Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:28:24 -0500
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> 2008/10/28 Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>:
>> XavierGr wrote:
>>> will be rejected "on the shrine" of binsize and "the doctrine of
>> Can we please try to have this discussion without resorting to rhetoric and
>> terms like this?
> apparently not... 3 messages back from you agreed that it ALWAYS comes
> back to this.
You seem confused, as I was referring to the terms "on the shrine" and
"the doctrine of", trying to frame the ideas in ridicule and humor
rather than trying to hold a serious discussion.
> RAM size to target count:
> <2MB - currently 0, 2 "in the works"
> 2- 8MB - 7
> 16MB - 4
> 32+ - 16
> The old targets are holding us back. Most big features are #ifdefable
> out, and those that arntt, could be.
So we have 11 existing targets where RAM is, percentage wise,
significantly decreased and 16 where it's not. That's not an
> To the people that really claim they want battery performace above
> everything, mind posting your config? I assume you have the file and
> playlist max size right down? last.fm, dircache, ramcache, cuesheet
> (unless you actually have any) all disabled? Thats an easy way to
> reclaim 2MB (Tried it on my beast). Using your own custom build with
> unused features disabled?
Yes to everything but a custom build. If you want to talk custom builds,
add features to your custom build, but if I said I was using a custom
build you'd just say "well then you can ifdef out the new features
anyway" and you already know this is about the official Rockbox build,
> Why? since when should mature projects call it quits?
Where did I say "call it quits." I'm not saying we should be EXTRA
picky. I think it was VERY clear from what I said that I'm suggesting we
not LOWER our standards to increase the rate of feature inclusion.
Please don't try to re-frame my statements to your own end.
> CRT's could be considered very mature why
> bother upgrading the tech to LCD/Plasma?
This is a ridiculous argument. Tell how creating LCD TVs reduces the
ability of someone with a CRT TV to use their TV. You're talking about
telling people "we're upgrading Rockbox to lower your battery life."
Nobody's going into peoples' homes and shutting off features on their
CRT TVs so that other people have more electricity for their LCD TVs.
Honestly, if you're going to disagree with me, I'd appreciate you not go
off on silly tangents. The question of maturity was, again, in terms of
not *lowering* standards for the sake of an increased rate. Which is
what this whole discussion is about. You're saying we're too demanding
of new features. That our barrier of entry is too high.
Received on 2008-10-28