Issue 3. [Re: [ros-general] ROS-User-Issues]

Thanks Derek.
>   > Is this an issue worth pursuing? 
I take it
you are saying, no it is not an issue worth pursuing.

I'm interested if there might be an similar solid opinion regarding the other points
as well.

So from your explanation it sounds like a good thing i.e taking something which is well
grounded and building on it. Forward to perfection so to speak.

I must admit that I have not as yet had good results: It simply does not work on my stock
standard Thankpad 600E. [Please I am not asking for it either]. learning about it is the
way I work.

My fear has been that if I do ask a silly question then some clever so and so  will say:
Stop winging, take responsibility for your life, rfm and fix it.
Microsoft says: let us take responsibility for your life, rtm, and we promise in the next
update it will be fixed.

Is there no room for a simple ignorant user in the freeWorld of software?

Cheers and rosuccess

Justin

---- Derek Hinchliffe <dhinchliffe(a)mpl.com.au> wrote: 
> 
> Justin wrote:
> <snip>
> > Statements like ReactOS is still an Alpha release is not necessary.
> > Microsoft has made the eternal Alpha release it's fortune.
> > Now Red Hat has too, and most other Linux releases.
> > Copy Cat Industrialised production cannot be trusted.
> > I get mixed messages from ReactOS Users.
>   > Is this an issue worth pursuing? 
> 
> I don't think it is right to compare ReactOS stating that it is an alpha
> release to Microsoft and Redhat (or other Linux distro) releases.  Sure,
> there is undoubtably a history of Microsoft releasing software that it has
> been best to steer clear of until at least SP1, but I don't think you can
> say that ReactOS is anywhere near any previous Windows release in terms of
> functionality relevant to the average user.
> 
> And nobody at this stage can expect it to be, hence the 'alpha' releases. 
> I think maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Microsoft and Linux
> distros have made beta releases, rather than alpha.  Beta releases will
> generally contain the functionality expected, but may contain bugs in the
> way that functionality is implemented, whereas alpha releases are
> generally lacking in expected functionality.
> 
> So I believe it is correct to term ReactOS as 'Alpha' (and to make this
> clear to users, there is no point in hiding the truth) for the time being.
> People are then more likely to be impressed with the progress so far (as
> they should be) rather than disappointed because they expected a usable
> system.
> 
> Cheers
> Derek
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

jwalsh(a)bigpond.net.au wrote:
>   I take it you are saying, no it is not an issue worth
> pursuing.
>  
>  I'm interested if there might be an similar solid opinion regarding the other points
> as well.
>  
>  So from your explanation it sounds like a good thing i.e taking something which is well
> grounded and building on it. Forward to perfection so to speak.
>  
>  I must admit that I have not as yet had good results: It simply does not work on my stock
> standard Thankpad 600E. [Please I am not asking for it either]. learning about it is the
> way I work. 
I really wish i'd understand what you're trying to accomplish here at
all. I've read most of your posts and I just don't it. I don't think it
makes much sense spending time thinking/discussing about failed theories
or technologies that failed decades ago, we're not going to revive them
no matter how good they seem. There's a reason they're not used anymore.

Again, I wish i understood the purpose of all these threads here - and I
guess I'm not the only person.

- Thomas