In message <4ebedb6892charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> charles <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In article <5c6fd9be4e.peter@xxxxxxxxxx>, > Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am I annoyed - yes. And I get to look like a big monster for pointing > > out serious problems that RISC OS has, but Paul looks like a hero for > > providing a flawed short-term fix that looks like (but isn't) the right > > thing to do. > > But the alternative is for people to get frustrated because they can't get > Firefox to work. This gives the whole porting project a bad name. Only because there's been so little effort put behind it, by anyone else. > And if it (Firefox) can't be made to function properly without a whole lot > more work being done, why bother to release it in the first place? This is a rhetorical question, right? It was released because it is usual to a number of people as it is. But yes, if the attitute is that mediocre, short-term fixes are ok for RISC OS, then I really cannot fight that, and there isn't much point doing anything. -- Peter Naulls - peter@xxxxxxxxxx | http://www.chocky.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content | http://www.riscos.info/ --- To alter your preferences or leave the group, visit //www.freelists.org/list/iyonix-support Other info via //www.freelists.org/webpage/iyonix-support