> Do you see the problem now when you post answers like
> you are some kind of authority and are NOT?

No, I don't, because I don't do anything like you claim. I thought I had explained it already. I'll try it again: I don't say this or that will happen (like a MorphOS Team member would or could), I just say that this or that was said or implied would happen, and I back the latter up with links (you know, these small clickable texts you seem to hate so much). Completely different concepts.

> They way you act users will think you are a morphos team member.

It don't do anything to make anybody think that. If somebody mistakes my reporting of what authorities said or implied for me saying or implying that (and being an authority), I can't do anything about their lack of reading or comprehension skills.

> I know you are a "prophet"

And now the next one starts this nonsense *sigh*

> maybe you should color your answers with imo or so...

Let's see, from my postings in this very thread: "I conclude", "I don't think so", "I believe". Isn't that enough colour for your liking?

> pega-1 did some voodoo magic with my R350 Radeon 9800 and at
> least i could use it with MOS2.6 only 2D but that is enough for now.

The question is if what you could do in 2D with your R3xx is considered enough by the MorphOS Team for a PowerBook G4 release. From what was said in the video, by guruman and others who were at the meeting, it isn't.

> stop talking like you know everything.

Where does this nonsense that I'd talk like I knew everything come from? I really wonder. Are reading or comprehension skills really that bad with people these days? I can hardly believe that. I'll explain it to you also: If I say that person X said or implied that incident Y would or wouldn't occur in the future, it's *not me* saying that incident Y will or won't occur in the future. Got it now?
I'd like very much a discussion about whether what was said in the video really implied what I believe it did. So far only guruman addressed this issue and I'm looking forward to his reply to my reasoning.

> Powerbook support for MOS2.8 is from my point of view very likely.

And I still conclude it's not from what was said in the video.

> We tried to convince pega-1 that most users would like to have Powerbook
> support with 2.8 without WIFI and 3D drivers then with it and 3.0.

Huh? I can't follow your logic. Now you make it seem like PowerBook G4 support could only come with MorphOS 2.8 if full R300 drivers are omitted. But as guruman, me and others have understood, full R300 drivers are still a *requirement* for the PowerBook G4 supporting release. So your own logic entails that PowerBook G4 support *won't* come in MorphOS 2.8.
Or do you want to say that you actually succeeded in trying to convince pega-1 so that PowerBook G4 support will indeed come *without* full R300 drivers? If yes, that would change everything, admittedly.

> i and other ppl got tiered from your posts filled with just links

See my answer to magnetic where I addressed this very point.

> a short answer with a quote is much better then one link after the other.

No, I won't quote anything without providing a link to the source. That would be very bad style in my book.

> most users would like to have Powerbook support with 2.8 without WIFI and 3D drivers then with it and 3.0.


Must have missed the survey..

I would prefer a complete support release. Less time spent finding fault, and complaining on the forum

@ Andreas: Oh boy you should read this once again:
> We tried to convince pega-1 that most users would like to have Powerbook
> support with 2.8 without WIFI and 3D drivers then with it and 3.0.

We tried to convince pega-1 that most ppl would like to have PowerBook support in MOS2.8 without WIFI and full R300 support, 2D support would be enough for first release.
Then have to wait for 2.9 or later with WIFI and full R300 support.

WIFI - I can live without it. 3D support - the same ;) Bring it on!

> you should read this once again

Unfortunately, it doesn't change no matter how often I read it:

> We tried to convince pega-1 that most ppl would like to have PowerBook support
> in MOS2.8 without WIFI and full R300 support, 2D support would be enough for
> first release. Then have to wait for 2.9 or later with WIFI and full R300 support.

Huh? I can't follow your logic. Now you make it seem like PowerBook G4 support could only come with MorphOS 2.8 if full R300 drivers are omitted. But as guruman, me and others have understood, full R300 drivers are still a *requirement* for the PowerBook G4 supporting release. So your own logic entails that PowerBook G4 support *won't* come in MorphOS 2.8.
Or do you want to say that you actually succeeded in trying to convince pega-1 so that PowerBook G4 support will indeed come *without* full R300 drivers? If yes, that would change everything, admittedly.

Quote:

There may not have been a poll, But I'd go for the Powerbook sooner rather than later..

I haven't convinced pega-1, but what i understood speaking with him in Bad Bramsted for full R300 support. And if you didn't understand it know then i m sorry for you.

> I haven't convinced pega-1

Then I don't understand your point at all.

> but what i understood speaking with him in Bad Bramsted for full R300
> support. And if you didn't understand it know then i m sorry for you.

Sorry, I don't understand what "what i understood speaking with him in Bad Bramsted for full R300 support" means. But what I understand is that you criticize me for saying the same things you've said yourself: PowerBook G4 excluding full R300 support could come in MorphOS 2.8, but PowerBook G4 including full R300 support (that's what's quasi-announced in the video: full R300 support as a requirement for a PowerBook G4 supporting release) isn't supposed to make it into MorphOS 2.8, else there wouldn't have been any need for you to try to convince pega-1 of releasing it without full R300 support already in MorphOS 2.8. What I don't understand again is the reason for your strange behaviour to me and why you say in a self-contradictory way that "Powerbook support for MOS2.8 is from [your] point of view very likely". That just makes no sense. But then, maybe it isn't even supposed to.

MorphOS should not show up on PowerBook WITHOUT WiFi. Come on Guys. Laptop without WiFi, with a lot cables plugin ? How it will look in StarBucks Caffee:D

Question: When MorphOS will realase for PowerBookG4 with WiFi then this same WiFi drivers will work with MacMini WiFi ???
MOSTeam working with WiFi drivers for MacMini ?



[ Edited by MaveRickPL on 2010/11/23 19:11 ]

Andreas

Quote:


You just simply dont get it do you? Its amazing. Are you such a tosser that you will argue with someone who hung out with frank m all night with your basis being some quote from a forum? How lame

Your arrogance needs to stop. How many people have to tell you this before it changes?

look, you are a good guy and are productive but your posting style is bugging people...

> You just simply dont get it do you?

Correct, I don't get your unwillingness to read or comprehend.

> Are you such a tosser

Again: I think you should go back to self-censoring yourself like you did before.

> that you will argue with someone who hung out with frank m all night
> with your basis being some quote from a forum?

How does that change that he's contradicting himself like I made clear to everybody with half a brain? I'll explain it to you once more. ThePlayer says that:

1. Powerbook G4 support for MorphOS 2.8 is from his point of view very likely.
2. He didn't succeed in convincing pega-1 to release PowerBook G4 support without full R300 support in MorphOS 2.8 instead of releasing it with full R300 support after MorphOS 2.8.

Maybe that non-lame genius that you are can explain to me how that isn't contradicting itself? And if the MorphOS Team plans to release PowerBook G4 support *with* full R300 support in MorphOS 2.8 anyway, why would there be the need to try to convince pega-1 to release it without full R300 support in MorphOS 2.8? And btw, what "quote from a forum" do you refer to?

> Your arrogance needs to stop.

Your unwillingness to read or comprehend needs to stop.

> your posting style is bugging people...

I addressed this non-issue already.

Although I generally find Andreas comments useful, and based on consistent statements, I must agree that there are multiple ways to say the same. Some are nice, and some are rude. It's not neccesary to remind people every post how ignorant they are, or how low is their comprehension level. Although probably not conscienly, replys with only a link, refering to another link, and then another one, that links to a reply of someone 6 months old, can hurt people.

I think this is a nice forum, and non humorous irony has no place here. I think people's questions or opinions should be answered with respect and kindness, or not answered at all, but not answered as BOFH would...

Just my personal opinion...

[ Edited by amiades on 2010/11/24 12:07 ]

> It's not neccesary to remind people every post how ignorant they are,
> or how low is their comprension level.

...or that they are arrogant, or a "tosser", don't you think?

> replys with only a link, refering to another link, and then another one,
> that links to a reply of someone 6 months old, can hurt people.

Do you have more information on that?

> I think people should be answered with respect and kindness,
> or not answered at all

I second that. I don't find posting links disrespectful or unkind. But calling others arrogant or a "tosser" is, I think.

Quote:

I think you can get enough information about that in just this thread. Please, don't feel offended, but if you don't, it might be an empathy problem.

I'm not refering just to you. just for having an example, CISC had a... "personal" way of replying, that was very close to the line that is between ironicy and mockery.

So please, take things easy, and don't think everyone will always think you are being constructive (although you are being). Try to be nicer with your answers.

This is not personal. You don't offend me with "link-answers", and I find them very useful. But it is clear, some people is being offended.

In the other hand,

@offended people:

Please, take it easy too. Andreas is always there helping. I don't think he is trying to demonstrate he is the most inteligent person around, nor anything like that... just trying to help. Try always your best to think this way, and try not to be offended, by something that is not offensive itself.

[ Edited by amiades on 2010/11/24 12:29 ]

I don't think he is trying to demonstrate he is the most inteligent person around

Of course he isn't trying. The Google search engine should be called the most intelligent being on Earth otherwise.

[ Edited by Krashan on 2010/11/24 11:32 ]

> I think you can get enough information about that in just this thread.

I only see some people who clearly don't like my way of giving answers ore making comments by directly or indirectly linking to older answers or comments made by others or myself. I'm fine with that. The world is not all love, peace and harmony where everybody likes everything. But I really fail to see how hyperlinking on the WWW can make someone feel hurt. I find that ridiculous, to be honest.

> don't think everyone will always think you are being constructive
> (although you are being).

Yes, that would be naive. In fact, I don't even always try to be constructive. For instance, I like making a non-constructive snide remark now and then ;-)

> Try to be nicer with your answers.

What would that include in your understanding of "niceness"?

> You don't offend me with "link-answers", and I find them very useful.
> But it is clear, some people is being offended.

Why do you think is that? That's the most interesting question here I think.

Quote:

Ha! difficult one... It's hard not to seem rude in a forum... Try always to adorn your answers with nice comments that are irony-free...

In my work (3 meters at my left hand, right now), there is a girl who thinks she can develop (but she can't. In fact, she is one of the worst developers I've ever met). Some of my mates, are rude to her, and mock at her sometimes. It is not she doesn't deserve it, as she is sometimes loudmouthed... but I use to be nice to her, and explain her things like if she was 9 years old (she is 28, she had enough time to learn properly xD). Everything is easier this way, she is happier, and she can't say I'm mocking at her... although sometimes its like mocking...

Sometimes it is more important the way you say things, that what you are saying... but try to avoid being -> pedulant <- (edit: I meant pedantic. Does pedulant exist in english?) nor badly-ironic... You might feel you are true, and you might be, but it is not that important...

Quote:

Simple. Because it reminds a RTFM. I feel everyone should ask less and search more (not here, everywhere). But sometimes it's better not to answer at all...



[ Edited by amiades on 2010/11/24 14:11 ]

> Try always to adorn your answers with nice comments

Nice recursive explanation of what you understand to be "niceness" ;-)

> Some of my mates, are rude to her, and mock at her sometimes

But I'm neither rude nor mocking, I'm posting links to answers.

> I use to be nice to her, and explain her things like if she was 9 years old [...].
> Everything is easier this way, she is happier, and she can't say I'm mocking at her.

So you think I should treat magnetic et al. like 9-year olds? *That* would be offending to adults in my book, so I certainly won't do that.

> Sometimes it is more important the way you say things, that what you are saying...

I think that posting links is a rather neutral and factual way to answer questions. I still don't know how that can be perceived in a negative (rude or mocking) way.

> try to avoid being pedulant nor badly-ironic.

I only can get petulant after someone has started to call me names who didn't even bother to try to gather the content of what I wrote. "Badly-ironic" I'm never, I think.

> You might feel you are true, and you might be, but it is not that important...

Yes, not important to people who aren't interested in a factual, non-emotional discourse.

> it reminds a RTFM.

Interesting. I think it's quite the opposite. An "RTFM"-like answer would be to say "Use the forum search!", not linking to an answer like I do.

Quote:
Maybe because you are making people go to the effort of having to click a link? :)
A short quote or description to give some indication of what people can expect to find when clicking your links might help.

> Maybe because you are making people go to the effort of having to click a link? :)

I hope that's an attempt at sarcasm :-)

> A short quote or description to give some indication of what people can
> expect to find when clicking your links might help.

I've thought that quoting a question and responding to that with a link to another forum message would be indication enough that this linked forum message might have an answer to that question. And I've experienced that most people understand it this obvious way. After all, what else could be to expect there, really? A variation of a Goatse image, maybe? Or a video of singing DoomMaster?

As I see, another problem you have, is you take everything literally, and as if it was to be aplied to you. It was an example, not what you have to do.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm telling you what I use to do (and in this case, a singular example), so you might get ideas (or not), and avoid this kind of things. If you don't want to avoid it, you are free of course, but you should not say you don't know the reason why people insult you. It was not meant to be aplied out of the box.

This (the discusion you and I are having) is not a discusion about who is right or wrong. In fact, is not even a discusion. I'm just telling you what I see, from an neutral point of view. You can take my advises, or not... just that.

Quote:

The "Nice" word is a problem in the english language. "Nice is a nice word", so it is hard to define. It has so many meanings, it is very hard to define without using it. I hope you know what I mean with it. If you don't, I can try to explain it better, but it won't be easy. Anyway, a english laguage dictionary might give you a better definition than me.

Quote:

That is what you think (and me too). And that is what my posts are all about. The fact you don't think something is offensive, doesn't mean it isn't (at least for everyone).

Quote:

I don't know too, but as things are, it seems like it might be. Anyway, almost everything can be perceived as bad in a forum, at least in my experience.

Quote:

What I meant, is that what is important, is how it is perceived...

Quote:

The oposite to RTFM, would be answering with an explanation. You could even say something like "This happens because blabla [brief explanation]. You can read more in this thread". In my point of view, that is a nice answer. Only a link, seems to be nearer to a RTFM than to be nice (not to me, but feels so to some people as we see).

> another problem you have, is you take everything literally,
> and as if it was to be aplied to you.

I was under the impression that you attempted to present a real-life analogy to illustrate the situation we have right here. If you didn't, it's been a misunderstanding from my side and I'm sorry for that.

> It was an example

But obviously one that is not sufficiently fitting the situation here ;-)

> I'm not telling you what to do.

I didn't understand it that way either, but I (mis-)thought that you were attempting at giving me hints at how to resolve this (non-)issue by telling me about how you treat your workmate so that she doesn't feel offended.

> If you don't want to avoid it, you are free of course, but you should not say
> you don't know the reason why people insult you.

I'm afraid that your example didn't give me any idea as for the reason for people insulting me, as the only ideas I took from it don't sufficiently fit this situation, as you've made clear now.

> It was not meant to be aplied out of the box.

Thanks for clarification.

> I'm just telling you what I see, from an neutral point of view.
> You can take my advises, or not... just that.

I know that. And I'm only replying to that from my own point of view, to explain how I see it.

> The fact you don't think something is offensive, doesn't mean it isn't
> (at least for everyone). [...] almost everything can be perceived as bad
> in a forum, at least in my experience.

So I conclude the best measure to never offend anybody would be to never ever write in a forum, right? ;-) I think I'll prefer to go with the old saying: I'll only do unto others as I would have others do unto me. (And that includes replying to questions with mere links, I'm afraid.) I really don't see any other sensible expedient to get out of that dilemma.

> The oposite to RTFM, would be answering with an explanation.

You're right, a link is not really the opposite. But still, it's very far from "RTFM".

> You could even say something like "This happens because
> blabla [brief explanation]. You can read more in this thread".

More often than not this would equal me adopting this explanation when in fact it's not my intention to do so. Thus, I'd have to write something like "XYZ claimed that this would happen because blabla [brief explanation]". But that's exactly what the questioner realizes as soon as he clicks my link anyway. So I don't see the difference except that it would be less economical and more work for me to repeat what others already said before, which I'm not eager to do, really. That's the technical advantage of the WWW to be able to instantly refer to things that have been said before without actually having to repeat them over and over again.

The only point in the example, was finding a way, in which things are effective, and not just doing it as I feel is good, just, lawful or whatever, and hoping other people will agree, and if they don't agree, is their problem. Just that.

Quote:

Well, of course that is a solution, and a very effective one... but well, it's not what we pretend xD. It's like when Catholic Church sais the true solution against AIDS, is the abstinence... well, in fact is true, but it's not the solution we are looking for xD.

Quote:

It depends in how you see that saying... It can be understood as "I will give links as answers to others, as I will be happy with the others do the same", which is good, but also as "I will offend the others (although not intentional), and I will be happy when they offend me", which might not be as good xD. But I think you got the point I wanted to explain.

Just to end, I would like to ask everyone not to get pissed for a stupid thing (and I'm not referring to insults, and those things, but to the small thing that started it all).

Now, you all probably see me as that kind of guy that smokes weed, and wants everyone to be in peace and all that... and is not even near to the truth... but well, never mind xD.

> It can be understood as "I will give links as answers to others,
> as I will be happy with the others do the same"

Yes, that's how I mean it.

> which is good

Thanks :-)

> but also as "I will offend the others (although not intentional), and I will be
> happy when they offend me", which might not be as good xD.

I still think that from an objective point of view there's a slight difference between "feeling offended" (which just requires an assumed intention) and "being offended" (which requires a real intention). That would mean that "I will offend the others (although not intentional)" isn't really coherent, because offending someone from the offenders point of view requires an intention. And I think that nobody can be happy when feeling offended, else it couldn't be an offense, could it? ;-)