| 1 |
On 08/23/2013 08:09 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 23.08.2013 19:58, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/23/2013 05:48 PM, Marc Stürmer wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Am 23.08.2013 12:50, schrieb the: |
| 5 |
>>> [ ... ] |
| 6 |
>>> The point for Skype, last time I am going to repeat that, is that it |
| 7 |
>>> works out of the box for the normal user and the large user base. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> And that is still wrong. If it works for you, fine. There are enough |
| 10 |
>> users who have a LOT of trouble with it. Again: read the bugtrackers, |
| 11 |
>> I do. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> (Again, I'm not a skypodefender in any way) |
| 14 |
> Please recommend us a bugtracker for an actively developing software |
| 15 |
> which has, well, considerably fewer bugs. (Add to this: multiplatform, |
| 16 |
> multiuser, network-based etc) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was talking about crash and segfault bugs in specific. |
| 20 |
Check the xfce bug tracker if you need an example for a rather well |
| 21 |
maintained piece of software compared to skype. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>> And even better: you cannot file bug reports properly (at least from |
| 24 |
>> what I see the skype jira is gone) and cannot read/fix code. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> You are lured into believing it's a good piece of software that works |
| 27 |
>> out of the box, because all they do is good advertisement and increasing |
| 28 |
>> their userbase with some shiny features. Even worse: distro maintainers |
| 29 |
>> have trouble with it, need to apply hacks or don't even include it at |
| 30 |
>> all because of the nasty license. How does that improve "out-of-the-box" |
| 31 |
>> experience? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Your view is simply different from the view of most software users. A |
| 34 |
> "good piece of software" for them is not what is well-coded or |
| 35 |
> well-maintained or well-licensed or well-whatever. All they need is |
| 36 |
> matching their expectations. You may be 146% correct about troubles and |
| 37 |
> hacks but this doesn't change the average joe's expectations. And yes, |
| 38 |
> in most situations skype does work out-of-the-box. Sad, but true. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Repeating it and ignoring the troubles people have throughout distro |
| 42 |
forums and bug trackers will not help you prove your point. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
>> Next you will tell us windows works out of the box. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> It does, in most situations. Sad, but true. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
That is simply not true. It doesn't even come with most of the needed |
| 49 |
hardware drivers. There is almost nothing pre-installed. Getting |
| 50 |
programs is complicated. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
It seems to me you don't really understand what "out of the box" means. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
>> I mean, wtf are you talking about? It doesn't make any sense. And |
| 56 |
>> doesn't even add anything to this topic. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> That's all about off-topic. |
| 59 |
> But not acknowledging the truth doesn't add anything either. |
| 60 |
> Do people hate Windows or other proprietary stuff because of its bugs? |
| 61 |
> Or because of its not working OOTB? In my experience, I'd probably |
| 62 |
> number a thousand more times of open-source software not working OOTB |
| 63 |
> and being buggy than Windows/etc. But I still adhere to OSS. |
| 64 |
> I don't think that having an 'ideal' piece of proprietary software would |
| 65 |
> change an open-source adept's mind towards PS. But neither I think that |
| 66 |
> emphasizing PS' problems which are common to all software will help |
| 67 |
> people turn to the open-source side. |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
opensource often sucks if there is no one professionally working on it, |
| 71 |
as in: get's money |
Archives