I think it might have to do with how something is said since people will take it the wrong way. No different than when I shared 23.0.5.7, your response sounded more like a complaint such as I didn't check the INF first when all I was doing is shared as I had to trust what was posted by MoKiChU with whatever devices that was listed as supported. Like I said, this is one version I was not able to test because I have a AX210 which is just the non-CNVi version of the AX211. All you really had to say was it didn't work on the AX211 but not criticize the poster since it's not the poster had a obligation to make sure it's 100% correct, etc. so a lot of times, it has to do with what is said and also how it is said as for electronic communications, there are actually rules that has existed since the 1980s which people really should take time to read called netiquette which can be found here:
www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
One of them is be forgiving of other peoples mistakes while the other is valuing others time and efforts in making the contribution(s).
I don't think that the previous post(s) was/were meant as criticism or complaining.
Keep in mind, we are all users who have also jobs in life, so sometimes, there is simply no time to post a lengthy explanation why and how a posting was not necessary.
And for sure, no one expects that you check the inf-files in details.
You posted an information about a new driver, but in this case, the same
driver package/version was posted already before, so you could have checked whether your post would have been redundant.
I don't think this is too much to ask. Otherwise the topic/forum gets cluttered with redundant posts.
And for sure, your contributions are valuable.
Cheers
Tom
Good reply except the following which you wrote was incorrect where I feel clarification is needed:
"You posted an information about a new driver, but in this case, the same driver package/version was posted already before, so you could have checked whether your post would have been redundant.
I don't think this is too much to ask. Otherwise the topic/forum gets cluttered with redundant posts."
1) The very first post in this thread: #1689 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...xx-whql?start=0#1689
where @admin posted v23.0.0.18 where up to post #1708, all the post(s) were about v23.0.0.18.
2) The very next post after #1708 was my post #1726 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...xx-whql?start=5#1726
where I posted about v23.0.5.7 which is not a duplicate as I was the original poster and the first one who even mentioned v23.0.5.7.
3) @SM-003 responded in post #1727 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=10#1727
basically complaining and telling me to check the INF before posting.
4) I explained in post #1733 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=10#1733
as a response to @SM-003 in post #1727 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=10#1727
explaining I couldn't test them due to not having device I already known was excluded in response.
5) @SM-003 responds in post #1744 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=20#1744
basically stressing with "You can open the INF in simple notepad like I did as you can see in the attached screenshot in my earlier post" which would not be helpful because I need to know how each device ID corresponds with the model # which I don't, same reason I don't repackage the Microsoft Update Catalog drivers with folder names as I still have not figured out how you figure out what the folder names are and I am trying to find a easy way to extract device ID's from INF files without manually reading the INF which is a time consuming process which I mentioned in my response in post #1798 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=30#1798
6) It was not me who posted a duplicate driver version v23.0.5.7 as it was @atplsx in post #1755 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=20#1755
who did it and basically @SM-003 in post #1756 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=20#1756
said it was the same driver that @admin posted 3 days earlier in post #1732 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en/for...x-whql?start=10#1732
and as seen in #2 above, I was actually the original poster for v23.0.5.7.
7) Post #1757 -
www.station-drivers.com/index.php/en-us/...x-whql?start=20#1757
is where @atplsx responded as being unappreciated. So my response which you were responding to was only to the posts after #1757 meaning posts #1758-#1763.
So as illustrated above as documentation does not lie, people lie as the saying goes. I posted information about a new driver and was the first one who posted information about that driver. The same driver package/version was not already posted before as you are confusing who posted the same driver package/version as mentioned in #6 above so my post was not redundant in this case as I only post if the version had not been posted before and even if it had, I would only post a version with folder names if the posted version was only from Microsoft Update Catalog which would not have folder names. So it isn't too much to ask except your statement was supposed to be directed at someone else and not me as I was the original poster of the v23.0.5.7 drivers in question as mentioned in #2 above.
You also said:
"And for sure, no one expects that you check the inf-files in details.", @SM-003's responses as mentioned #3 and #5 above both expresses and implies that one needs to check the INF files in detail which would be difficult for someone like me who has zero skills in that area, not to mention that I have other things to do like preparing and filing income taxes which has deadlines with the U.S. Government approaching shortly on October 16, 2023 as I only get 2 hours of sleep every 48 hours.
