Harald Sitter schreef op 25-05-2016 12:23:
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Xen <[email protected]> wrote:
Valorie Zimmerman schreef op 25-05-2016 4:09:
Hello Xen, have you filed bugs against Spectacle in bugs.kde.org? The
developer does not (presumably) read this list. Ksnapshot was not
only
unmaintained, but was rapidly bit-rotting, and also would completely
cease to function in the post-Wayland world, so the Spectacle devel
took what he could of the old code, and started anew with the rest of
the application.
It is new, so bug reports are welcomed. It is fine to do the
workaround of making ksnapshot work for now, but that will not work
forever. Therefore, it will help all of us if you make the effort to
file bug reports and make Spectacle better.
Filing bug reports does not make a program better, you know that?
They actually do.
Tell me about this massive creative force that bug reports have and what
they do in real life. Please tell me what a bug report does and thinks
about, and how it spends its day and its time.
Please tell me what a bug report does when it wakes up in the morning.
When it gets its coffee (does it get coffee?). I was not talking about
bug reports. I was talking about filing bug reports.
There are other ways to improve something other than filing bug reports.
You answer about bug reports, I was writing about myself. I was writing
about people and the choices they have.
"Filing bug reports" and "they do" is not an answer to the same
question, or the same topic or subject of the sentence. That is like
saying "drinking coffee does not wake me up" and then you say "coffee
does that" -- I was not talking about what coffee does, but about what I
do.
If you purely consider coffee, you exclude all other posibilities. After
all, coffee can't suddenly turn into tea. As a subject, as a person, I
can choose between coffee and tea. Coffee cannot choose between itself
and tea. It can only be coffee.
So please refrain from making the object of my sentence, the subject of
your answer.
And I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I know of no other way to
express myself other than letting some anger out, and I am not doing so
now, save in little moderated bits.
It only tells you what is wrong about a product. That does not improve
anything.
It does. Everyone would then know that something is wrong with a
product because the bug report told them so.
You mean the person told them so, right? Or is it now suddenly about the
bug report. The bug report is now some kind of intelligent, active being
that will set out to change the world? Please don't give me that crap.
The bug report can only contain what I have written on it. But
apparently you want then the bug report to be the thing that matters,
instead of me, as a person, or what I would write.
That is just a way to formalize requests so that the life is taken out
of it. You try to force people to channel their input through that
thing, so that you can disconnect from the actual user, except when you
want more input into that thing. This is a way of shielding yourself and
your development process, such that you no longer run the risk of
"unwanted" interference except through the channel, the means, the
format and the ways, and abilities, you have explicitly designed for it
(allowed).
It is like when ... never mind, I would show you a video, but the
YouTube account for it has been taken down recently.
I will answer like this: "Please don't make me talk in a way that none
of us wants."
I will answer: "I am not a student in your school."
That is an assumption on your part. I personally did a comprehensive
number of tests over a 2 day period and I observed none of your
complaints.
You don't actually mention what kind of tests you did. I am running a
pure base system of Kubuntu 16.04. The interface has not been tampered
with at all. It is impossible to not discover the 2 anomalies that I
mentioned (KDE menu, Firefox popup) if you did, so I don't think your
words here have much merit. Moreoever, when someone /tells/ you about
them, you are not interested.
Because they don't come through the right channel for you. Please don't
formalize me. I'm not a formalizable entity. I am a real human being, or
at least once thought I was.
KSnapshot does not work on Wayland as Valorie already pointed out.
Apparently we are not using Wayland, now are we.
Your "does not work" is a purely hypothetical use case, at this point,
for Kubuntu 16.04.
The things that actually /do not work/ for Spectacle are real, today.
Moreover, people could have upgraded KSnapshot instead of taking a new
application but (apparently?) taking a lot of source code out of it.
There are more ways to do this thing you know.
You people usually respond without any sense of creativity. You think
the path that has been chosen is the only possible path. You do not
believe in real solutions, and that if anyone says "this solution is not
really good" you think you will be left without any at all.
The difference is that someone with good ideas might put them into
practice, and this can be the real (current) developer, it can be
anyone, it can be you too.
This is called "confidence" or "trust" or even "faith". It means that
you have confidence that something is going to work out, if you try. It
is what you people lack, at least you, mister Harald Sitter, the way
your respond here.
I was merely meaning to say something about DBus and a colloquium on
KSnapshot/Spectical (even) on the side, mostly for the purposes of
saying how difficult it is to configure, but it is already turning into
this (again). And no, I am not happy about that.
It is impossible for a regular human being here to make any kind of
criticism about anything, without it spinning into an entire debate
about everything.
Different people would say "Let's agree to disagree" but you attack
anything that you consider unwanted or something you do not agree with.
And then, you are not interested in those criticisms only because they
come through the wrong channel. Which makes you a hypocrite too. Actual
humans talking about it is not okay, but bug reports are (because you
can safely ignore them).
Anyway, I am going to quit this, because I am not interested in a debate
about everything at this point.
"Most users" is far fetched. "Most users" hit the printscreen key or
start it via the menu and then save the screenshot, and that's the
entire extent of their interaction with a screenshot tool.
I was not saying that most users want to configure it. I said it is
nonconfigurable for most users. Those are different kinds of statements
to make. Please know the difference.
Moreoever, what you are saying is that it is okay for a system to be
non-configurable, and that it is okay for this thing not being possible
to be changed by a user.
You also make statements about what users want, but that is beside the
point here (you can find criticism online if you try; ie. the bug
reports for Spectable, there are not many. But most are complaints).
And Valorie informed you that the Kubuntu developer list is not the
correct venue to talk to the spectacle developer as he is not on here.
You can list as many defects as you want, sending them to this mailing
list will definitely not get them fixed, bug reports just might.
I was not intending to be an active developer on this part. I was merely
intending to mention something in passing, that you could take note of,
and do something with it on your own, if you wanted. Moreoever, you
could respond or not respond, but in any case it would have been said to
the proper audience, who should also have an interest in this product as
a whole, which is also revealed by Valories response as a matter of
fact.
I was therefore not talking to the spectacle developer, I was talking to
you, but you are not hearing, because you apparently think you are not
the right audience, while all the while being so.
So the only question is not what I am writing, or to who, but whether
those who can read, are interested.
And if the ones who read are not interested in fixing the user design or
usability issues that their own users have, then it is just a sorry
state of affairs. I thought you were in it for your users, but I guess
this is not true.
If *you* have an interest, *you* can do something with it. Even if it is
just knowledge in passing. Who says you can't do what you're telling me
I should do? Why not do the work yourself, instead of always counting on
the free work of others?
I work my ass off every day, but it is mostly for my own projects.
However when I do submit code, there is often another reason to deny it,
or reject it, or another, or another.
There is always *some* reason to disagree with the submission because it
is not in the right format, in whatever way. And you can keep having
excuses forever, if you want.
Sometimes this reason is a mere "he does not have the right attitude" or
"he does not do everything we want him to do" or "he did not speak to me
by my surname". There can be many reasons to reject someone that has
nothing to do with the actual submission.
Maybe tomorrow the sun will not be in the right place in the sky, when I
write something, you know.
Not for me, for the ones who should heed what I say, or have an interest
in hearing it, if it mattered.
These things I just wrote here ARE a bug report. Do you not even
recognise it? You only say it is not a bug report because it is not
filed in the bug report system? It is a bug report regardless, and this
is also part of it.
So if you were really so sincere in what you say, why don't you:
- test the things I have said (you run comprehensible numbers of tests
anyway, right, so you can do this too)
- file bug reports on them in that system you so love, so that they now
agree with the format you desire
- presto, result is achieved.
This would be called "passing something on" in this case from what you
would call "downstream" to "upstream". It would also be called "relaying
information" and that is a task you have, as downstream developers or
maintainers or supporters.
You are, by definition, an information relay. You relay information from
up to down, but you should also relay information from down to up,
because that is part of the deal, part of the contract.
All layers of hierarchy always do that, ocasionally, normally. And you
are part of hierarchy all the same, nonetheless.
So you have a task, you have a job, you have a requirement, to take
feedback from your users, and pass them on to your supplier, of which
you are a user.
As a "distribution" you have a requirement and responsibility to collect
feedback from the users you directly deal with, to aggregate that, maybe
summarize that, and then to pass it on.
That is your own task, not mine, because I am not that person in that
position. At least not now.
All the same many of the things I said about Spectacle are things people
would disagree with who do not really care. User interface design
principles are grounds for disagreement to begin with.
Please don't make me speak in a way that I don't want. Please. Please.
Please don't make me do stuff I don't want to do.
Why not be happy for a change with the input people do give. Why not be
happy for a change with the thing people do do, and do want to do?
Why must there always be a criticism as to what people do and why? Why
does it never agree with what you want? Why does it always have to be
something different?
Why not stop disregarding the input that people are actually giving,
instead of then complaining that you don't get enough input, when you do
disregard it?
Why not be happy with life as it is? (That also allows for changing
things, or giving criticism, or setting out to work on something).
People are talking to you in a certain way that they like, but you are
not happy.
People are filing bug reports, but you are not happy.
People are giving feedback, but you are not happy.
And you then spend your time telling them they are doing it wrong.
That they are giving the wrong kind of feedback.
That they give the wrong kind of criticism.
Or in the wrong way, or at the wrong time, or through the wrong channel.
The truth is right in front of you, but you don't see it. What you want
is already there, but you reject it, and then claim you are not getting
the thing you need.
The rejecting is on your own. I am not doing that for you. You are doing
that to your self.
If there is a lack of bug reports, it is because of you.
If there is a lack of feedback, it is because of you.
Because they are already being made, just not in the format that you say
is required for recognising them as such. But the hurt is only on you.
Because that user might in the end develop his own system, or disagree
with you, or go another way. And then you will not only have lost that
user, but also his contributions, that were not good enough for you.
If you are with someone, and that someone claims you are constantly not
good enough for him/her, you will in the end go somewhere else.
And then you will have become a competitor, or anything of the kind, and
you won't even be able to stop it because you have an open system, and
anyone can create a fork of Kubuntu too.
And then you won't like it at all that someone else is doing something
better than you are doing.
And he tried to give you his love, but you wouldn't accept it.
Imagine the situation where a Kubuntu fork becomes more popular than
Kubuntu as an end-user achievement or thing. Imagine that the majority
of users actually choose the derivative (or customization) instead of
the "real" thing.
Imagine yourself as those becoming known as those who really don't get
it.
Imagine that. And there won't be any ability to step back on your choice
then.
Because you disregarded user input because you thought you knew better
(or thought you were a better person).
However people would just take all the customizations you've made and
incorporate it, because that is GPL too (unfortunately). Which takes
away the incentive to do it in the first place.
So there's a deadlock situation there. Working for improvements makes no
sense because:
a. people reject anything until you've already created it (won't work
with you)
b. will steal your work when it is done (they fought you, but now you
created it anyway, they are happy to take it)
If people work with you, and they are agreeable, and they are happy to
see you, you have no qualms about becoming part of that and sharing your
work as a part of that group.
But if people thwart you, you have no reason to consider yourself part
of that group. You have to do it on your own anyway without help or
support.
But if you do create something, those same people will then steal your
work because you cannot control the copyright license it is under
(usually). You create a customization but now you have to no rights to
it. Any customization you make becomes a derivate work (or modified
work) under GPL.
Therefore, there is no reason to even create it. Catch 22.
So I guess you need a legal team before you start doing any work under
open source.
You need a legal team to prosecute "theft" or you need a legal team to
defend about accusations that you are breaking the GPL by relicensing
(actually, for the first time licensing) your code or modifications.
The latter is the much more agreeable thing, because then people need to
prosecute you.
Anyway that is enough for today I hope.
And I wish things would be different for a change.
Regards.
--
kubuntu-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
