On Monday 02 Jun 2003 11:31 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 17:48, Anne Wilson wrote: > Perhaps so...but I think the discussion here is concerning 9.1 more > than anything else, and I seem to remember you posting some > problems concerning that release. > > > > Plus, it > > > was faster. > > > > Not on my machine. 9.1 is the fastest by quite a bit. > > If you say so. Personally I don't completely trust a "by the seat > of your pants" estimation, which is why I use a stopwatch. This > tells me that there is alot of slowness in comparison to LM82.
I thought we were comparing it with 9.0. If I have misunderstood there, I apologise. 8.2 seems so long ago that I don't remember with any accuracy. I think startup time is longer with 9.1, but that isn't an issue on the scale that it would be in windows. Apart from that, I have no problems on this box. I have many problems on an old box that has it installed, but frankly, it would hardly be fair to blame Mandrake for that. The box is barely up to the task. > > It is most unfair to keep harping on this one. You were told > > openly that the decision to keep the separate interfaces was > > because the combined one was a nightmare to support. Do you > > really want something that is superficially what you want, but > > underneath a hopeless mess? I think not. > > Well, you should understand that the frontend and the backend are > not the same thing. There can be architectural changes underneath > (and have been) while keeping the user interface the same. This > dichotomy of architecture exists (or should exist) to save time and > effort, in other words to avoid exactly the scenario that you > describe. This discussion also has already taken place on the > Mandrakeclub voting forums which many here have not been privy to; > and may never see since they were put down. The synopsis of the > discussions was that there was nothing untoward about keeping the > UI while allowing the backend to evolve. So I tend to disagree > that this is not fair, especially in light of what I have already > pointed out about the voting process (and discussions) being > ignored in this regard. > I am aware that you and several others pushed this one hard, but I think that it is only reasonable that practicality is considered as well. > As far as fairness goes, I find it ironic that such a statement > would be leveled in my direction when a majority of Mandrake club > voters have already clearly stated their position Lyvim, I do not intend this as a personal attack. However, it seems to me that while Mandrake invite voting, they have a right, and even a duty, to say no to something that would cause problems in a future release, particularly when they tell you why it is so. Anne
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
