[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re:

From: Thomas Zander
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re:
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:05:36 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.5.4

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 02 December 2003 23:31, Tom Lord wrote:
> Your judgement in this area has not proven to be especially reliable
> or indicative.   Sorry.

So I am wrong? Why don't you ask an external to do a review of tla? To get a 
feeling for the things I feel tla is lacking.
In short;
- - different tutorial that works with smaller subjects (and more graphics)
- - command line parsing like the GNU commands have (stated before)
- - various usability 

> You started making "usability suggestions" at a time when it was
> painfully obvious that you didn't really grok arch.   Some of your
> suggestions were, understandably, quite bogus.
> Since then, you've improved -- somewhat.

Ok, fair enough; as someone else stated tla needs productizing, this is 
something I agree with; I also think it is ready for mainstream, _after_ it 
has been productized.

Instead of saying my ideas are 'bogus' why don't we try to work together to 
make it better?

Please understand that my intention is still to make this software better 
(I'm not that pathethic that I spent time here to mock you guys), and ready 
for the market.
Can we (start to) work together on this?  Or would you rather have me 
leaving this list?

A nice start would to have some feedback on the bugs I posted.

Thank you.
- -- 
Thomas Zander
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]