Mathieu Bouchard a écrit : > On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Kyle Klipowicz wrote: > >> Yes, I can understand how that might be frustrating. That's why I >> really enjoy keeping my personal settings in the .pdrc file on OS X or >> Linux. With windows, this isn't an option, but a .bat file works well.
With windows we can change options with editing the registry. and a .bat doesn't work well because of the interfering registry entries. >> I definitely agree that the settings department is in need of some >> revision, it's just a matter of someone with the know-how, free time >> and determination to set it right. Some are able to compile after getting knowledge about the configure options and then have severe chances of having a well configured software, some doesn't want to use a compiler for installing, and have a lot of chances to miss a lot of features proposed by the software, through different kinds of installing processes. > We don't even agree on what is right. Some want it more > platform-dependent, some want it more platform-independent. An optimized plateform-dependent version would implie the use of different application programming interfaces (eg: gtk for gnome, qt for kde, cocoa for OSX, etc...), anyone would like to go on that way? > Some are ok > with path dialogs that require people to type full folder names and > won't allow more than 10 folders... some are not ok with that... etc > I guess that's why many different softwares proposes different options during the install process. Also I don't know how these choices could be implemented through an installer. My point is that pd is necessarily messing with configuration files like pdrc or pdsettings that are inevitably interfering between different pd versions, and making impossible the clean and easy development of stand-alone applications. _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
