> On May 24, 2020, at 1:43 AM, Ralf R Radermacher <fotor...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Am 23.05.20 um 23:55 schrieb Godfrey DiGiorgi: >> Completely irrelevant Ralf. > > Let me decide that.
Sure, but you only need to do it once. Your position on this issue has been the same and repeated every time the issue surfaces for, oh, at least five years now. Do you think anyone here needs to hear it yet again? And the issue didn't even surface this time. You brought it up out of nowhere. I was trying to help Paul with his problems, which I have not seen myself but which I have some surrounding context in the form of others I know who are working with the same equipment and not experiencing a problem. >> I tossed any device that the manufacturers won’t support properly years ago.. > > There isn't a simple replacement for some things. Besides, you're > obviously stinking rich. Not everybody is. My personal finances are not only just as irrelevant as your beef and none of your business as well. I agree: there isn't a simple replacement for some things. And the issues that brings up get compounded when you don't stay on top of the fast changing world in which these kinds of things have their life cycle. For instance, I had one device that I was using rather a lot, and it was somewhat expensive. When it became incompatible with an OS revision, I called the vendor and explained the situation I was seeing in detail. My interest in keeping them up to date and providing explicit, clear documentary evidence provoked them to realize that it was important, and they discovered that the fix was a single build system option and a minor bit of error guarding around a critical piece of the code at a couple of points…. All recommended things that were in the guidelines that Apple publishes, btw. So they rebuilt the software, sent it to me for testing, and then distributed the fix via their normal channels when it proved to work just right. If I'd not contacted them and worked with them on the problem, and no one else had, they might have perceived it to be of no real value to put the effort in and it would have dropped off their visibility scenario. If they'd then have investigated bringing things up to date four or five major revisions later, well, it's quite likely the changes would have required a wholly larger amount of work, and the number of users in the community would have dwindled into the unprofitable range by then. As it was, they got an extra couple of years out of that product before phasing in a new one, and users of the existing product got a few more years of use out of it. I phased it out of the work I was doing in favor of other devices over the course of a year. I always keep up to date, and age out things that are no longer supported/getting long in the tooth when it seems appropriate to do so under the circumstances I'm working in. And I work with the software and hardware vendors when I have to to ensure that they understand the problems, and have a decent shot at fixing them economically and quickly. I've been doing this for the past thirty-six years. It seems to work out really well for me. I don't just snarl, "Damn Apple" and hope that another solution will surface cheaply in a year or more, and stay moribund with old stuff while waiting. It's what I call 'being proactive' vs 'being reactive'. Good luck with your future move to Linux. I'm sure there'll be no problems there at all. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
