Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:45:36 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: MAKEing Turbo Vision 1.1.3
In-Reply-To:	<j0fnst84g4o75b64184kvs3dhlvg3j5gki@4ax.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011016104504.1994F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com wrote:

> I have come to the conclusion, that as far as I am concerned,
> given the issues with   gettext(),
> _conio_gettext/Borland/Internalization issues,
> it absolutely is NOT worth my time and trouble to (re) install/modify
> all the things that have to be tampered with JUST to explore
> 'tvision113' !!
> 
> So much "bloat"
[...]
> ADD to that the fact that its wrap up around RH - IDE, which adds
> 1000% to the build time to the package, instead of the BLAZINGLY
> fast and simple, stand-alone and ordinary MAKEFILE approach !!

Please avoid such attacks on software written by others and offered to
you at no cost.

You are free to decide whether a certain package is or is not good for
you.  You are welcome to post specific suggestions for improvements,
including improvements which cut the volume of the packages or make
them more light-weight in use.  (If you try the constructive approach,
you will soon realize that it's not so easy to do signifcantly better
than others have done.)

But bashing people who worked hard on those packages is something that
is unacceptable here.  No one forced you to try those packages, nor
even use DJGPP in general.  If you find a package you don't like,
please either ignore it, or explain your objections in a civilized,
constructive manner that would help the package maintainers to improve
their packages.

In other words, flaming DJGPP developers is off-topic on this news
group!

Thank you.

- Raw text -