Re: Bugs bugs, Finder bugs, yummy bugs
Re: Bugs bugs, Finder bugs, yummy bugs
- Subject: Re: Bugs bugs, Finder bugs, yummy bugs
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:20:17 +0100
On 23 Aug 2005, at 15:01, John C. Welch wrote:
On 8/23/05 08:39, "Martin Orpen" <email@hidden> wrote:
It may surprise you, but some people on this list don't earn their
money from pontificating about computer technology and Apple code.
It will surprise you, but neither do I. It may surprise you further
that
quite a few of us make our money running networks and writing code
that will
never see the light of day outside of those networks, and have been
doing so
at a furious clip for almost as long as AppleScript has been
around. Nor do
we spend our time telling other people that since they haven't
written as
much code as we have, or have as many entries in VersionTracker as
we have,
that they don't have anything valid to say.
Are you confusing me with Matt Deatherage? It was he who suggested
that only people who had written apps with as many lines of code as
the Finder are capable of criticising the Finder.
Trying to work out why I couldn't read files from a DVD in Tiger took
me about 90 minutes of screwing around - including loading kexts and
then reading through logs of Authorization Services calls. That's not
the sort of thing that the majority of AppleScript *users* are going
to be prepared to do in a bid to isolate a problem. You may also be
duplicating the same research that somebody else has already done -
but Apple's bug tracking won't allow you to find out if that is the
case. Bitching about took 90 seconds.
So you'd rather COMPLETELY waste that time in carping on a list but
not the
five minutes it takes to copy and paste your research into a
bugtracker
form?
Your are continuing this myth that posting to the list takes longer
than filling in a bug report: it doesn't. Bug reports require that
you do some research - not simply note the existence of a problem.
Here is my comment about "Find" in the Finder that was posted in April:
<http://lists.apple.com/archives/Applescript-users/2005/Apr/
msg00741.html>
There's no griping, no argument and the post took a couple of minutes
to write. If somebody was relying on scripting the Finder to find
stuff then they can take the matter further - it's of no interest to
me apart from having tried it and found that it didn't work properly.
If somebody wants to know about things that don't work in the
Finder's dictionary then they'll be able to find it by searching the
archive (as Dave Lyons did earlier).
Most of the Apple apps just aren't worth bothering about - let those
who rely on them spend the time isolating and reporting the bugs.
You don't rely on THE FINDER????
Yeah I rely on the Finder to maintain a couple of desktop pictures on
the retouching machines here that vary between RGB=128,128,128 and
RGB=192,192,192 so as not to interfere with the operator's ability to
retouch images. Colour management is a traditionally buggy area for
Apple - visit the ColorSync-Users group if you want to know more
about that. So we spend most of our working day within the interface
of more (visually) trustworthy apps like Photoshop. If the Finder
stops me from launching apps and maintaining a neutral desktop I'll
be the first to fill in a bug form.
--
Martin Orpen
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden