Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, August 19, 2013 - 4:05 pm

--089e0112c27a0d001d04e44f1ad2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:

> As an OP, I'd like to comment briefly on a couple of things.

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.

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.

>

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.

>

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.

Finally! Looking forward to it.

--089e0112c27a0d001d04e44f1ad2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Louigi Verona &l=
t;louigi.veron=
a@gmail.com
> wrote:
As an OP, I'd like=
to comment briefly on a couple of things.1.Some peo=
ple 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 you=
rself.

I find this intellectually dishonest.Many sof=
tware 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 create=
d 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 bro=
ken or not - please get rid of forums and bug reporting system on your proj=
ect site.
It's not about not caring that something is broken. But it's import=
ant to note that 'broken' is not an absolute state. Something may b=
e unsuitable for a particular purpose without being 'broken'. I&#39=
;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. ar=
e different from everyone else's. Obviously, if you submit bug reports,=
people will help you. Developers will most certainly go out of their way a=
nd spend minutes, hours, or weeks fixing problems you report--all without r=
equiring any compensation from you. I'm just saying that you *always* h=
ave an option when someone isn't interested or responsive. That's o=
ne of the main advantages of free software: you always have the option to f=
ix it yourself.
Those who release software are under absolutely zero obligat=
ion 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 funct=
ion and a bug in basic stuff. In my podcast I talked specifically about con=
stantly 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&#39=
;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, ex=
actly? If the software can export files, but just not 'properly', b=
y your private definition, then it's indeed very likely that everbody e=
lse who uses it simply has a different definition of 'properly'.
It is true, with all software, that problems which do not af=
fect the majority of users and uses are not given top priority. Any other p=
olicy would be irrational.=C2=A0
3.I thank Egor for pointing t=
his out, but making music not only sounds like "work" to me, a Li=
nux 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 m=
usicians. An attempt to make everyone a developer is not justified, in my o=
pinion. 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&#39=
;s work that helps to show what can be done using Linux software.
If you don't want to h=
elp fix things, then stop complaining. You're like the person who stand=
s by as your friends build a house for you and tells everybody how poor a j=
ob they're doing. Pick up a hammer and do some work or just shut your m=
outh and be happy that people are building you a house for free out of the =
kindness of their hearts.
=C2=A0
4.And finally, the question of money.=
I think this is irrelevant, saying "it is all free, so don't compl=
ain". There are many things in the world that are free, does it mean t=
heir standards are by default beyond any discussion? My podcast is also fre=
e, 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 n=
ot 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 e=
xplained by its lack of profitability, it does not change the fact that it =
is of low quality.
So are you saying that Linux Audio i=
s of poor quality? I'm not sure I get your point here. I never said &qu=
ot;you get what you pay for" or any such thing. Even commerical audio =
software doesn't sell you a guarantee that it will work.
<=
span class=3D"HOEnZb">=
L.V.
ps: yeah, and I will record smth that is const=
ructive suggestions on the situation

Finally! Looking fo=
rward to it.

--089e0112c27a0d001d04e44f1ad2--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, Louigi Verona, (Thu Aug 15, 11:23 am)
Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, Leonardo Palomares, (Fri Aug 16, 5:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, Fons Adriaensen, (Sat Aug 17, 10:00 pm)
Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, Fons Adriaensen, (Sun Aug 18, 11:25 am)
Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, J. Liles, (Mon Aug 19, 4:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies, Harry van Haaren, (Thu Aug 15, 11:42 am)