On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:36:29 +0100, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Robert L Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx > writes: > > > There could be plenty of other reasons why, of course. But it isn't > > FUD for people to report that they're having problems compiling and > > running GTK 2.6 against a particular distribution. Multiple people > > reporting the same thing suggests there's an issue, but doesn't > > pinpoint where it is. > > I am only asking that you show us what problems exactly you have when > building gtk+, so that we can help you to solve them. Saying that > there are "a lot of problems" doesn't help at all and is what I would > consider spreading FUD. This still doesn't meet the definition of "spreading FUD." To spread FUD you must: 1) Either lie or deliberately misrepresent the truth (this includes selective retelling of the facts) 2) In one or more fora such that a large number of poorly-informed people are reached 3) In an attempt to keep people from using a competitor's product (esp. to keep them from switching from your product.) The reports from SUSE users that they have had problems upgrading gtk don't meet any of the three requirements. Thus they are not spreading FUD. You don't get to redefine the term. :) > We are trying to move GIMP development along > and we will need to use GTK+-2.6 to make this happen. So it should be > our goal to make sure that all developers update glib and gtk+. > Telling them that this update will cause problems, but not saying what > problems these are, doesn't help anyone. You asked if going to 2.6 would cause a problem for them, and they indicated it would. They didn't ask you for any help in solving their distro woes, so it was wrong for you to criticize them for that. (especially by using such a loaded term.) I especially find it amusing that you consider the vagueness of the SUSE user's descriptions to be a problem because you've been much less clear in this thread than they have. Here is a perfect example: > Mitch, me and probably others already have some changes pending that > would introduce a dependency on gtk+-2.6. What exactly are these changes? Why are they so critical? By your (unusual) definition, you've been spreading FUD about gtk 2.4, saying that it is inadequate without saying what the problems are, which, as you so astutely observe, "doesn't help anyone." For the record, I have no problems with using 2.4, especially if they've fixed the disaster that was the 2.4 file selector dialog. (Why do I say disaster? Because it was _less usable_ for me than the original dialog, but ymmv.) Rockwalrus
