android
  #21  
Old 12-29-2007, 09:09 PM
chrisjs162216 chrisjs162216 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llorean View Post
You can have one without the other just fine. Rockbox will not sacrifices functionality for form, though. One has to take a priority, and you're asking for "Form" to be added at the cost of functionality and we prefer "Functionality" at the cost of form.
This is partially agreeable. I think (yes, I know that when I start a sentence with "I think" it will probably be a long post ) that while developers and those who help out with Rockbox prefer functionality over form, it seems that many of the users prefer better form than better functionality (that isn't the best way I wanted to word that - users want both, but seem to care more about form). Based on the "Which custom build do you use?" poll, 335 people prefer use custom builds over the official build. While some (including mine) have features and plugins that are rarely used, I think most people use the custom builds because of their ability to display nearly all WPSs. As for those themes and WPSs not working in the future, I'd assume that when(ever) Viewports are added, the patches that the viewports replace will be closed, while the other WPS-related patches (that viewports don't replace) will stay open. If so, even if the tags are different, if the features are still the same, what would be wrong with rewriting the necessary parts of the themes?
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #22  
Old 12-29-2007, 09:35 PM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

1) Rockbox is developed primarily for the people working on it. Those people who write it do so to add what they feel is needed, so "users prefer it" isn't an argument in favour of anything really, at least when that something is in place of something the developers want.

2) Nothing's wrong with rewriting themes. My problem is that you don't make it ABSOLUTELY clear to users that these are features that will never be in the official build, and that these WPSes may one day break (and if not released under a compatible license, if you can't find the original author, may never be legally fixable publicly, this has happened in the past).
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:46 PM
digerati1338's Avatar
digerati1338 digerati1338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llorean
1) Rockbox is developed primarily for the people working on it.
The ration of the number of people actively coding for Rockbox to the number of users (anyone that runs rockbox binary) is a very small ratio.

And you're never going to get to a stable release if you're developing for the developers. In fact, I think you'll find that some of the custom builds attempt to ensure stability.

...And I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this argument...
...And this thread is getting off topic...
__________________
Rockbox digibuild
Player: SanDisk Sansa e200
Firmware: Rockbox digibuild
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:14 PM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Tell me, how many custom builds have ANY patches aimed specifically at stability?

Then tell me how many core developers spend their time fixing bugs? How many commits, EACH DAY, improve stability in one area or another? The developers WANT stability. The users want EYECANDY. You can see that from the patches. Developing for the developers is toward "stable" release, developing toward the masses is directly away from it in most cases, since they favour added complexity and extra costs over things working well, and being well engineered. They want shiny NOW, which is why they keep pestering us about margins instead of just having patience and waiting for properly implemented viewports.

What does the ratio matter AT ALL by the way? What exactly do the "users" contribute back? Donations are pretty much an irrelevancy. Nice, but they won't make or break the project. More developers is what we need, and we need more ones with the same goals as the project.

So yeah, why exactly should developers be doing things THEY DON'T WANT TO DO exactly? How is that not a recipe to drive them away?
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:39 AM
terrence1019 terrence1019 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

if find it impossible to believe, Llorean, that you speak for all Rockbox Developers. Your attitude is disgusting. It's a shame that someone with your remarkable talent has such a rotten attitude.
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:47 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Do you disagree then? Which do you think helps more: New Users or New Developers?

I don't speak for all the devs, but that doesn't make what I'm saying untrue: Unsupported builds are, on average, less stable. Users request features far more often than they provide feedback and help fixing bugs. There are twice as many feature requests open as bug reports, and half the bug reports I've responded to asking for more information have gone unanswered because the user couldn't be bothered to check on it and provide feedback. Users complain about how it looks far more than the fact that the voice UI is not stable. Users complain when a feature is rejected as complicating things in a way that developers don't like, because they don't care about why something can't be done if it's beyond their understanding, or if it has less priority to them than it does to the developers. Developers aren't magical, they depend on a community to contribute. You aren't by using unsupported builds. You aren't by saying "I can't be bothered by feedback." You aren't by pestering people about feature requests that have already been rejected. And you especially aren't by thinking Rockbox should be pandering to hundreds of people who aren't providing anything in return, when its original purpose was "Make MY MP3 player better" and has expanded to "Make OUR MP3 player better", and those defining better are and always will be the people who have direct access to it.

So yes, my attitude may stink. But honestly, it doesn't make what I've said untrue. How many bug reports have you filed? How many hours have you spent actually contributing to Rockbox by tracking down the exact revision a bug was introduced, then finding it in the code and talking with experts who know more about that code to work out what's going wrong?

Most people here don't even use an official version of Rockbox. They don't WANT to contribute or help in any way, they just want to use it. Frankly, why does it matter to me what they think? They don't improve anything, now do they? Do you honestly believe I should go out of my way to be nice to people who, day after day, use my hard work, and then only EVER talk to me about it when they want to complain? Bug reports are fine, but the vast majority of subjective feedback is people complaining about design decisions, saying it stinks because it isn't pretty enough, and so on. You see one or two posts of thanks every six months to the core devs, yet the unsupported build authors, the people who do a tiny, tiny fraction of the work the originators of the project have done, get people complimenting them daily, and they almost never make it clear how little work they're really doing. They don't even say 'Thank the patch authors'. So yes, I'm frustrated, because there are a few hundred people who've done all this work, and you're saying they don't matter, that the main people we should think of are the people who do NO work, and not spend our time keeping our work in the path set forth by those who've spent hundreds of hours already working on it.
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:01 AM
terrence1019 terrence1019 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

Two points:1. I don't disagree with the fact that users are not as helpful to the project as would be liked. It's the snobbish attitude. As an important person in the Rockbox project, especially an administator, you need to know how to communicate with others.2. If you don't care what users think, why post here?
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:05 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Because we do care about what users think. I never said we don't. I said "Why should we?"

There's a distinct difference. I don't care what people think about me, at all. For nearly a year, I maintained different identities in different forums because I didn't want recognition at all, even the core Rockbox developers didn't really know who I was, just "that guy providing support for us."

My point is that unsupported builds do exactly ONE thing well: They draw users away and reduce the number of potentially contributing users.

The snobbish attitude isn't toward well meaning users. It's to people who state, in clear black and white, that they think we should be making Rockbox be what THEY want it to be, and not what the CORE devs want it to be, when the project belongs to the core dev.

It's like walking into someone's house, and saying "You need to paint this hot pink. I like hot pink a lot better than the color you've chose." "But it's my house." "Yes, but you have a lot of visitors, and visitors like hot pink better. You should go and buy some paint, and spend 3 hours repainting this room."

Requesting features is one thing. Saying that
Quote:
you're never going to get to a stable release if you're developing for the developers.
though is absolute bullshit, when one can clearly see from all the evidence that the users are the ones LEAST interested in having programmers spend time on stability, and most interested in having developers invest time in eye candy features.
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:28 AM
terrence1019 terrence1019 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

I understand that development of Rockbox is very hard work. I do C/C++ Programming and know the painstaking processes involved. I have never used a special-build, and don't intend to use any (because I actually PREFER the official build for STABILITY, rather than aesthetics).But you must undestand that you carry the burden of a very important role as an Administrator. It's not going to be easy. You need to know how to handle these kind of people and situations, with full composure, because you are more or less the a spokesperson for the Project. And the world is watching.I know it can be done, because I've seen other devs handle it.
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:32 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Let me get this very clear to you: If I speak, I will speak what I feel to be the truth. I will not LIE to soften things. And I will not sit silently when people say things that are to my reading untrue.

Just because I am part of a project does not obligate me to violate my personal principals and not speak the truth when I feel it needs said.

So, do not suggest I should again.

If you feel my tone is a problem, I invite you to rewrite my paragraphs above with a softer tone while maintaining every point I strove to make, including the force with which I felt they needed to be made, and I'll happily take a lesson from you in how to say the exact same things in a nicer manner.
Reply With Quote

  #31  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:44 AM
terrence1019 terrence1019 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

you must consider that not only are the unsupported builds driving potentials away from the project, but also the attitude of some devs, including yourself. I could imagine a potential saying: "Man, do I REALLY have to sit down and work under a guy like him? He's a bloody elitist!". I'll be happy to help "develop" your tone of writing any day. I'll make it my personal "project". You see Llorean, it's amazing that some of you guys are able to modify and configure and develop machines such as DAPs, but you find it difficult to adjust your attitudes and personalities.
Reply With Quote

  #32  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:48 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Nobody works under anybody at Rockbox. You seem to have a misconception about the nature of the project.

And I have no intent, at all, of adjusting my personality. I said "Tone" and made it very clear I'm not changing who I am.

The fact that you think I'm elitist is silly. I believe that anyone can contribute. The only "elitism" is that I think that people who don't have an interest in contributing don't matter when they complain about a choice being made to go in a direction they don't like.

THEY choose not to get involved, they opt out, so it's their choice not to have a direct say in the direction, not mine. Any day they could open up a book on C, start learning, or start editing the manual (requires no ability other than being able to type English), or fixing wiki pages, or coming to our forums and regularly providing answers to questions. There are hundreds of ways non-technical people can contribute.

So yes, maybe I'm slightly Elitist. I believe all people have potential, but I also believe that if THEY choose to just take from the project, then I don't have to care when they say "You should do this" and the idea conflicts with what I want to do.

Rockbox is not simply a project that thousands of people vote on, and hundreds of unpaid volunteers will then donate their time to work on things that these people want. Every volunteer will work on things that interest him. DEAL WITH IT. This is the way the world works. The fact that you think it's elitist because I'm describing HOW it works (I didn't create this situation, it's human nature to do what you want to do. If someone convinces you to do something else, they've convinced you that you want something else more, maybe because it makes them happy, but you want it more now) is somewhat silly. I don't reject ideas because they come from non-contributors. I don't hate non-contributors. I just hate that they feel anyone has ANY obligation to them. If their idea gets rejected it gets rejected. We've rejected ideas from contributors to, but they generally either come up with an alternative, or come fix it. Non contributors have a very bad habit of posting silly, stupid things like "They don't want Rockbox to advance." Or even "Rockbox is Elitist because they don't value public opinion over their own wants."
Reply With Quote

  #33  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:00 AM
Jeton's Avatar
Jeton Jeton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sėrmnovė, Macedonia
Posts: 326
Default

I think this explains the whole idea very good, and this needs to be understood by every user of Rockbox:

Quote:
I just hate that they feel anyone has ANY obligation to them.
A lot of users react after a feature request is rejected, by having this attitude, that they MUST do this, it's nice and so on... But they never bother offering a technical fix or at least a comprehensible Reply as to why they want that feature. It's not comprehensive to say : "This would look cool".

I'm saying this from my own experience, i've made some requests that today i find them useless, and i'm glad they got rejected. I wish i understood that before...

So Llorean thanks for these insights. I think these posts deserve a WIKI page on rockbox.org, because users don't see things from this perspective. Now that you've explained it, things start to make sense more.
Reply With Quote

  #34  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:21 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

Sorry for the force with which I tend to deliver this message, but it's something I feel very strongly about.

I literally read every post in the Rockbox forums, every day. If I don't have time one day, I catch up on my next day off. Because of this, I see the actual ratio of traffic we get in terms of "People asking for help", "Other people trying to help out by answering questions" and "People complaining because either their feature request is unwanted or flat out rejected" and it's higher than a lot of people would suspect.

There is a very definite tone among some people that "If the majority want it, it should go in." But it's really not that situation. Rockbox, in a very real way, belongs to the people who work on it. Democracy applies in the sense that *anybody* can take the code and do what they want. It does not apply, though, in the sense that "If the majority wants something, it'll go into the official version." Unsupported builds are the very cleanest example of this democracy in action: They represent builds where someone other than the Rockbox core devs has decided what the priorities are.

And as I've said earlier, I'm fine with them. I just wish the authors made it more clear the nature of the builds (several of these features have already been rejected, and these others will never get included, so if you use them in a theme, be prepared to have it broken, etc). All the other arguments for or against them are subjective, but very few unsupported builds, if any, list exactly which patches have already been rejected, which ones are planned to be replaced with viewports, which ones have never even been submitted for inclusion, etc.
Reply With Quote

  #35  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:09 AM
chrisjs162216 chrisjs162216 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llorean View Post
but very few unsupported builds, if any, list exactly which patches have already been rejected, which ones are planned to be replaced with viewports, which ones have never even been submitted for inclusion, etc.
My patch list originally noted which patches were closed, simply so that I could tell, though I would be happy to include which patches are planned to be replaced, along with which have never been submitted for inclusion, except I'm not entirely sure which patches those apply to. IIRC, FS#5900 was one that would be replaced with viewports, but I don't know about which other ones.
Reply With Quote

  #36  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:25 PM
ViriiGuy ViriiGuy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Llorean Did you work on RunUO or on Talkers?
Reply With Quote

  #37  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:51 PM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

chrisjs: I'd be more than happy to look at a list of patch and tell you which ones are "likely to be replaced by viewports" and which ones are "Unlikely to be accepted in their current form." Actually, with viewports now having a "working, but only on one player so far" patch, I'm about to close a few patches in the next couple days, since at this point it's a matter of adapting already completed viewports work to other targets, someone's finally gone and done the concept itself.

ViriiGuy: No, neither. Only UO code I've worked on is UOX, and I've never heard of "Talkers"
Reply With Quote

  #38  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:15 PM
ice8lue ice8lue is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Llorean, first of all, I agree to ur opinion. Of coz, the Dev Team does not have to agree to all of these requests and it's not the point, that all of these patches have to go into the official build. But there are so many user who don't know anything about programming, they don't know how hard that can be, how many ours also little problems can take, they just don't know it. Also they are not interested in, coz they don't use Rockbox coz they want to contribute to the developement, but to just benefit from it's features. I know many people who use it coz of the MPEG Player so they can watch their movies on that little crappy screen. For them, it doesn't really matter if it is running a little faster or slower, what they want is something easy to use and maybe also looking beautifull. So why shouldn't they use custom builds? They offer the ability to use WPS that use features that the official build does not provide. Be happy, so many people all over the world use YOUR work, that's something I would be proud of. Of coz it would be nice if all of these people would provide feedback, but what do u think they would send u? "Ehm, if i start that video, my player turns off, whats wrong?". I wrote some programs myself and i know that u can ask them for ours and u won't get anything detailed enough to help u. Let them use ther prett builds and everything is ok. For the rest, people know what's behind the binaries (who are the minority among the world's population), i think they really DO provide feedback, I myself do so. And I think for them it's not that important to have some eyecandy thingy on ther DAP.
So all in all, don't blame the noobs. If u fear broken themes, blame the designers coz they don't build their themes on official sources.
Reply With Quote

  #39  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:05 PM
ViriiGuy ViriiGuy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8
Default

I knew a coder named llorean involved in both projects is the only reason I ask. He was alot like I suspect you are. A brilliant coder but very blunt and cold with the public. I did not mean to get off on a bad foot with you in my first posts here. I was not trying to devalue any of the hard work that you and your team have invested. But in the long and short of it, people like shiney. We like things to work first and look good second. You can say that Rockbox is built for the developers, but it is not. I am willing to bet most of the coders who contribute here, do so because they enjoy others enjoying their work. At least that has been my experience in public projects.

Anyway, all I was trying to say is something to pretty it up a little would be nice. I am going to go play around with the icons and see what I can do.

My two and a half cents,
Virii
Reply With Quote

  #40  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:24 PM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397
Default

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Coders who contribute because they enjoy others enjoying their work ARE doing what they want still, which is perfectly in line with what I've said.

My point is that people act like "The majority wants it" is a REASON to do something. It is not. If that something is wrong, in the minds of those developers who hold the reins, then that's it. The direction of the project isn't held by vote.

Rockbox really is built for the developers. They created it to scratch an itch, and everyone who works on it still does so for *his* or *her* reasons. Not because someone pays them. If that reason is "I like the attention" then it's still a personal reason.

And as a note, there really aren't many contributing codershere at ABi. No offense intended, but very, very little comes to Rockbox from these forums, honestly. We get a lot of feature requests I can track back to threads here, and in many cases they're duplicates because people were interested in Rockbox and didn't realize it's been around for five years and most of the obvious requests have been asked (and would've been found with a search so we didn't have to reject them again). And often we get people coming to our forums from here and complaining about things that were debated to death and finalized a year, two years ago. My point is "People would like it better" is not a reason to, for example, bring back up the rejection of "Ignore The." The core developers decided it wasn't wanted, because it's not a proper solution to the problem. People can use it in unsigned builds, but it would be really, REALLY great if we didn't have people every few months complaining about it, and saying "The majority would be happy with it, and that's all that matters" and so on.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.