cc808 wrote:no one's asking for the plug in to be dumbed down. No-one has explained the benefits of a badly implemented installation process, because there are none. It's bad ethics & devoid of practical worth. What has been made a bunch of unrelated points about the advantages of complex program functionality, wishing the developer success, and elite circles, none of which address a bad installation, and some of which cancel each other out.
Sorry, but this is false. You have continually ignored a very reasonable explanation for why things are the way they are (which is, as everyone has basically agreed with you, less than ideal but workable):
If you're wondering, then, why I would engage in such a discussion the reason is simple: all Nebula development is a zero sum game due to the scarcity of human resources. Any feature or request that gets implemented literally and directly leads to another feature or request getting delayed or canceled.
While Giancarlo et. al are devs with a solid vision and a great plan, we all know that enough bellyaching from the user base can have an impact on those visions and plans (as they probably should in many cases). Thus, when users unanimously agree on something, it's worthwhile for users to post (even without adding new information) because it gives the devs a solid idea of how their users are feeling about a paticular issue. It is similarly useful, when we users do not agree with an idea, to point that out (and why) so that the devs can understand the ubiquity of the request and decide whether or not that should impact their plans.
So in regard to spending resources to streamline documentation and installers...that seems like a lot less of a priority than some of the other major developments underway (side-chaining, server and localserver, Mac development [which is of 0 value to me personally but I can understand why it's of such great value to Acustica], compressor sampling support, new UI, changes to category handling, etc.), especially when you take into consideration that the answers to all those questions (and more which haven't been asked yet) can all be obtained from the forums. The kinds of features that are important to me cannot be derived from the support community, they can only come from the actual devs. To me, that's a solid case for why documentation takes such a back seat in Nebula right now. When Nebula is in a state that there aren't major feature requests pending development I think it would be very easy to make a good case for catching up on the documentation and support materials at that time.
It's a very simple lack of resources. It has nothing to do with the current documentation being perfect or finished; it is not a case of "the benefits of a badly implemented installation process". It is the weighing the disadvantages of the admittedly imperfect documentation versus the development cycles being spent on one of the awesome features in the post above. Plain and simple.
You still think the installer is more important? Good for you, you're actually entitled to that opinion. If you had simply argued that "I hear you guys, but I find the installer to be more important" this wouldn't have turned into the fight that you perceive yourself as having been drawn into.
edit - its been a long time since i was drawn into an internet debate, and i'd rather exit it. Good luck giancarlo, you have a great program.
Drawn into implies something a bit different than what transpired here.