Tom Oehser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What would be helpful to me would be more feedback about what would be
> nice to have on tomsrtbt to make it better integrate with and support
> Mandrake. I wasn't contacted when it was added to some versions, nor when
> it was taken out, in both cases I would have liked to have at least been
Well, as of for last versions, there was not much thinking into the rescue
provided...
as for me, i think we can't provide a more than 1.44 rescue floppy. Mandrake is
mainly for newbies, and low-level formatting a floppy is quite hard, and very
media stressing (i have enough pb with 1.44, throwing away one every week...)
(you know that for sure)
> notified, and in the second case, I would have welcomed some interaction
> with the intent to fix the problems when they were first discovered. If
> there was more input of the form "gee, it would make it more useful for
> our distribution if _X_", or (especially), "you could add these features
> while simultaneously saving _Y_ bytes if you did _Z_", then tomsrtbt might
> be a better utility for those who use these distributions.
yes, this a problem, and not only for tomsrtbt. It takes quite a lot of time to
give feedback to program developers in any case :-/
> Look, I think there may be some false assumptions about what developers
> may and may not know, at least in my case, I have never used _any_ package
> managed distribution, I have never used RPMs or DEBs, all I know is what
> is useful to rescue my own source-cobbled systems. I am glad to think
> that shortcomings will present themselves with tomsrtbt when used with
> these new-fangled package based distributions, but if no-one tells me what
> those shortcomings _are_, it is difficult to do anything...
yep, as for me i've never used any rescue of any kind, and i take care of
rescuedrakx ;-)
