Mark Wieder wrote:
>
Whoa! That's taking things a bit personally there. You *did* ask if I
was getting tired of this thread, right? I never said I was getting
tired of *you*. Or did you not really mean to offer that option?
--------------------
First of all, if ever I meet you, I will buy you that round of drinks
together with the other great guys on this List. What we have here is a
gross misunderstanding. I would have preferred to finally have a good
laugh and to change the subject, but since you have now resumed the
thread I am bound to answer.
You had already contacted me off-list and told me that the discussion
was OT: "not really rev stuff". On-list, you later said "It's not quite
OT, since it does have to do with building linux standalones". In fact,
my discussion has not deviated from the question of Linux installation
for one minute as far as I can see, so the implication of "OT" is not
accurate in my opinion. People very often say this when they really
disagree strongly and they want to censure the person speaking or
writing, but they don't have the courage to say it directly. Could it be
because I had the audacity to attempt solve my Rev problem using
RealBasic, and worse still, discuss this on the UR-List? All I want to
do is to be able to write programs in Linux, which I cannot do properly
in Rev at the moment. Rev for 2.6.1 for Linux is too incomplete and
unstable for use - at least on my machine - and even Metacard suffers
from engine problems which prevent me using it in Ubuntu Linux. Much of
my discussion has centred around the crucial specialFolderPath function,
which as you know has not been implemented in Linux. All I wanted to do
was to find a substitute, and although I failed, the spinoff was highly
interesting, except to you it seems. Part of the problem perhaps is that
I have too much time on my hands, without the slightest sign of an ETA
for Rev Linux 2.7.
In reply to your post, I'll do some clipping, but please don't take this
as being unfriendly as it can sometimes imply. It's just a convenient
was of answering what you have said.
>>You *did* ask if I was getting tired of this thread, right?
If a woman asked you "Am I ugly?" and she looks like the back of a
horse, would you simply and seriously say "Yes"? Of course you wouldn't.
You'd find some compromise between respecting the truth and avoiding
hurting her feelings, e.g. "Well, I'm not sure whether or not you would
win the Miss World beauty contest, but I think you're nice". Or another
way of solving the problem if you know her well enough would be to say
"Yeah, you look like the back of a horse", which translated means "You
should know better than to ask me questions like that, so please don't".
In my previous post I was anxious that perhaps I was rattling on a bit
and in danger of trying some people's patience. I was anxious not to do
that, or at least to be forgiven for it. Your "I am tired of this
thread" is as shocking as the blunt "Yes" illustrated above.
>>Basically I *am* getting tired of repeating myself
Another example of the above. But since you mention it, so am I.
>>I think what you've run into is a RB problem, not a runrev
problem.
Not only are you preaching to the converted, I was the one to do the
converting! And that's ironic! What on earth has given you the fixed
idea that I didn't understand that? Worse still, Jacque seems to have
picked up your idea and also got the impression that I didn't understand
my own thesis! I am not going to spend more time analysing it here, but
it dawned on me the very moment that you told me that the RB application
did not run on your Kubuntu. What happened was this. I have tried using
for the first time my free Linux edition of Standard RealBasic. When you
save an "application" as they put it, the only thing in the "Build
Settings" is the name of the OS. Different to Rev, I could find no
provision for including libraries, etc. I first assumed that my
application was a "standalone", but when I saw that it failed on your
Kubuntu I concluded that it was simply an "executable" requiring OS
libraries much in the manner of a Windows ".EXE" that needed a setup. I
therefore abandoned this "application" immediately and had no intention
of further recommending its use. I thought this was clear, but it seems
not. Could it also be that you have not always appreciated the
significant difference between "RR" and "RB" in my posts? Of course it
is an RB problem. As for it being a RunRev problem, far from it. As I've
said before, if my diagnosis of the RB limitation is correct, the Rev
"standalones" are infinitely better, and I have NEVER encountered a Rev
standalone that crashes (because of lack of libraries or any other
reason) on any of the Linux distros I have tried.
So that neither of us need to repeat ourselves:
I have run into an RB problem! It is not a Rev problem!
All the best,
Bob
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
