On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear J. Liles! (I am sorry, I do not know your first name)
My first name is Jonathan.
Since I've posted my podcast, you have reacted in a rather aggressive manner, as if I am saying something controversial. Well, I am not. Being part of a community is being able to freely speak your mind, provided, of course, it is stated in a polite and respectful manner. I believe I have not been rude or disrespectful.
If you personally find this discussion useless, no problem. I am not forcing you to continue.
You can hardheadedly profess your opinion--completely unwilling to be convinced of anything different. Am I not free to respond in kind without being called aggressive?
Somebody has to slay the datenwolf. Uncontested complaining is bad for morale.
All things considered, I thought this was a pretty friendly thread...
You are always trying to have someone be obliged to someone else. In my words you see obligation of the developer to the user, although I have several times said I do not believe such an obligation exists. Now you hint at users being obliged to developers.I am afraid I do not see free software community that way.
"just shut your mouth and be happy that people are building you a house for free out of the kindness of their hearts"
Well... You benefit from the free-software community. Does the free-software community benefit from you? Can you seriously argue that it does? There is a word for those who benefit without offering any positive contribution. I'm not going to mention it, because I'd prefer to keep this thread friendly and I don't believe that you're doing any of this out of ill will. I do think you're suffering from a lack of perspective, though.
Believe me, my needs are nothing fancy. When I say "basic" - I mean it.And just to point out one other small thing:I have faced situations where a file would get rendered with pops and clicks in place of certain effects and with whole sections missing from the middle of the track. Or when a file would just not get rendered at all. I would be very curious to read the definition, by which this is fine.
"If the software can export files, but just not 'properly', by your private definition, then it's indeed very likely that everbody else who uses it simply has a different definition of 'properly'."
What you describe is not at all basic or fundamental. What if nobody else happens to use the same FX plugin that you do at the same settings on the same system? Do you not realize how it could in fact be possible that no other user of the software in question experiences the issue that you do? A dropout such as you describe could very well have absolutely nothing to do with an 'export' function anyway (this of course depends on the architecture of the software in question). When you say that the export is broken and the developer looks at it and sees that it is not, how do you think he feels about the quality of your reporting? It may be basic and obvious to you, FROM YOUR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE, but that does not mean it is a universal problem. Hell, the issue you describe could even be simple user error (impoper gain staging causing clipping or a poorly configured system unable to keep up without xruns).
I'm not trying to diminish your experience. All software has bugs and they usually pretty damn frustrating to encounter. What I am asking you to do is understand just how subjective your situation is. You are crying that everything is broken and yet many of us are getting our own work done without a hitch. It's false and misleading, and it actively harms the community which has only benefited you.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
