[Mplayer-cvslog] CVS: main/DOCS faq.html,1.24,1.25

[Winner of tha face compo]

Update of /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS
In directory mplayer:/var/tmp.root/cvs-serv31358/DOCS

Modified Files:
	faq.html 
Log Message:

I liked this mail very much


Index: faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS/faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -r1.24 -r1.25
--- faq.html	7 Oct 2001 09:39:05 -0000	1.24
+++ faq.html	8 Oct 2001 17:20:41 -0000	1.25
@@ -58,6 +58,39 @@
 </TD><TR><TD COLSPAN=3>&nbsp;</TD><TR>
 
 <TD></TD><TD VALIGN=top><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Q:</TD><TD WIDTH=100%><B><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
+...gcc 2.96... (yes, some people are STILL flaming about their gcc 2.96!!)
+</B></TD><TR><TD></TD><TD VALIGN=top><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>A:</TD><TD><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
+<P>But we has idegs (the word 'ideg' is described further in the FAQ). And our
+idegcounters overflow again and again.</P>
+
+<P>Unfortunately MPlayer is out of our control. It's used by lamers, Linux users
+who can't even use windows, and never tried to compile a kernel. They installed
+(with default options) Mandrake or RedHat or Suse, and without RTFM'ing they
+send messages saying 'it doesn't work! help me! please! i'm new to the linux!
+help! oh! help me!'. We can't stop them, but at least we try to force them RTFM
+and to read fuckin' messages of ./configure and mplayer.</P>
+
+<P>And you clever guys come and flame us with gcc 2.96 and binary packages.
+Instead of helping users or making patches to help solve problems.</P>
+
+<P>Half of our spare/free time is spent by answering silly mails here and
+making newer tricks and checks to configure to avoid such mails.</P>
+
+<P>And there is a balance. On one hand are you, clever guys, saying we are very
+bad because we don't like buggy gcc 2.96, and at the other hand there are the
+'new to linux' guys who are showing us gcc 2.96 is buggy.</P>
+
+<P>Conclusinion: we can't be good. Half of people always will say we are bad.</P>
+
+<P>Maybe we should close the project, make it closed source, commercial, and
+provide install support for it. then we could leave current work, so
+development could go faster, and we earn lots of money with it and buy a big
+house, etc etc. Do you really want it? It seems.</P>
+
+<P ALIGN=RIGHT>Arpi (a mail on the mplayer-users list)</P>
+</TD><TR><TD COLSPAN=3>&nbsp;</TD><TR>
+
+<TD></TD><TD VALIGN=top><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Q:</TD><TD WIDTH=100%><B><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 SDL output doesn't work or compile. Problem is ....
 </B></TD><TR><TD></TD><TD VALIGN=top><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>A:</TD><TD><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 It is tested with newest SDL (probably runs on 1.1.7+).