Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind that I take offense at your slamming my moral and ethical integrity (cover up? WTF?) in casual posts where I have backed up my claims to levels far beyond any required of any other user on here.
I'm sorry you think I'm slamming your morals and integrity. That wasn't my intention. Allow me to explain further, I suppose.
Frankly, I could state that, "The time is 12:25 PM," and have 4+ people require proof that I was, indeed, in a time zone where at that moment it was 12:25 +/- 60 seconds.
Not a martyr, just a guy with a big target on his head for having called BS on several others here. I'm fine with that.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You have an "everyone is out to get me" mentality to the point that you invent a ridiculous scenario that I don't even think you believe would actually happen. I am not out to get you, I don't think anyone is out to get you. You posted your assumptions of the problems you encountered as fact, assumptions which (in this case) were questionable at best and some provably wrong.
However, I state things as I see them. I provide information to back up my claims. I even answer questions as they arise to the best of my ability based on the information at hand. There is a huge tendency on these boards to answer serious questions with personal quips that don't answer anything.
I agree, there is such a tendency. The "magic nub dance" is another one of those. I've already spoken out against that, and I will speak out against other "cargo cult" style advice as I encounter it, especially ones which I know to be wasteful (such as running applications from one location and then moving it).
If you're going to make 100% clearly false statements about my personal integrity, though, I can and will take offense at it.
Or you can question me if that was my intention or if maybe there's something else going on that you don't understand. You might start to notice a theme here.
"You were chastised for making provably false statements and carrying on an argument that no one was debating against." False.
Not false, that's exactly why I chastised you. You encountered an error, made an assumption, and then proceeded to give bad advice about that assumption as if it were fact instead of asking why such a thing, against all logic, would have happened.
"you try to cover it up like that it doesn't help anyone." False. I have -never- covered up my mistakes. I do not re-edit posts. I post resolutions to issues that I found - as well as the false tracks I followed on the way to my solution. If anything, I'm guilty of providing too much information of the problem solving involved.
When I said there was no mechanism in libpnd that would allow a PND to work in one location but not the other, you simply said "well it did". You didn't make any motion to try and establish if there might have been some other problem that just happened to correspond to what you did. This is a coverup, asserting a perceived problem without knowing the source, and leads to the bad advice you gave by lack of understanding. This helps no one. That's what I was talking about.
" if someone points out that the problem you are experiencing really can't be what you think it is say "oops, good point. Here is what is happening and maybe it is something else then...""
Because clearly if someone else states, "It can't do that," while offering no explanation or proof - they must be right and I must be wrong even though I am watching it "do that". OK. Sure. Do you have any clue how asinine that logic is? If "someone" states it "can't be what you think it is"? Wow - we're going to need a list of these people who are always right so we know who's statements are infallible and should never be questioned.
I think you're missing the point. If someone says something that you don't believe, ask them for proof. If you don't believe me that there's no mechanism in libpnd for a PND that would allow it to do what you say, then you just have to ask and I'll gladly show you in the code itself how I know this. You used your anecdote as "proof" that that's what it did, you had a correlation and immediately assumed causation; I provided my knowledge of the libpnd system to say that what you had experienced is most likely rooted in something else: that's not anecdotal, I can point to the parts of the script which mount the PND anonymously and run the scripts within the XML with no link to the source directory at all.
In that previous thread I supplied proof that what the naysayers were stating wasn't actually true - that we could get the source code for ExFAT and that we could use it for free under a GPL license. None of them bothered to even look at the link I provided to the source and license before going off on it.
You misunderstood that debate. You wanted to add ExFat, and provided a link to a free driver implementation. The arguments against using exFat wasn't about whether the driver was free or not, it's whether the algorithm is free or not. Microsoft owns the patent for exFat; slaeshjag thought they were charging royalties for the use of it, which OPT would have had to pay regardless of whether the actual implementation is GPL and free or not. Microsoft is currently saying that the patent can be used royalty free: the driver you linked to is a free implementation of that patent. The license on the driver makes absolutely no difference if Microsoft suddenly decides to start charging royalties on their patent. If they do, even if we are using a GPL licensed driver, OPT would still be required to pay royalties to Microsoft. That was the concern that slaeshjag and onpon raised, it had nothing to do with paying royalties for the driver itself. Linking the free driver was useful, but certainly didn't solve the problem. In case you didn't notice, I was right there with you arguing in favour of exFat, and even slaeshjag and onpon agreed there was no reason not to once their fears of Microsoft pulling a Unisys had been abated. Everyone agreed! And you continued to carry on as if we weren't. It's only now that I see it's because you thought we were talking about having to pay for the driver, not licensing fees to Microsoft, and for that I apologize, I thought I had explained the situation well enough but I guess not everyone necessarily understands how different licenses apply at the various levels of software. Incidentally, this is why NTFS, MP3, and a few other things are included in the Community Codec Pack: while the code itself is available open source and totally free of charge, the companies that own the patents on these technologies charge royalties for their use, and a commercial product like the Pandora would have to pay if they were included.
Do you have any idea how insulting you're being?
Exactly as insulting as you expect me to be. I don't mean to be insulting, but if I'm not explaining well enough and you've already got a victim attitude you are going to be insulted unless you ask for clarification. I'm sorry, I'll try to avoid any ambiguity that could lead to insult, but sometimes what seems obvious to me is not so to others.
