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