[iyonix-support] Re: Problem installing Firefox-2-r2

  • From: Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: iyonix-support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:04:11 -0800

In message <gemini.jefrk400b0vw5006s.druck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
          "David J. Ruck" <druck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is not a general discussion forum. Please can we move any debates on
> the merits of documentation to csa.apps.
> Please keep this list for issues directly relating to Iyonix hardware or
> the RISC OS 5 operating system, AND NOTHING ELSE.

While it's not like me to buck such things, this discussion (a) has a
great deal to do with this list, (b) is largely devoid of the trolls who
would undermine such conversations on other forums (c) is far more on
topic than some of the junk that appears here and (d) Iyonix owners have
been by far the biggest supports of my developments with their
commitments to the future of RISC OS (with apologies to those who've
purchased an A9).  So, I will reply here.

In message <4ebeddcac4lists-nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
          Paul Vigay <lists-nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <5c6fd9be4e.peter@xxxxxxxxxx>,
>    Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [Snip]
> > Instead now we have documentation which has been made seperately from the
> > developer, contains inaccuraries, is likely to become out of date (for
> > the bits which are correct), and only adds to the general confusion. 
> > Another own goal for RISC OS.   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.
> I still don't understand what you're getting at!

No, of course not.  Historically, you snip things and avoid questions
that you don't like or don't have hand-waving answers to.  If you don't
have an answer to something that's been asked of you, I would much
prefer to that admitted you don't know.

> Please be clearer as to what's incorrect about my article and I can amend
> it accordingly if necessary.

Why bother?  You're determined to pursue this path, whereby you have an
article that is unhelpful, and only you can update.  Pointing out the
mistakes completely misses the point.

> You really ought to learn to write more succinctly, without going into a
> rant, about which I have no clue.

Then ask, don't dismiss things.

> Anyway, this is getting more and more off topic for Iyonix support so I'd
> suggest taking it to csa.apps or private email - something I'd have thought
> you might have done anyway if you had a problem with anything I wrote!

It's ironic that you made no attempt to coordinate efforts with me
_before_ you posted this.   In the meantime, someone _has_ made a rather
more accurate version on my Wiki, and so we once again have a situation
because of your actions, where we have duplicated information on
riscos.info and riscos.org.     Meanwhile, I've been attributed with
things I didn't say on drobe, in an attempt to stir the pot with this

> I may be fairly technically literate when it comes to RISC OS but I'm
> certainly not in the same league as Peter and I wouldn't know the first
> place to look to start solving Firefox issues! :-(

But Paul, that is _precisely_ what you attempted to do.

In message <4ebede7bcfalan_calder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Alan Calder <alan_calder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I can't for the life of me see why Paul should get it in the neck for
> trying to gather some of these together in one accessible place.

Because, once again, it is a superficial short-term fix, which was done
without coordination from me, fails to make an attempt to attempt to
address the underlying problem, and is the epitome of the "problem
solving" attitude that RISC OS has suffered from, and made it so
difficult for RISC OS developers to do anything at all.

> > None of what you've done solves the underlying problem - which would
> > avoid having the need to have such instructions in the _first_ place.
> But why should *users* have to 'solve the underlying problem'  before they
> are permitted to use the program?

I never said that.  Don't attribute meaning where I didn't make it.

> If there are inaccuracies then they should be corrected.  I am sure Paul
> would be happy to do so.

Even if this were the point, My experience with Paul at this simply
isn't the case.

In message <3d4cdebe4e.HzN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Iyonix.2006a@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I guess most users agree with you that a real fix would be nice. But
> until that happens by what do you expect to happen?

Probably nothing, except opinions from armchair experts.  At this point,
all real RISC OS developments have all by gone out the window.

> Peter, may I suggest that you simply offer a small update for FF 2 r2
> which includes default choices and a small addition to the !Run file
> which copies the default choices to Choices.Mozilla.Firefox if they are
> not there. Or, simply be happy for the help from others and add a link
> to Pauls website to your FF pages.

Then you've missed my point.  No, I won't offer such a download, because
it is not a fix.  As I said earlier, such things always, *always* cause
more headaches later on.

> Please note: It would have been less work for you to do just that
> instead of doing your postings in this thread... 

...except it wouldn't be.  But if we're talking about wasting time, I
could point to dozens and dozens of things I've mentioned over the years
that would have saved months of effort, or avoided considerable
frustration from users.   One of those is obviously proper packaging,
but there are many more.


And if it's still incredibly unclear what I'm talking about, allow me to
remind you of some fantastic examples of avoiding solving the real
problem, and patching over it that have occured in RISC OS:

* The endless hacking of !HForm, to fit with various IDE and SCSI
  interfaces, which even in the simplest of cases, has problems with
  geometry of even standard drives.  In this case, a generic, extensible
  universal formatter would be much much better.

* The mess that is CDFS/SCSI/USB/IDE/ATAPI on RISC OS, where drivers are
  hacked up at need to work "well enough" with a given piece of

* As above, but for filers that fit over filesystems.

* A Mimetype editor, where the _real_ problem was simply the need
  for everyone to have an up to date mimemap, and few if any people
  would want to edit or, or need to.  Again, addressed by packaging.

* The endless sites containing links to RISC OS programs which
  quickly become outdated, require vast amounts of manual effort
  to keep updated, and often contain gaping holes. riscos.org
  is just one of the obvious examples.

* Two competing USB standards, which resulted from ultimately,
  can only be characterised as selfish reasons on the part of
  both Castle and Simtec/ROL.

And finally, what was apparently one of the most important applications
for RISC OS users to have (i.e, a comprenehsive browser), but for which
development was underfunded, largely only done by just one person,
despite extensive efforts to make it *very* easy for other developers to
get involved with it and related technologies (i.e. smaller programs)
and now is being underminded by a separate uncoordinated efforts purely
for selfish short-term gain.  So yes, I will cry foul.  Unless of course
the consensus really is that RISC OS should continue to be a mediocre,
problem-riddled and very niche platform.  

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

Other related posts: