Timeline for What should we do with questions asking for hardware that doesn't exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/ with https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 26, 2015 at 13:43 | comment | added | Stefan | No, I didn't provide a comment, I provided an answer (which was later turned into a comment, which hence prompted my question here). In this case, there is no lack of research on the part of the poster. It is just a fundamental limitation of the way UMS works. While it is possible in theory to make it work, it's hard to do, and there really isn't much motivation for anyone to try and solve this problem since MTP provides a much simpler solution. So it's not really a hardware question and I'm willing to bet that there will never be a positive answer. | |
| Oct 26, 2015 at 13:35 | comment | added | Andy | "Can't exist" is temporal in nature. Just because it "can't exist" today, doesn't mean it won't exist tomorrow. I think the better solution, at least for your example, is exactly what you've done: provide a comment. Down vote it too, if you feel the user should have know about such limitations (ie. lack of research) | |
| Oct 26, 2015 at 13:32 | comment | added | Stefan | I'm not talking about the "this doesn't exist" case. I'm talking about the "this can't exist" case. | |
| Oct 26, 2015 at 13:28 | history | answered | Andy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |