19 Aug
2013
19 Aug
'13
6:05 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
As an OP, I'd like to comment briefly on a couple
of things.
1.
Some people in this discussion try to sound as if what they do is done
strictly for themselves and they don't care if something is broken, just
fix it yourself.
I find this intellectually dishonest.
Many software is clearly released as software which is created to be used
by other people and some project sites clearly present it as such. Forums
are created for users to comment on it and bug report systems are
available. Initial motivation is not something that can be used to say -
you know, initially I did it for myself. Many commercial products started
off as being made for oneself, so what.
So if you really don't care whether your software is broken or not -
please get rid of forums and bug reporting system on your project site.
It's not about not caring that something is broken. But it's important to
note that 'broken' is not an absolute state. Something may be unsuitable
for a particular purpose without being 'broken'. I've been in this
situation many times. Something doesn't work *at all* for me and my
purposes, yet everyone else who uses it seems to be perfectly happy.
Figuring out why that is an investigative process. It's because my use
case, environment, standards of what's 'stable' etc. are different from
everyone else's. Obviously, if you submit bug reports, people will help
you. Developers will most certainly go out of their way and spend minutes,
hours, or weeks fixing problems you report--all without requiring any
compensation from you. I'm just saying that you *always* have an option
when someone isn't interested or responsive. That's one of the main
advantages of free software: you always have the option to fix it yourself.
Those who release software are under absolutely zero obligation to fix
anything for you or to even continue development at all.
2.
Also, there is a difference - and a huge one - between
software which has
a bug in some weird rarely used function and a bug in basic stuff. In my
podcast I talked specifically about constantly bumping into basic problems,
like not being able to render a file. And that was pointed out as a factor
in being tired of reporting bugs.
If a software is presented as a sequencer, for instance, not being able to
render a file properly sounds like a basic problem to me.
Might be. Or maybe not. Maybe the software was intended to be used live, or
maybe there's another way to export a file. Maybe the developer has
forgotten that the function you're trying to use even exists because
they've been doing it another way since the dawn of the project. Believe
me, everybody has as a unique view of what is and isn't a basic feature.
Note the wording you use... 'properly'. What does that mean, exactly? If
the software can export files, but just not 'properly', by your private
definition, then it's indeed very likely that everbody else who uses it
simply has a different definition of 'properly'.
It is true, with all software, that problems which do not affect the
majority of users and uses are not given top priority. Any other policy
would be irrational.
3.
I thank Egor for pointing this out, but making music not only sounds like
"work" to me, a Linux Audio scene without musicians is a bit like a bike
that everybody works on, but nobody really uses. Linux Audio community is
both developers AND musicians. An attempt to make everyone a developer is
not justified, in my opinion. I don't want to fix bugs, I am a musician.
And as a musician I am extremely productive and I believe I do a good share
of the musician's work that helps to show what can be done using Linux
software.
If you don't want to help fix things, then stop complaining. You're like
the person who stands by as your friends build a house for you and tells
everybody how poor a job they're doing. Pick up a hammer and do some work
or just shut your mouth and be happy that people are building you a house
for free out of the kindness of their hearts.
4.
And finally, the question of money.
I think this is irrelevant, saying "it is all free, so don't complain".
There are many things in the world that are free, does it mean their
standards are by default beyond any discussion? My podcast is also free, so
why then all the arguing? I shared with you a free broadcast product, no?
Obviously, discussing something has nothing to with whether it is free or
not. And in my podcast I have repeatedly said that this was not an
implication that anyone owed me something, yet I still received that tired
rhetoric.
A lower quality of a given non-commercial product might be explained by
its lack of profitability, it does not change the fact that it is of low
quality.
So are you saying that Linux Audio is of poor quality? I'm not sure I get
your point here. I never said "you get what you pay for" or any such thing.
Even commerical audio software doesn't sell you a guarantee that it will
work.
L.V.
ps: yeah, and I will record smth that is constructive suggestions on the
situation
Finally! Looking forward to it.