> I think all his points were important for the LAD community
> to hear.
>
> Christoph, you may like to send those points to the
> Developer list as some developers don't subscribe to the
> users list.
Oh, I really do not want to do so:
* I hate subscribing a list simply to mess it up with a
message and then leave again
* Of course I hope that some developers read my post here and
remember it at the right time; on the other hand, we're on
free software. This also means the freedom of any developer
who spends a lot of worthy time writing free software to do
what *he* (or her) wants to do
* I'd like to avoid a behaviour like ?I'm the user and you
should do this or that for me?
> The GUI programs should have that functionality IMO, you
> can always fiddle around as much as you want in
> qjackconnect if you like. Having the functionality in a
> program doesn't restrict you from using an external program
> like qjackconnect.
Exactly what I feel. I do not think aconnect or qjackctl
should be replaced, but optionally put into the single
programs.
> I think the Linux audio apps have come a long way and I'd
> be excited to see developers take the next step and make
> their programs easier to use and more polished.
>
> IMO anything that makes a program crash (like losing Jack
> connectivity) is a bug, pure and simple. The program
> should handle this gracefully, without question.
The developer decides what's more important, proper crash
handling, polished UI or new features. And I guess that even
users want better to have the new features than proper crash
handling or a better UI ;-) .
Anyway, I simply wanted to try to remember the user; sometimes
it is a pity that some software isn't used more because it is
too complicated for most users.
Best regards
ce
