qtchooser / qdbusviewer (ksnapshot / spectacle)

[Xen]

Harald Sitter schreef op 25-05-2016 12:23:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> 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.