On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 20:15, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: > On Wed 2003-02-12 at 17:54:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 16:52, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: > [...] > > > I wonder how often you change your sources, if you need to keep it > > > open... > > > > The point is that version 1.4 had all four neatly integrated into one > > very usable interface. Therefore all was available if you needed it. > > No, the point is you exaggerated when you claimed that you *have*
Boy you are some kind of arrogant, arent you? Why in the hell are you trying to tell *me* what MY point is? I know full well what I was saying, and I know you don't give a rat's damn about it. So don't try to restate *my* point; you keep your restatements of anything restricted to what you know, which is YOUR OWN sh*t. > to > keep *all four* open. Yes, it may have been easier to switch between > them before, I never said otherwise. But it is not as bad as you > described, because there is no reasonable need to use all four at the > same time. And this was my original statement, which I'm requoting here to keep you from bastardizing it any further: > In LM91 beta 3, to duplicate the functionality of one LM82 Rpmdrake UI > instance, you must activate all four icon instances of rpmdrake listed > in MCC. Then you end up with four seperate windows, each one of which > looks identical to the other one except for the title bars. It's > absurd." Again---- "To duplicate the functionality of one LM82 Rpmdrake UI instance". As you are completely aware, this was nothing less than a demonstration to compare the abilities of rpmdrake 1.4 UI to the absurdity of rpmdrake UI in 9.0/9.1. It was never put forth as standard operating procedure; this is merely your blatant attempt to obfuscate and bastardize the primary point. > That was my point: Please keep to the facts if you must rant. > > > > > Now try running the "new and improved" rpmdrake from an Eterm. > > > > It puts you into "software packages installation" mode. Can you > > > > affect what mode you want it to go into? Not according to > > > > rpmdrake --help. There is not a method listed to do so. > > > > > > That's because they are four different programs. You don't expect to > > > find "rmdir" when you type "mkdir --help" do you? > > > > Unfortunately the point continues to escape you, > > No. I just have a habit to answer to the point at hand. > Your habit is to obfuscate and diffuse the discussion with fluff that has nothing to do with the main point. > > which is that all this functionality was inherent in rpmdrake > > version 1.4. > > What has that to do with what you said above? You were complaining > that rpmdrake --help does not show what you want and I explained why > it doesn't. End of story. > Well, here's another place where you miss the forest for the trees; again, as usual. I don't *care* about the why, since it was nothing more than a demonstration; I never asked; what you submitted is what I call off topic unsolicited advice; and again the point is that the UI is inferior to what was available in rpmdrake 4.1. If you want to submit a 400 page code analysis of the butchered rpmdrake 2.X, feel free to go right ahead, but I suggest you do it in another thread where you might actually be making a point for a change. Looks like you need *some* kind of change. > Yes, the interface has changed. Tough. > > [...] > > Because you don't NEED mcc to start a GUI program. You don't NEED four > > seperate UI's to handle what was once done in a single UI quite well. > > > > Now, in 9.1, you are *forced* to do this. > > I didn't intend to discuss the merits of the new interface (I even > said so before) and so I won't start now. Of COURSE you won't. Why in the WORLD would you be interested in the actual point of this thread, since you've shown zero competence in doing so up to now? > I just wrote to correct some > facts that were presented, well, not completely right. In my opinion you wrote merely to muddy the water and deflect the issue from the main point, which happens to be the suck level of the new UI. > > Maybe so and maybe not. > > Read the archive and you can save the "maybe" for yourself. > > Apparently you don't care. And definitely I can state the same for you; the difference is that with me I'm stating a fact. > > > But in any case there are two certainties: > > > > (1) The people's voice *will* be heard on the Club's RPM Voting page. > > > > (2) Rpmdrake 1.4 has progressed to 50 votes from 47 in the time that we > > have been writing to this thread this afternoon. It is now on page 2 > > out of 10, moving up fast, and *still* has not lost it's rank as a "new" > > entry. > > Yeah, that won't change that you cannot have 1.4 back for technical > reasons. Same as if its source had been burned. Wow. What 10,000 goats were sacrificed to make you a god? The topic is the rpmdrake 1.4 UI. Not it's entirety. The entirety of 1.4 NEVER WAS the point. By the same token, the UI of rpmdrake 2.x is also the point; not it's totality. > > If you want to propagate to change the interface for rpmdrake 2, > that's a different story and you should start make constuctive critism > on the cooker list. > > > > [1] You are on the cooker list since at least October... Even if you > > > had no opportunity to read the discussion about rpmdrake, you > > > should know where to look for it by now. > > > > Any cooker discussion concerning the rpmdrake UI is nonrelevant to > > my personal opinion of it's UI performance, or for that matter any > > other person's personal opinion of the same. > > Did I say anything like that? Wow, you like to read between lines, do > you? Yes, let's talk about reading between the lines. Where in this thread have I asked you for your opinion regarding the relevance of the cooker list to the user opinions that this rpmdrake UI is inferior to the LM82 one? Nowhere; you projected it for reasons of detracting from the main topic. You couch yourself in seemingly innocuous terms yet your aim is transparent; and that is to dilute the point of this discussion. As far as I am concerned you are the "between the lines" Broadcast King, and in your off time you cross dress as the Drag Queen of pointlessness. > My point was that you could have informed yourself before > starting a rant that makes it sound as if you were completely suprised > by the change. > > I never said it should influence your opinion, Then why bring it up, unless you are just being totally pointless? The real topic here is the UI; not the engine behind it. As I stated before, I believe other compromises could have been reached. Not that you are or have been listening. > but only your > background knowledge (because, in opposite to "other persons", you > know about the cooker list). > > > Therefore your [1] point is tits on a boar hog. > > Very objective. > > > Further, it is my position that this matter should have been > > discussed in more forums than just cooker prior to this move being > > made, since it involves everybody, including those people who buy > > the distro and havent subscribed to cooker yet. That's one reason > > MandrakeClub is out there. > > If you had cared to read the threads, you would know, that the move > had to be made. There was not much choice. Wrong. There is ALWAYS choice. There is ALWAYS compromise. And my position is and will continue to be that Mandrake club and it's voters are there to be used for what they are there FOR, which is to get feedback from the actual users of the distro; this includes input on the various UI's. To say that a certain change in one direction or another is absolutely impossible is a load of bullcrap that I've heard used as excuses one too many times in the past, mostly from the Microshaft camp. And now here. > > Regards, > > Benjamin. > > > PS: That's my last reply, Oh yeah....of course, I really believe that. NOT. <<<<<<<<<snip rest of fluff>>>>>>>>> LX -- ��������������������������������������������������� Kernel 2.4.21pre4-1mdk Mandrake Cooker 9.1 Enlightenment 0.16.5-12mdk Evolution 1.2.1-1mdk Registered Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/ ���������������������������������������������������
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
