qtchooser / qdbusviewer (ksnapshot / spectacle)

Wed May 25 23:24:55 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
And the spectacle developer has still seen nothing, and knows nothing of
your issues.

Cheers,
Scarlett

>
> --
> kubuntu-devel mailing list
> kubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/attachments/20160525/5e1329c1/attachment-0001.html>