|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: unable to get latest version of rockbox to work on old V1Re: 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 template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |