| |
FFS. |
| |
andrew (12:39 20/3/2007)
monkeyson2 (12:45 20/3/2007)
pnaulls (14:28 20/3/2007)
monkeyson2 (14:43 20/3/2007)
ksattic (15:31 20/3/2007)
pnaulls (16:02 20/3/2007)
pvigay (16:43 20/3/2007)
ksattic (16:56 20/3/2007)
pnaulls (19:17 20/3/2007)
CrazyRisc (18:10 20/3/2007)
moss (18:14 20/3/2007)
CrazyRisc (18:33 20/3/2007)
pnaulls (19:15 20/3/2007)
Chris (16:10 20/3/2007)
nunfetishist (15:50 20/3/2007)
|
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #100334, posted by andrew at 12:39, 20/3/2007 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
If the developers of Oregano 3 don't make announcements or even reply when asked about it then it seems the only other alternative is Netsurf.
[Edited by andrew at 12:39, 20/3/2007] |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #100335, posted by monkeyson2 at 12:45, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100334 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
If the developers of Oregano 3 don't make announcements or even reply when asked about it then it seems the only other alternative is Netsurf. Firefox is open source, so other developers can continue the work if they a) exist and b) want to. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #100344, posted by pnaulls at 14:28, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100335 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
They don't and they don't. AFAICT. This is part of the problem.
It is a stupid argument, yes. But that's again because what I've said has been quoted out of context on drobe so Chris can get his kicks.
Meanwhile, RISC OS has serious problems, of which Firefox is just a small part, and my objections to the actions in general have very little to do with Firefox, despite almost everyone's attempt to turn it that way. But it appears that much of the RISC OS community is in denial about that, and I've been at the butt of endless insults for even suggesting it is the case. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #100345, posted by monkeyson2 at 14:43, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100344 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
They don't and they don't. AFAICT. This is part of the problem. Well, some people might fit one or other of the categories, but not both. 
It is a stupid argument, yes. But that's again because what I've said has been quoted out of context on drobe so Chris can get his kicks. Care to set the record straight?
It seems to me that you threw in the towel when remarks became extremely personal, not because of the differences in opinion on stop-gap measures.
Meanwhile, RISC OS has serious problems, of which Firefox is just a small part, and my objections to the actions in general have very little to do with Firefox, despite almost everyone's attempt to turn it that way. But it appears that much of the RISC OS community is in denial about that, and I've been at the butt of endless insults for even suggesting it is the case. Objecting to the somebody's methods should be different to objecting to their intentions or the end goal.
There are all sorts of things being done with well meant intentions (such as PV's guide), but effort needs to be channelled appropriately.
RISC OS needs a vision, a roadmap and - vitally important - project management. Preferably from someone who isn't so entrenched in the community that they are biased or blinkered. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #100347, posted by ksattic at 15:31, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100345 |
 Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
Quoting Peter Naulls:
Perhaps what I'm most disappointed in is
that while I don't disapprove of the enthusiasm, it smacks of typical RISC OS "problem solving" attitude. That is, there is a very real problem with start up on some machines, but instructions listed here are just a superficial fix, which don't address the real problem - like so
much that happens with RISC OS. OK, what is this issue? Does anyone actually know? If anyone can point me to a description of the issue, I will gladly try to fix it properly.
This was my thought process upon installing Firefox 2:
1. Install using supplied instructions
2. Attempt to run, find that it doesn't work
3. Look for troubleshooting guide inside app (notice that it says "no support will be given")
4. Look for troubleshooting guide online (starting with riscos.info)
5. Ask on TIB
6. Get answer
7. Happy
8. Fast forward 3 months: see argument online (still can't find description of issue)
9. Unhappy |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #100348, posted by nunfetishist at 15:50, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100344 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 524
|
But that's again because what I've said has been quoted out of context on drobe so Chris can get his kicks. Actually, having read both, Chris's version casts you in a better light that your own postings on the Iyawnix list does. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #100349, posted by pnaulls at 16:02, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100345 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Care to set the record straight? I think you've already figured it out. It doesn't have very much to do with Firefox at all.
It seems to me that you threw in the towel when remarks became extremely personal, not because of the differences in opinion on stop-gap measures. Strictly speaking, that would have to be correct, since no one was willing at all to discuss the latter. However, doing any work where either attitudes are rife, seems a waste of time.
Objecting to the somebody's methods should be different to objecting to their intentions or the end goal. I'm not sure you can make such a generalisation. However, just what _were_ Paul's intentions and end goal. Paul generally just likes to ignore questions that are inconvenient.
There are all sorts of things being done with well meant intentions (such as PV's guide), but effort needs to be channelled appropriately.
RISC OS needs a vision, a roadmap and - vitally important - project management. Preferably from someone who isn't so entrenched in the community that they are biased or blinkered.
I don't agree with this 100%, but this is the most sense I've heard all day. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #100350, posted by Chris at 16:10, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100345 |
Member
Posts: 283
|
RISC OS needs a vision, a roadmap and - vitally important - project management. Preferably from someone who isn't so entrenched in the community that they are biased or blinkered. Let's hope RISC OS Open can provide this. The ROOL people seem to know what they're doing, and if they can start actually releasing stuff soon, I think a number of people will feel a bit more hopeful. I plan to donate/get involved if the scheme does ever get launched - I reckon others may feel the same way. As NetSurf shows, a little bit of community energy and some sensible planning can go a long way. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Paul Vigay |
Message #100353, posted by pvigay at 16:43, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100349 |
Posts: 200
|
However, just what _were_ Paul's intentions and end goal. Paul generally just likes to ignore questions that are inconvenient. I dislike the way you're trying to make out I had some hidden agenda here, or not answering questions.
As I said in the original thread, my intentions were merely to help out people who were obviously having difficulty getting Firefox2 running but would like to have seen it.
I had no agenda whatsoever. Indeed, I'd already got FF2 running successfully on my machine, so I could have just got on with my life and not done anything. However, I saw that lots of people were having problems and couldn't use FF2 - so I merely took a few minutes out of a busy day in order to write some brief 'get you going' instructions for the benefit of people who had no clue what the problem was.
I've no idea what's wrong internally with Firefox or indeed where to start with fixing it. As I've always said, my article was a quick hack for anyone who wanted to run FF2 and found they couldn't.
So, to sum up, my intentions and goal were to provide some small amount of help to a number of people who otherwise couldn't run FF2.
[Edited by pvigay at 16:44, 20/3/2007] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Wilson |
Message #100356, posted by ksattic at 16:56, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100353 |
Finally, an avatar!
Posts: 1291
|
It's clear that Paul had no hidden agenda and was merely trying to help users (like me) get FF2 running in the absence of other assistance.
Peter - can you please provide a pointer to a description of the basic problem that you have mentioned affects Firefox 2? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Allan Dawes |
Message #100364, posted by CrazyRisc at 18:10, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100353 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Why are we all complaining?? Just think what Bill Gates would be thinking if he was reading this. I found Paul's get around helpful in getting FireFox and Thunderbird working, as I'd not come accross any previous documentation. I do use NetSurf as my main web browser on RiscOS, but as it lacks a few bits here and there (mainly viewing Google maps), I use FireFox for it. It does take a little time to load in, but I can live with that.
I Would like Peter to continue work on the Firefox port, and the Thunderbird port (not only that but we can't keep loosing developers, otherwise Risc OS is going to look rather empty on the desktop), but I can imagine the work does leave little time for bug fixing, or trouble shooting, so if anyone does come across any 'fixes', then I think they should be free to add them to the community. It does not open up invite for picking holes in other peoples work, it simply helps the user get round a problem. Everyone has differnt modules installed, or in my case am still re-learing the ropes with Risc OS. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #100365, posted by moss at 18:14, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100364 |
Posts: 9348
|
Why are we all complaining?? Just think what Bill Gates would be thinking if he was reading this. This is my favourite thing I've ever read on here.
With the greatest of respect: do you really think he'd give a rats ass? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Allan Dawes |
Message #100369, posted by CrazyRisc at 18:33, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100365 |
Member
Posts: 9
|
Why are we all complaining?? Just think what Bill Gates would be thinking if he was reading this. This is my favourite thing I've ever read on here.
With the greatest of respect: do you really think he'd give a rats ass?
No, but then this might be his site for comady!! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #100373, posted by pnaulls at 19:15, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100353 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
However, just what _were_ Paul's intentions and end goal. Paul generally just likes to ignore questions that are inconvenient. I dislike the way you're trying to make out I had some hidden agenda here, or not answering questions.
I don't need to try and make it out. I can point to countless examples of where you've avoided questions that I've asked. Questions that underline the serious problems that RISC OS has. Questions that you generally just snip and avoid.
Don't worry, you're not alone in doing this, but I'll ask you one here again that you keep avoiding (I have plenty more, don't worry):
How would you father install Firefox? Or NetSurf?
As I said in the original thread, my intentions were merely to help out people who were obviously having difficulty getting Firefox2 running but would like to have seen it.
You've additionally not answered the question of why you made zero attempt to contact me in the first place. And you avoid point I made in response: have you helped anyone else - perhaps a few, in the short term. Have you made things worse - almost certainly. The workaround may have unknown more serious consequences, and does nothing to address fixing it properly - on any level.
I've no idea what's wrong internally with Firefox or indeed where to start with fixing it. As I've always said, my article was a quick hack for anyone who wanted to run FF2 and found they couldn't.
But once again, you _did_ try to fix it.
So, to sum up, my intentions and goal were to provide some small amount of help to a number of people who otherwise couldn't run FF2.
And in turn demonstrate how unwilling we are to avoid solving real problems. See the comment by guestx on drobe.
And once again, this is very little to do with Firefox, and everything to do with the attitude that is prevalant on the platform.
Are we willing to address serious application deficiences (a good start would be to even admit they exist), or just tinker and do what we feel like. If the latter, then my contribution to RISC OS is wasted. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #100374, posted by pnaulls at 19:17, 20/3/2007, in reply to message #100356 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
It's clear that Paul had no hidden agenda and was merely trying to help users (like me) get FF2 running in the absence of other assistance.
Peter - can you please provide a pointer to a description of the basic problem that you have mentioned affects Firefox 2? Not really, because I simply don't know. All I can say is that there is an issue with profile handling, possibly related to repeated attempts to migrate it. There are lots of reasons why I'm unwilling to endorse what Paul's done, but one of the most important is that I don't fully understand the details of the problem. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Another stupid argument, there. (via Drobe)
