On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:30:59AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi scripsit:
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Pointing out that software can't do something which it easily *could*
>> do, and is desired by some users, is not an exercise in futility. It
>> is, in fact, how good, responsive software developers improve their
>> product.
>
> "My #2 Philips Screwdriver cannot drive a #4 Torx screw, but it could
> easily if they put an interchangeable bit on the end.
>
> Of course, I could buy a screwdriver with an interchangeable bit head
> and use that, but then I wouldn't have something to complain about. I
> want to use my #2 Philips head screwdriver for Torx screws too."
Oh, for the love of little green onions in the rain.
If someone wants to drive Torx screws, and the screwdriver manufacturer,
despite making the best Phillips screwdrivers the mind of man can
conceive, refuses to do so, there's a legitimate basis for complaint.
You're reasoning from types, when what actually exists is a diverse
population of photographers. (""We can't learn how much they interbreed
until we can distinguish them, but we can't distinguish them because
they appear to interbreed." [1])
Someone can perfectly well dislike a particular piece of software that
you like and be right for them and not you.
-- Graydon
[1] Steve N. G. Howell, writing about Thayer's and Iceland gulls
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
