Misleading use of 'not supported' in the forums

[pixelma]

With all the recent questions about whether Rockbox runs on one of the newer Ipods, I often read that Rockbox was "not supported" on this player. In my opinion this is very misleading because if I take this term literally it could mean "use at your own risk", or simply "just try and see but you won't get help here". This is even more confusing as the latter is meant when people speak about "unsupported builds".

I think we should all try to say "Rockbox does not run or work on player X" instead to be very clear about it. Even the Rockbox frontpage has a list of players "Rockbox is running on (or not)" for a while - and not a list of "supported" players anymore (which might be the origin of using this term).

I know it's hard to change old habits but I think this would avoid confusion (and the forums are called "Rockbox Technical Forums", so a certain level of accuracy should be expected ).

[linuxstb]

I agree.  

I think we also need to be careful to not give the impression that support for any target is "coming soon" - the most we can say with any accuracy is that "there is some work currently ongoing to try and add support for player X, which may or may not succeed.".  

[Llorean]

Thirded, absolutely.

[LambdaCalculus379]

Fourth, I agree wholeheartedly.

[zajacattack]

Yes, especially with the addition of the "coming soon" thing. In fact, a good cleanup project would be to combine ALL threads asking whether there were builds for a certain player, and then having one reply pointing to the actual development thread in the New Ports section. Opinions?