about symbolic links on Desktop

[Brian J. Tarricone]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nusret wrote:
>> True.  But I'm just pointing out how you can be most
>> useful in testing
>> and development.  If you aren't willing to go to the
>> extra work, that's
>> fine; I respect your choice and the level of
>> involvement you want to put in.
>>
> 
> Brian, you really miss the point.

Not really.

> Due to my level of
> fluency in linux systems and build process, etc. It's
> very unlikely that I can handle the level of
> involvement you find acceptable. I barely can find my
> way in linux systems without a good desktop, I'm not
> very familiar with the quirks of building and
> replacing  my whole desktop, etc.

And that's perfectly fine.  As I said above in the portion you most
helpfully quoted, I respect the lengths that you are willing to go to,
and by the same token, the lengths you *aren't* willing to go to.

> On the one hand yo
> don't even want to hear about my distro: if things go
> astray (I'm sure it will!) who will help me?

Your distro should be your first line of help for any pre-packaged
software you get from them.  This isn't even an Xfce-specific thing;
this goes for any software that either comes with your distro or is
installed via packages created by/supported by your distro.

Usually the distro packagers will either be able to fix the problem by
themselves (maybe they have an old version, and can push out a new
version, or maybe they know of a patch to the current version that can
fix your problem), or they can report the problem upstream to us if
there isn't a fix in current code.  It would be a nightmare if the
upstream developer had to support all the various incarnations of their
code put out by distro packagers.

> on the
> other hand, for you, it's just a matter of checking
> your latest version and see whether the problem I
> describe is reproducible.

Which I said I had done, a couple weeks ago: I can't reproduce it.  This
doesn't mean it's fixed; it just means I can't reproduce it.

> If the description is vague,
> you can simply request more details and I will be more
> than happy to explain more.

Assuming we're talking about the symlink crash thing, the description
was fine.  I just can't reproduce it.

> You sure don't have to, but please don't insinuate I'm
> not willing to help in any sunstantial way.

Perhaps my word choice wasn't the best, but that wasn't my intention.
Everyone who wants to help can help in their own way.  I was merely
pointing out the specific type of help that I would need to track down
this particular problem.  If you're unwilling or unable to provide that
kind of help, no worries.  If it really is a problem, it's likely
someone else is having it as well, and they might be in a better
position to provide the information I need.

> I'm not a
> programmer, not even a more than newbie to Linux.
> 
> You're not fair in your this specific judgement, with
> all due respect. Or, I did misunderstand you, and if
> so i apologize.

Yes, you did misunderstand, but no need to apologise.  It's easy to
misunderstand (or in my case, miscommunicate) in a medium such as this.

	-brian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEf5VP6XyW6VEeAnsRAvH2AKChOw30sZ083nPRN4BpauGiScl5mACfYB6+
jemt0qZEfnv0H6hwIAHLZcg=
=Ps7n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----