And to be perfectly clear about the nature of this issue (if the parable wasn't clear enough), I'll give a specific example:
Say that someone comes to me and says that they want to make an alternative GUI for NSM, but they want their GUI to also be a JACK connection manager (because they're the every-program-should-to-everything type of personality), and they (for some reason) very strongly believe that in order to do this, NSMD must link to JACKD and proxy for the GUI. I explain that NSM was designed specifically to be independent of JACK and that it is possible for them to do what they wish to do without involving NSMD at all, by communicating with JACKD directly themselves (in their GUI). They either can't or won't understand this (maybe this is where they accuse me of dismissing their idea that the GUI should be a connection manager [which I might do if it were any of my business, but my real concern is with keeping unnecessary nonsense out of NSMD]), and continue to pressure me to not only accept this flawed plan, but *to spend my own personal time and money implementing an idea so deeply flawed that I wouldn't even accept a patch for it*. Now say that this person isn't alone, but is a member of a gang where each member has his own set of these nonsensical ideas and demands the *I, who have no interest in the matter, should be the one to do the work*. Something like this scenario is not a reasonable technical discussion for several reasons. And it is not appropriate conduct for several more. No good can come of such a situation. Someone is going to get their feelings hurt, or turn to violence, or something else similarly irrational, because the whole situation is predicated on irrationality and flawed thinking. Trouble like this can always be avoided if people just spend the few minutes required to think their ideas through to their conclusions and repercussions and act in a manner that shows they're considerate of other people's time. Just asking someone to consider an idea is asking them to work for free, if you're going to do that, you should at least make sure your idea makes sense first, and use good judgement to determine whether or not the person you're asking would even be interested in your idea. (e.g. when you come to the author of a project that's plainly anti-bloat and propose something that is pro-bloat, you shouldn't be shocked when he declines to spend his own personal time destroying the valuable work he's already done). I feel like all of this should be self-evident. But for whatever reason it doesn't appear to be as universal (in the technical realm) as I would have imagined. I'll say it again: I don't like saying no and I don't like being put in a position where I'm painted as the bad guy. The reality is that I have limited time and resources and a specific vision for my projects. It's actually shocking how many authors of free-software projects don't use their own software. I'm not in that camp. I need this stuff to work, so I can't just add a bunch of random kitchen-sink features just to avoid hurting people's feelings. I hope that everyone can forget whatever happened in the past and whatever mindstates or emotions drove them to do or say whatever they did or said and we can just all be reasonable and considerate moving forward. Life is hard enough as it is, there's no need to make things any more difficult. On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:31 PM J. Liles <[email protected]> wrote: > Very well said. Regarding the events leading up to the "fork": On that > occasion not one but rather 3 or 4 imposing strangers barged into the > lodging house and once and were all simultaneously making presumptuous and > nonsensical demands. Those are not favorable conditions for the hearing of > reasonable statements (so of course they couldn't hear my reasoning). The > kind of people who travel in packs and target their combined ire at a lone > individual are not honorable, trustworthy people. That is the way cowards > conduct themselves. Such force of numbers is only required in support of > ideas which cannot stand on their own merit. And there is, quite frankly, > never a hope of talking reason to a mob. > > And believe me, I know how frustrating it is to be a user. That's why I > became a developer---to escape that particular frustration (lack of agency > and expediency). > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:11 AM rosea.grammostola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> You wrote a nice parable male. And it shows your position well and I >> fully (that's not possible I guess) acknowledge your position and also the >> fact that FLOSS linuxaudio users (I count myself as one of them) can be >> very hard to deal with. >> >> Do realize though, that a same sort of parable could be written from the >> perspective of a FLOSS linuxaudio user. The enormous amount of time spent >> on something that doesn't work at the end. Dealing with hard to understand >> developers with their own strange twists and turns. Trying to help improve >> the situation, by reporting issues, showing where you bump against things >> etc. etc. Trying to get developers work together to help the linuxaudio >> ecosystem as a whole. Writing out tutorials to help new users avoiding to >> hit the wall the same place you did. >> >> I think the FLOSS linuxaudio environment is a very complex system. >> Technically, it's hard to get all the loose ends together (if one >> accomplished something that works, it is you, granted), but also especially >> socially. Lot's of different people, different native languages, different >> needs, different perspectives, different philosophies, different amount of >> time etc etc. >> >> Long story short, this is a unavoidable consequence of the freedom there >> is in this FLOSS linuxaudio ecosystem. There is no boss who tells us which >> direction we should go or which rules to follow. It's the freedom we choose >> for, but it has unavoidable consequences we should acknowledge and we >> should defend ourselves against, as developer and as user. >> >> When you release software and especially good software like NON-Daw, you >> can wait for people who want to improve it further, who needs more >> features, who dreams of what the software can grow into. It's a law in >> nature I would say. As a developer you've to realize this and (learn to) >> protect yourself against it where needed in the best possible way. Sure, >> there is always some sort of reciprocal benefit for users to do so, but >> lot's of people do it with good intentions too, because they like the >> project, the end-result or just the technique and craftsmanship behind it. >> Reporting issues, isn't always about people who wants more meat, you can >> also see it as a compliment for the software, as something positive. >> >> Also it has to do with the nature of the software I think. A musical tool >> can be important. A piano which isn't tuned perfectly is for lots of >> pianists a hell. So demands are probably (unreasonable!) high, for this >> kind of software, especially when the software is free. So I think it's >> indeed a good idea to write down your philosophy and 'guide lines' clearly >> somewhere on your website. (I think you should add links to Renoise and >> Bitwig on your website, maybe they want to sponsor it ;) ) >> >> You write elsewhere that there is no legitimate cause for the fork. >> Technically that might be right, but I don't think you communicated it the >> way as you do it now. I think actually that there are justifications to >> name for the fork. Not for the way it has been done, no question, but if >> you would have communicated it better and acted a bit more tactfully now >> and then, it could have been avoided probably. You've asked something from >> people in terms of patience and tolerance when it comes to the ways of >> communication, that's also good to realize. Another thing which could have >> been done maybe, it to give the people who wanted a different GUI more >> space and more guidance (telling them earlier and more clearly to write a >> GUI API) then you gave them. It might have been in your own benefit as >> well, you can point people with feature requests to a other GUI. This is >> not a reproach and a fork may have happened anyway at some point in time, >> but something that is fair to point out I think. Same it true for myself >> probably, I've always tried to defend the principles of NON as I believe in >> them, but it might have worked contra-productive is some occasions. >> >> This whole complex and time-consuming environment makes emotions go high, >> quite often. I experience it myself. This whole thing can be really >> frustrating and time-wasting. The trick is to realize it and find a way to >> deal with it. As we have to deal with the fact that free software can be >> forked I guess. That's a consequence of the freedom we want apparently, how >> unfair it may feel and is. >> >> Actually I want to stay away from these discussions, stop looking back >> and just look forward. But I felt it would be good and fair to give also a >> little insight from the perspective of a user. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
