas", (even though in the most part it is obviously less
superior too rockbox), and that these should be considered. I was *not*
suggesting, however, that *everyone* will have the same opinion of what is
superior: am I right in thinking that you would prefer rockbox to adopt
"the one single most superior solution" for every aspect, and not cater to
users whose opinion might differ over what is, actually, superior or not?
Received on 2006-03-08