On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:35:02 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > that's not how open source works. there is nothing keeping you around > unlike thew moral obligation you put on yourself to volunteer to > clean up after a disaster for example.
Yes and no. Not doing what you say you will, or following through publicly online can be a much more permanent visible record than not showing in person. > they are very very very different things. also physically > volunteering means that walking away is something everyone sees you > do. Who the internet? Nothing like saying online in archives you will do something and then not. Where strangers around the world can see you did or did not do something. > there is a face to it. walking away from an oss project is simply > stopping work. invariably there are not even real names let alone > faces associated. there e never many repercussions that you'd get > from the example above like your neighbours and community giving you > a hard time after walking off. The chance of not seeing people in person, vs not coming across someones name online is not even in the same league. You can easily come across and find people online you cannot in person. You can move to a new town where your record as a flaky volunteer would not be known. Unless someone published it from physical to online. Again I think people saying such haven't volunteered. People no show quite often. There is no peer pressure, etc. Most have no clue what anyone volunteered to do, said they would, etc. > also cleanup after a disaster is doing what has to be done, not what > someone WANTS to be done. how would you like it if you volunteered to > clean up and the home owner comes by to the house you're cleaning > stuff out of and says "oh by the way. paint the walls lime green... > no not that green. this green. and can you rebuild my garage to be a > double instead of single, also use concrete instead of gravel on the > driveway..." any volunteer and organization will tell them to jump in > the lake. they get the cleanup they get. not just the exact way they > want it to be. the volunteers and organization decide what needs > doing. not the "users". they don't get a say. Really you assume all things are rebuilt exactly as they were? Again I do not think you have experienced such first hand. They very much follow the requests of the home/property owner, etc. The only time you have no choice, is like when there is debris that must be cleared. If you think people just go into others homes and do what ever with no direction. Again that shows more a lack of in person volunteer experience than reality. > > When it comes to FOSS this gets lost. People think its my time, my > > volunteering, I am going to do what ever I want with my time. That > > is true within reason. But that also says they only care about > > themselves, not the project, or what ever they are volunteering > > for. > > that is absolutely correct. that's what it is. it's not a > humanitarian effort to clean up after a disaster. it's utterly > superfluous really to the daily trials and tribulations of life. it's > a luxury to get your software for free. You would be surprised. There are many luxuries in life, such as a fence around your property. Nothing would effect daily life if that was missing. I do not think it is a luxury to get software for free. If you think about what comes on say Apple or Microsoft to open source alternatives. Open source is not really that luxurious or feature rich in comparison. Not to mention your time you will spend, you would not otherwise. Its not like users do nothing in FOSS. They spend more time than they would with non-free software. Why despite free software, most run non-free. > it is absolutely the job of users to convince the devs to do what > they want. not to expect devs to line up and take orders. Its the job of devs to be receptive to users. Users have no job. Their sole role is to use. They could not say anything to devs and use another product. That doesn't help developers or their products. Users are very important. Why there is the saying, the customer is always right. There is not a saying, the developer is always right, etc. The user is the customer. > > Which if they do not care about users, that also shows they do not > > care about the entity, organization, or project over all. If users > > must always convince others, that will not work, and tends to not > > work for projects who go down that path. > > that is how almost every project works. do you think you can go to a > kernel dev and tell them "i want you do add feature x for me" and > they will just go do it? i can name almost every tingle oss project > that if a user just tells a developer "i want x" and if the dev > doesn't like x .. it's not going to happen. even if user does x and > submits a patch .. it doesn't mean the patch is accepted. That is the same for most anything in life not just FOSS. Just because its wanted does not mean it will happen. That does not mean they stick around, surely not when there is a choice. One says no, one says yes, where do users end up? > if you believe projects are there to serve their users and just do > whatever they say.. then that is a very wrong idea. it may apply to > projects whose only goal in life is popularity. that's very few of > them and i can tell you that it almost always ends in tears as the > project falls apart technically. I have actually seen the opposite. I feel the opposite. If projects do not serve their community or user base, they will lose them and cease being a project. Communities and user base make or break things. You can have the best tech in the world. If no one uses it, who cares? > > Just as devs/volunteers must be motivated to fulfill a users wishes > > and > > and that is where i think you have it wrong. devs absolutely have no > requirement to fulfill users wishes. none. no requirement. if they do > so it's them being kind, or perhaps being inspired or motivated by an > idea or a user. unless their goal is pure popularity by saying yes to > anything no matter what it is or what the cost to them just for a bit > of popularity. Our differences maybe visible in why the E community is not larger, more active, popular, etc. Some of the E forks are catering to users.... You say I am wrong, I say you are wrong. Where can we find anything to support one or the other factually? I think looking at the numbers behind E/EFL are the most telling. Now there seems to be uproar from devs. Lack of users, and now devs are having issues. Hardly good things to reinforce any viewpoint. You can see the EXACT same in Gentoo, attitude, stance, and effect on the project. > > desires. A user has to be motivated to step up. They have to want > > to, and that can start with wanting to work with given developers. > > If they see those developers/volunteers are just self serving. They > > likely will not want to work with them. I see that to often. People > > with skill, but others avoid them and the distro. Then they use > > that to drive off others saying others are having that effect. Not > > realizing its them... Thus despite running others off, project > > still suffers. > > what you are describing is developer utterly ignoring users. i never > said that. i did say that listening is good. it does not mean they > just do whatever a user asks. it goes like this: No need for examples, there are forks that are real world examples. People wanted things that went against E development. Thus things forked. Rather than finding a way to appease and keep things together. > time is the one resources you CANNOT buy as much of as you like even > if you have the resources. there are only 24hrs in a day. and > everyone's life time is limited. no one who has grown any wisdom is > going to waste hours of their limited lives on something they are not > convinced is worth it. it's the job of the user who wants x to > convince them that sacrifice is worth it. very simple. I am quite aware. Why you need users, who become developers, so numbers increase, and there are many to help. Time is limited, but number of those helping is not. Only way to increase the amount of things being done, increase time, is to increase the number of people doing the work. The more you keep thinking users have any job or its their job. The more you will limit the number of users in general. Which has its own effect, that is not good. > > I am also very much for PAID volunteers. Maybe not full time or part > > time, but some bounty to help with motivation on things they want no > > part of or not interested in doing otherwise. > > aaah now PAID means it's a transaction. "in return for X money you > will do what i tel you to do". Not always, ever heard of Google Summer of Code? Also why I said bounty, as it is a reward for completion. > if that is "fix THIS bug for $X" or > "add this feature for $Y". it's a deal. an agreed on IN ADVANCE > deal. just being a developer who works sometimes on project X does > not mean it's a deal that "since i donate some of my time to project > X i must do whatever users tell me to". Lets think about that. A big company donates money and would like to see something done. If that is done, there is a good chance you will get more money. If it is not, you likely will not get more. Who says by donating money to FOSS you get any benefit? But if you get a donation and seek to ensure those who donated get a benefit. You get more donations. Almost no donation is tied to specific expectations. If a project funded development with donated dollars. There would be expectation of that task being done by the developer being tasked and paid to do said work. > that is absolutely not the > contract. a contract is where both parties give up something. A gives > up money in return from specific work from B. what you want is > "developers give up X time in return for Y happiness of users". that > is not a given assumption. it's a contract that is user wants > something has to present as a deal. What contracts? Your seeing things differently. > if someone offer me $100,000 to > sift through sewerage all day, every d for a year.. I'll tell them to > go away. I don't like the deal. if they offer $500,000 I will still > say the same. If you say "this feature will make me happy" ... if the > feature makes ME unhappy.. i'll tell you to go away. it's not worth > it. you have to CONVINCE me it is. either convince me of the sheer > happiness it will create *AND* that that happiness is something i > might value, or you have to find some other way... maybe it will > support future features i might value, or reduce bugs which is > somethong i might value etc. etc... you have to sell it. like any > deal. The biggest thing that stands out is the amount of times you referenced yourself. Do you think FOSS is only about serving yourself? You do not need to release code to serve your own needs. If you release code you are doing that for others. The whole purpose of FOSS is to benefit all. Your not coding for yourself, your coding for everyone. Granted your not supporting the wishes and needs of everyone. But if you fail to do that for your community. You will not have a community, just yourself. Its not so much quid pro quo. Its doing things that would encourage more from others. > simply: no. you may believe differently. i do not think it should. > that comes at a cost i do not like in the slightest. the source is > divided cleanly in the tree by files and directories. even into > modules. but i disagree and you're going to push against decades of > disagreement there. i fully well know the unix philosophy. I am simply talking about runtime. One thing crashing or having problems should not take out another. Or be limited as much as possible. I do not see the benefits of EFM being integrated in E, so that one can effect the other. its programs doing small things and those well, part of the unix philosophy. Not splitting up code etc. > i do not like the costs when it comes to something like > enlightenment. if that is the philosophy for you ... there are other > desktop projects that follow it. Maybe why most people run desktops other than E. Maybe you should think about that statement a bit. Your approach and stance, maybe the cause behind such. Do you think you will win someday? Get the type of numbers Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Mint, etc have for E? If you don't have them now, why do you think you ever will without a change? Which is the real question. Do you want things to grow? > > I think its better for development, as things can evolve on their > > own and not be bound to constraints from other things. > > > > > e has never been a "unix philosophy thing" for as long as it has > > > existed. this is not a new thing. it's been the "have 1 process > > > do as much of your day to day desktop as can be done/is sensible" > > > and fm is sensible. it's not fundamentally that the shelf or e's > > > menus or wallpaper handling etc. - if you want the unix > > > philosophy then all of those move out to processes too. if you > > > like that then kde is probably good for you. :) gnome used to be > > > until gnome 3... :) > > > > What E is today ans has been does not mean it has to be that way > > tomorrow. Even Apple realized their old OS and ways were garbage, > > and tossed them for older stuff. Look at the result.... > > if you want me involved... it will stay the way it is. it is that > philosophy that leads to things like: Well I am not sure Apple would have ended up as it did, if they had not fired Steve Jobbs. That was good for both of them. I would hope it would not come to the point of you leaving. But if you did, you may feel differently than you do now over time. Looking at things from the outside and a different perspective. > <benrob0329> I got tiers of it when i3 messed up my Subnautica (that > I got working in wine pretty decently) > <benrob0329> *tired > <benrob0329> It takes less ram and composites, is more flexible and > is closer to a full DE > <raster> e takes less ram? > <raster> than i3? > <benrob0329> i3 with Compton anyways > <raster> really? > <benrob0329> My old setup was always over 400 megs > <raster> you've got to be joking... > <benrob0329> E is like 255 with rage and terminology open > <raster> that's... bizarre > <raster> i'm shocked. > > I never expected E to out-do i3+compton. but it does. over my dead > body do we change direction to nix that advantage. I have seen the same with E as well. I am not saying that, but if EFM was not running. Maybe it would be even less.... My phone uses more memory than E... When I have Firefox Netbeans, and other stuff open. > > You would not need the crash recovery as such. In the past window > > managers would crash and other stuff keep chugging along. Also that > > is IF you can restart E in time. That is not always the case. > > NOT if you are also a compositor. and absolutely not in a wayland > world. so crash recovery is not even an option. it's a necessary. I never saw options in other stuff to restart. They handle that differently. I have had issues with window mangers and compositors. Why it taking out the desktop and other is new. None of that makes the case for why EFM needs to be integrated. I doubt Wayland needs EFM. > > The thing is I do need the filemanager running all the time. Icons > > on the desktop could be rendered otherwise. Like what Plasma has > > done as an example. That is not related to the file manager. Having > > the file manager running always just for desktop icons seems like a > > bit much. > > i'm not going to go any more into this. i know other ways of doing > it. they come at complexity and/or memory and other overhead costs. i > am well aware of the trade-offs. this is the one i chose for e > because i am absolutely certain it's the best/right one. I really cannot understand why so tied to the concept of a deeply integrated file manager. I do not see it benefiting say file selectors in applications. Does the Elementary file selector use EFM? > you drag over the folder. the icon becomes hilighted with arrows > pointing in with animation to indicate "dropping INTO this > directory". it doesn't happen to regular files because you cant drop > INTO a regular file. i'm staring at ti doing this right now... it is > how it's pretty much always worked for many years The animation fails to trigger at times over folders. It was not working in EFM till I did it on desktop with folders. Then the folders started being animated when dragging something over in EFM. Its quirky... > what you describe is just absolutely not possible if its the "drop > into this folder" stuff as above. either the description is bad or > you mis-remember.. but it's like saying "my pc crashed" ... but the > power to it was off. it can't crash if it's off. these drop into > folder icons cant appear if the canvas they are in has been deleted. > they might leak memory .. that is possible, but they cant be rendered > without the canvas they live in. I will provide a screenshot next it happens. Then you can say I photoshopped it because its impossible. > > >so this doesn't make sense. unless its the desktop files - that > > >window is the whole fulls screen canvas of the compositor... and i > > >can't make the arrows stay around at all... if drop is done they go > > >away. if dnd moves somewhere else they go away. > > > > I never full screen most anything that is rare. This tends to > > happen > > no. it has nothing to do with fullscreening windows. there is a > single canvas covering ALL screens. the entire swet of visible pixels > you can see across all possible screens is a big single canvas. > desktop icons live in that canvas as do e menus, the shelf ... and > "image bitmaps" that are windows. the windows are just "image bitmap > objects" in the compositor canvas. the bug "covers all screens" > canvas has no clue as to the CONTENT. it's just a blob of pixels.. > the pixels are rendered to a window/pixmap in x or a buffer in > wayland by whatever owns that window/surface. efm windows are normal > windows but the same e compositor process also owns the rendering and > content of these windows too. thus it generated this pixel content > for itself. If EFM is integrated, drawing desktop icons. There is some connection between Desktop and any File manager windows. Its all the same process right? Anyway we can go back and forth. I will just provide a screenshot ASAP. Then you can ponder on that, or accuse me of making the image. Either way it happens. > that was why i never wanted to remove the menu on mouse down to make > rubber banding work. it just wasn't worth it unless you cover your > desktop in files and it's a mess and they need rubber-band > selecting... but then my take is... why did you make a mess like that > to begin with? my desktop is mostly for a few file/dir shortcuts in > the corners and maybe some temporary stuff now and again... and i > think a normal workflow would be similar thus sacrificing the menu > quickness for this i dont think is worth it. In the coarse of a work day. I may create a variety of scratch text files that end up all over my desktop. Then I go to delete them all with rubber banding. Just an example of how it fits into work flow. Some people use a desktop like an actual desk. It gets messy during the course of a work day. Even with left click bound, right click, when not over an file, folder, icon, etc. could possible still have that feature. In KDE at times I used notes, but that is another thing. There was a E notes gadget, but seems to be e17, or a moshka thing. https://www.kde.org/applications/utilities/knotes/ https://github.com/thewaiter/StickyNotes Even with that, I sometimes make a file mess I cleanup, etc. It is not a big deal either way. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel