On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Xen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > And the spectacle developer has still seen nothing, and knows nothing of your issues.
Cheers, Scarlett > > -- > kubuntu-devel mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel >
-- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
