This version is tested by at least 60 People in different consoles with different board versions before release
Not exactly sure what number of testers has to do with anything. There are released games with roughly double the amount of coordinated testers and quality assurance members
whose results have led to. . . unfortunate outcomes.
yes, its based in the code of Tony yeah, but Ubuntu is based in deb?an and not for that reason are unstable, bad or better, is simply other distro.
I've never once brought up comparisons to Ubuntu or Debian, but you also can't compare a more reasonably flexible platform like conventional PCs to a handheld with known shortcomings and admittedly fragile components, like an internal storage medium that is prone to lifetime damage with subsequent repeated overwrite cycles, like the microSD card.
In the New versions the guys are working Hard in lot of things. Include several updates in gmenu2x code and usability...
Ah yes, because what we really
need is more fragmentation causing consumers and even the most educated users endless anguish over the fact that updates aren't being sent upstream for everyone to enjoy. Didn't we already have enough discussion on why forks using the Dingux name were a bad idea because it would've been better for everyone involved to contribute upstream and reduce redundant workloads on reimplementing these features for more than one version of the software?
im working in a backup program for the savestates and other things (not released yet) and working also in a better spanish translation for gmenu2x and gmenunx. (thats for january)
Cool! Then... why not contribute that upstream, maybe? I'm sure Paul or Podulator, and the users using our current stable base firmwares would appreciate said updates without flashing SD cards and potentially losing our precious data.
The jutleys version as you said are just the Tony code with Emulators and skins...
Yes, what Jutley's packages is
nothing more than that; a repackage. And I don't personally respect what he's done giving firmwares arbitrary naming conventions just to make them somehow flashy to the average user. It causes a lot of confusion for us who have to troubleshoot or otherwise guide new unsuspecting users on what or what not
to install or use.
But at least what's being sold back to us is an already proven stable platform without risks of devices not booting or crashing due to forced overclocks
[Ninoh's 1.7], forced fifteen minute wait periods after upgrading just to init the filesystem
[Old 1.6-1.7 branch], or having to put stress on internal MicroSD cards in the first place due to excessive rewrites
[I.E. any flashable upgrade].
If you found some bug or some kind of issue just report in the github or the discord for patch as the rest of us doing please
For the record, this (and much of what I've already pointed to earlier in the post) is sort of part of a greater point: you DO realize
that you are peddling unofficial, and certainly unsupported firms on unsuspecting users who don't know any better, maybe sees this marketed as new and shiny
by YouTube marketers who also
don't know any better, or simply can't tell the difference between 'new' and 'stable', and now you have a usergroup of people who are not aware that what they're running could very possibly break their devices if they don't use it correctly?
Not even a warning, like "Hey, just to let ya guys know, I'm just putting stuff out there and can't confirm how stable this may or may not be?"
Because with how fast the developer is known to (for lack of a better phrase) shotgun-scatter their releases, even multiple revisions in a day, without warning... I don't feel comfortable using people who don't know any better as guinea pigs to find out the worst for themselves. And if they have issue, then us on 'normal' firmwares won't know how to help them.
For the record, the same goes for the whole screen fragility thing, but that's a different subject.
But I think my biggest point of all is, and I've been hinting towards this for a bit now: why not just contribute this back upstream if you think this is so great? The entire point of the original '1.7' branch, so I thought, was to have some kind of standard that could be used (at least until Paul's OpenDingux upstream finally released) so users wouldn't have to choose between two completely different branches of software for the RG-350. What you guys don't see (or heck if I know, probably already have seen if your supposed test bench is as big and populated as you say it is) are the tons of people who come around asking what to use on their shiny new RG-350's; and lots of them, not knowing any better, picked 1.7, not realizing that the newest release of the firmware isn't necessarily 'the best' release and has known problems. A lot of people get so confused, they can often give up and sell their consoles off outright because they didn't want to deal with different competing firmwares seemingly existing in competition with one another, and don't know what one offers over the other. Sure, you could say 'then they should just use what they have and not worry' but, to say that is kind of dismissing the point of an entire competing firmware branch altogether; if the average Jane isn't gonna want to use it, why bother? Honestly, much of the effort could've gone to just contributing to the base OpenDingux project instead, so that way everyone
will get to experience the clear next-evolution of these devices - and work with a team who has somewhat of a proven track record. Because eventually, I can see in the near future that newer, more official-er releases (either from Paul or the device engineer themselves) are coming which will bring newer base kernels and much-needed updates that allow devs to utilize the device better, and will ultimately cause most of the (admittedly good) work here to go unused. Which is a tragedy.