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

  • From: Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: iyonix-support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:53:24 -0800

In message <4ec2e33c7blists-nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
          Paul Vigay <lists-nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <f705b6c24e.peter@xxxxxxxxxx>,
>    Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > very little money.   But if I'm going to be undermined because Paul Vigay
> > or anyone else can't be arsed to make any effort to cooperate and be
> > contempt with half-arsed and mediocre measures, then there really isn't
> > much point, and the decision for RISC OS to remain a backwards OS has
> > already been made.
> 
> Now hang on a minute! I take offence at that comment (and I also take
> offence at being blackmailed - for anyone who doesn't know, Peter has now
> privately emailed me insisting that I remove my article on getting Firefox
> working!).

Take all the offence you want, but I'll take plenty more, for you
accusing me of blackmailing you, and misstated what I really said, in a
typically over-the-top dramatic Paul Vigay way.  What I _actually_ asked
is for you to remove the page, for all the reasons I already stated,
unless you are willing to take over support or development - since it
seems you are completely unwilling to cooperate on the matter, there is
little point in me trying to do anything.

> I am not a developer of your calibre, and I've no idea where to start on
> fixing problems in Firefox.

But Paul, *again*, that is precisely what you're trying to do.

> I don't even have the equipment needed to compile it - as you've
> insisted in the past that I should buy another (Linux) machine in
> order to compile stuff.

Again, I'll take dramatic offence at having been misquoted for effect.
I've said no such thing.  You _do_ have equipment needed to compile it,
as has been noted when the issue has been raised on several occasions,
but you were so busy climbing on your RISC OS high-horse that you
weren't interested in the answer.  I've made no such insistence that you
buy any Linux machine, especially since the answer was to use your Mac.

> I can't see what's so wrong about using my Iyonix and Castle C
> compiler!

This too has been explained to you at length.  RISC OS is completely
unsuitable for compiling it natively.

> By repeatedly refusing to offer help or explain why things do wrong, a
> large number of people are denied from using your otherwise useful Firefox2
> port. Would you rather a quick 'bodge' which lets people try it out? or
> just deny people the ability to use it, 
You're twisting things.  No, I very much *wouldn't* prefer a quick
bodge, because of the large potential to cause major problems later.

> which kind of defeats the object of porting it in the first place if
> people subsequently can't use it anyway.

It doesn't, since many people _are_ able to use it without the bodge.
The number of people your page really helps is probably quite small.

> I've no idea what you're wanting people to do. I'd love to help develop
> Firefox and/or help solve the underlying issues, but I don't have that kind
> of experience when when you won't even answer simple questions.

Again, you're making things up.  I, and the other GCCSDK developers have
answered any length (including questions from you) questions about GCC,
UnixLib and porting.  We're happy to answer even more, in the
appropriate forum.

> To be honest, with your current attitude, I don't have the inclination
> to learn -

My "current attitude" is no different to what it always has been - doing
things properly, instead of half-arsed solutions.  And let me correct
another fiction of yours - this isn't at _all_ limited to Firefox - all
the programs are interelated, and very often improvements from porting
of small programs help many others.

> especially when I'm extremely busy with other development work.

Ah yes, I've been waiting for this half-arsed excuse.  This returns us
to the original point.  Short-term fixes _always_ cause more time in the
long run.  They'll do nothing to address how busy you are, and
ultimately make things worse.

> If you're disappointed at people's lack of development skills, then I could
> say that I'm gravely disappointed by your apparent lack of 'people skills'.
> It would save *much* more time by explaining things in a less
> confrontational manner rather than going off onto a rant because your
> idealistic view of RISC OS development isn't being adhered to.

Firstly, as you well know, in the past I have written extensively on
RISC OS topics to dispell nonsense written by various in the RISC OS
community - including yourself.   Secondly, if your own "people skills"
are so fantastic, why is it that you made no attempt to contact me in
the first place?

> I'll ask one last time.

You haven't asked this a first time.

> If I remove my article (as you want me to), then how does that help
> Iyonix users who wish to run your firefox port but are met with
> multiple errors on start-up, and with a lack of documentation supplied
> with it? Are you going to provide a solution or detailed instructions
> as to how people can actually run Firefox for the first time?

That depends upon there being a serious attitude change from _you_
towards solving RISC OS problems.  Let me ask you a question - what
happens when you father wants to install a piece of software on his
machine.   Yes, I think I know - you go over there personally and do all
the fiddly bits for him.  But no, really, shouldn't it be easy - he can
click on a piece of software and it installs and just runs.  You don't
point him at "detailed instructions", since that simply isn't what he
wants or needs, and would probably make things worse.

And other question, when are you going to admit that there are serious
failings in the RISC OS application space?

> And no, package managers won't help with default choices. That's not the
> job of a package manager. A correctly written application should either
> startup without any required default choices, or it should ideally just
> create it's own set of default choices.

"its".

I'm afraid you do not understand packaging fully.  It is imperitive that
package managers cooperate fully with configuration programs, so as to
handle them properly during upgrades.  Many programs *do* for various
reasons, supply their own default configuration.  So this is pretty
specious, and not really relevant.

> This will be my last posting on this thread because it's now becoming
> increasingly difficult to communicate with you rationally on this topic.

I think the accusations of lack of rationality should go to the person
who insisted the only thing wrong with his RISC OS 5 machine was the
behaviour of the backspace key.



-- 
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 http://www.freelists.org/list/iyonix-support
Other info via http://www.freelists.org/webpage/iyonix-support

Other related posts: