[gccsdk] Firefox 2 patches

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Mon Apr 2 19:34:02 PDT 2007

In message <200703311144.07434.lists at peter-teichmann.de>
          Peter Teichmann <lists at peter-teichmann.de> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 30. März 2007 03:35 schrieb Peter Naulls:
> > No, the saddest part is that the relevance of my work has been
> > completely missed except by a very few supporters, and you've ignored
> > what I've said. I've been asked on several occasions recently (and no so
> > recently) to make Firefox et al easy to build.  But guess what - it is,
> > and has been for a very long time.  Just about everything you suggest I
> > should do, I've already done, or perhaps more importantly, built the
> > infrastructure precisely so they can take place.  That is why your post
> > is so patronizing, and seems so very naive.
> Peter, it seems you do not want to get the point. It is not your work that 
> people have problems with. Your work is deeply respected and recognized. We 
> know that you are very capable, as probably only few people are.
> And because of this I am sad to see the problems, which you definitely have, 
> when it comes to discussions with other people who have a different opinion.  
> It seems to be very difficult for you to recognize what is actually 
> criticised and what not. As soon there is a different opinion, something gets 
> locked, and you just can fight and defend your "honour".

You are conflating different arguments.  I go out of my way to respect
those who have valid, and reasonable opinions, as long as they have some
kind of valid justification or reference, much as you might find that
hard to believe.  OTOH, I will quickly point out those talking nonsense.

By way of concrete example, I've let the riscos.info Wiki contributors
go their own way, even though the precise content and layout I would
probably do quite a bit different, since I think it's much better that
it's a collaborative effort.  And as another example, I do not believe
Druck's claims about the latest Norcroft producing code that is
equivalent to GCC, for the simple reason that he has not shown a sliver
of evidence to back it up, and the emperical evidence otherwise is
rather strong.  Of course, I'd be happy to change my opinion if
reasonable benchmarks showed otherwise.

> Please, I do not tell you what to do, I suggest something which you can
> consider or ignore. In my opinion, nobody can bring RISC OS forward anymore. 
> It is a dead end. Once it was very progressive, but that is now 15 years ago. 
> For me it is an interesting hobby, but not more.

So, once again, you gave a rather long list of things to consider.  And
I think that list, without exception, contains entirely things that I
have long since done.  That makes your insistence and initial post all
the more incredulous.

Peter Naulls - peter at chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
RISC OS Community Wiki - add your own content   | http://www.riscos.info/

More information about the gcc mailing list