On 8/25/2010 9:57 PM, Jasper Horn wrote:
> KHMan wrote:
> [snip snip]
>> Talk along the lines of "losing users over not having a proper
>> installer" or "should provide a proper installer" seems like
>> really a selfish and shallow attitude. We all know there are 1001
>> things that can be done, no need for a genius to point out and
>> repeat things ad nauseam.
>
> The shallow attitude is saying that, while when someone makes an
> installer, the reaction is that they can't talk about it on this
> mailing list...
FWIW, Andy Koppe's mintty is moving along nicely, so it's not like
there is a brick wall.
Any out-of-the-blue contributor must be prepared to be rejected
out of hand. I think that's reasonable to expect.
Any contributed code is going to have to be maintained for the
very long term, so I side with the maintainers. Those unhappy can
try to maintain a project steadily for 10 years, answer all those
user queries, and see if they are up to it.
No installer is going to please everyone -- there are many
habitual ways of doing things -- e.g. I like "unzip and run, if
not delete the whole directory" myself. The upcoming installer
seems reasonable to me, and since I'm not paying for it, I can
make a reasonable adjustment of habit -- just keep some notes.
It's not perfect. Or, it will be perfect for some people and not
for others. But something else will be perfect for a different
group of people. For everyone to be pleased -- that is impossible.
Given the culture differences, people with CLI or Unix experience
is likely to be more pleased.
Given the heritage of gcc, I think MinGW is right to deal with
tools and a minimum of GUI. The demands of GUI and IDE (and there
will be tons of newbies) means that those strongly in favour of
such things should try to distribute their own packaged version --
and try doing that for 10 years.
>[snip]
>> Start thinking about how you can move things along in a
>> constructive way. So please consider contributing effort or
>> contributing greenbacks.
>
> I'm sorry you feel is not a constructive way. If you would rather not
> have me not start a discussion like this one, just tell me so. I do,
> however, consider this discussion rather valuable.
I've been seeing "want this, want that" or "do this, do that"
postings since forever. Too many people is treating MinGW like a
product and wishing for better "customer service". Remember that
MinGW is always high on the SF popularity list.
Put it another way, here's an example: Discussions about terminal
programs regularly erupt and have been so for years, but in the
end, someone working steadily and quietly is likely going to
deliver to us users a more modern terminal program.
Talk is fine, but remember, ultimately it is just talk.
Unless there is time and manpower, there is no movement.
There is no magic wand that can help with this bottleneck.
Discussions, yes, but users should not expect that those with
manpower are obliged to bend in your direction.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
