Re: Debian does not have customers

Tollef Fog Heen schreef op 24-09-2016 18:12: ]] Bart Schouten Your client seems to word-wrap poorly. Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 2:48: > I guess I'm finding it quite remarkable how much concerted effort > seems to be going into try to make me feel ashamed of my behavior in > some way,

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 16:06 +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 2:48: > > The Wanderer writes: [...] > >> Some excuses are valid, mind. That doesn't mean they aren't excuses. > > > > I guess I'm finding it quite remarkable how much concerted

Re: Debian does not have customers

]] Bart Schouten Your client seems to word-wrap poorly. > Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 2:48: > > > I guess I'm finding it quite remarkable how much concerted effort > > seems to be going into try to make me feel ashamed of my behavior in > > some way, which is how I read "feel like

Re: Debian does not have customers

Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 2:48: The Wanderer writes: While I see the perspective which leads you to that statement, I don't think that's strictly correct. The way I usually put it is that "if you expect to be excused because of it, it's an excuse". Some

Re: Debian does not have customers

Russ Allbery schreef op 24-09-2016 1:12: Bart Schouten writes: I think the point that people are trying to get across is that a lot of what you say Russ feels like excuses. An excuse is when you know you should do something but aren't going to do so, and are trying to

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:48:13PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I guess I'm finding it quite remarkable how much concerted effort seems to > be going into try to make me feel ashamed of my behavior in some way, OTOH I for one, am very happy to see "the old Russ is back", the one writing

Re: Debian does not have customers

Bart Schouten writes ("Re: Debian does not have customers"): > You know probably just as well as I do that often times when you mention > the slightest of difficulties with any software package to anyone on any > Linux mailing list or forum, the first thing they often tell

Re: Debian does not have customers

The Wanderer writes: > While I see the perspective which leads you to that statement, I don't > think that's strictly correct. > The way I usually put it is that "if you expect to be excused because of > it, it's an excuse". > Some excuses are valid, mind. That doesn't

Re: Debian does not have customers

On 2016-09-23 at 19:12, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bart Schouten writes: > >> I think the point that people are trying to get across is that a >> lot of what you say Russ feels like excuses. > > An excuse is when you know you should do something but aren't going > to do so, and

Re: Debian does not have customers

Bart Schouten writes: > I think the point that people are trying to get across is that a lot of > what you say Russ feels like excuses. An excuse is when you know you should do something but aren't going to do so, and are trying to justify that decision to oneself. That's

Re: Debian does not have customers

Ben Finney schreef op 22-09-2016 2:27: Xen writes: I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it no longer exists. One reason bug reports get closed is because the report is far too vague to even know *whether* it exists, or under what conditions

Re: Debian does not have customers

Russ Allbery schreef op 21-09-2016 19:56: Xen writes: I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it no longer exists. But that you introduce a different open state other than closed that will communicate "has been looked at, is not capable of being

Re: Debian does not have customers

Xen writes: > I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it > no longer exists. One reason bug reports get closed is because the report is far too vague to even know *whether* it exists, or under what conditions it would be considered fixed. That

Re: Debian does not have customers

Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Debian does not have customers"): > If you want to be honest, you have to tell users that they shouldn't > waste their time on reporting bugs against the ancient versions of > such packages in stable. > It is not likely that anyone will e

closing bugs is not hiding problems (Re: Debian does not have customers)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:13:32PM +0200, Xen wrote: > >A closed bug is presumptively a fixed bug (because bugs which have been > >fixed get closed). > > > >An open bug is presumptively a non-fixed bug. > > > >Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to pretend that > >the problem

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:50:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > But still, despite all of those caveats, I do think there are a few things > that are fairly clear-cut. If the package has 3,000 open bugs, just close > out the unactionable reports in some polite and constructive way. At that

Re: Debian does not have customers

Adrian Bunk writes: > "no one is ever going to look at the bug again" is actually impossible > to prove for a project like Debian - some new Debian developer or even > some new upstream developer might actually look at it tomorrow or in a > few years. Yeah, I know, and this is a

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:56:10AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >... > If no one is ever going to look at the bug again, just close it. It feels > more confrontational, but it's far more honest, and it doesn't create > unrealistic expectations. >... "no one is ever going to look at the bug again"

Re: Debian does not have customers

Xen writes: > I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it no > longer exists. But that you introduce a different open state other than > closed that will communicate "has been looked at, is not capable of > being solved right now". This could be

Re: Debian does not have customers

The Wanderer schreef op 21-09-2016 4:58: A closed bug is presumptively a fixed bug (because bugs which have been fixed get closed). An open bug is presumptively a non-fixed bug. Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to pretend that the problem reported in that bug has been

Re: Debian does not have customers

Russ Allbery schreef op 20-09-2016 1:15: Bart Schouten writes: I am just going to respond point by point. I was not merely talking about open source here. But I was. :) I'm not particularly interested in talking about anything else, since that's the point of this

Re: Debian does not have customers

The Wanderer writes: > A closed bug is presumptively a fixed bug (because bugs which have been > fixed get closed). I think this is only an assumption that would be made by someone who wasn't familiar with bug tracking systems? There are usually a whole bunch of different

Re: Debian does not have customers

On 2016-09-20 at 19:00, Santiago Vila wrote: > [ Please don't Cc:me ] > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:29:14PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > >> Can you please explain to me how do you understand the following >> statements in the DSC? > > Of course I can. > >> 3. We will not hide problems

Re: Debian does not have customers

[ Please don't Cc:me ] On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:29:14PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > Can you please explain to me how do you understand the following statements in > the DSC? Of course I can. >3. We will not hide problems [...] This means the BTS is visible to everybody, even

Re: Debian does not have customers

Sorry, I've promised not to react anymore to this subject, but I felt myself obliged after the manifest and explicit violation, on my sense, of the DSC by some people claiming that they contribute to Debian only for their own sake and do not care about users frustration caused by their poor SW

Re: Debian does not have customers

Bart, you have taken the gift analogy in a too literal sense, but it's just an analogy, and it may have its flaws. Instead of a gift, I see it more like a fruit that you take from a tree. The tree definitely does not expect anything from you in return, and you don't owe anything to the tree. The

Re: Debian does not have customers

Steve Langasek schreef op 20-09-2016 1:26: To summarize: - Russ has patiently tried to help you understand why the relationship between Debian and its users is *not* a customer-vendor relationship, and users do *not* have the right to expect that Debian, or a particular Debian

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:13:42AM +0200, Bart Schouten wrote: > The idea of a gift is that it is free. You most assuredly know that in open > source software is not considered to be a free gift, but something that > requires a "retribution" (contribution in return). Check your assumptions.

Re: Debian does not have customers

Bart Schouten writes: > I am just going to respond point by point. I was not merely talking > about open source here. But I was. :) I'm not particularly interested in talking about anything else, since that's the point of this discussion: Debian as a free software project,

Re: Debian does not have customers

Russ Allbery schreef op 19-09-2016 21:55: The relationship absolutely exists. But it's not a customer relationship. It's much closer to the relationship between a gift giver and a gift recipient. If you use that as a guide, I think everything becomes clearer. I am just going to respond

Re: Debian does not have customers

Bart Schouten writes: > When people insist on using a form of "client" or "customer" what they > want is for the developer-user relationship to be recognised and not > faded away by saying "there are no users, there are only developers". The relationship absolutely exists.

Re: Debian does not have customers

Ben Finney schreef op 16-09-2016 6:19: If the distinction were inconsequential I would agree. It's not inconsequential, though, so that's why this is so valuable: it draws attention to the false and misleading idea that the Debian Project has a “customer” relationship with anyone. Pardon me

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:49:54PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-09-18 09:02:25 -0400 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: > [...] > > There are many, many people who are users of Debian who do not > > contribute to the development of Debian, except possibly by way of > > filing bug reports. > >

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On 2016-09-18 09:02:25 -0400 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: [...] > There are many, many people who are users of Debian who do not > contribute to the development of Debian, except possibly by way of > filing bug reports. > > As such, "people making Debian" is at most a subset of "users of >

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

Quoting The Wanderer (2016-09-18 15:02:25) > On 2016-09-18 at 08:40, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:00:26PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > > > >> you will end being a community of geeks developing SW for > >> themselves only. > > > > Debian is a volunteer project made

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On 2016-09-18 at 08:40, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:00:26PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > >> you will end being a community of geeks developing SW for >> themselves only. > > Debian is a volunteer project made by its users. > > So we are already a community developing

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:00:26PM +0200, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > you will end being a community of geeks developing SW for themselves only. Debian is a volunteer project made by its users. So we are already a community developing SW for ourselves, the users, and there is nothing wrong with

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 13:11 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2016-09-16 21:26, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > What about the term client? ;-) > > What about the term "users"? > > (We use the word already in our social contract > and IMHO it serves us well.) I see that most people are

Re: Debian does not have customers, but users

On 2016-09-16 21:26, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > What about the term client? ;-) What about the term "users"? (We use the word already in our social contract and IMHO it serves us well.)

Re: Debian does not have customers

On 16-Sep-2016, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > What about [different terms for the relationship]? Worth discussing, but not the issue in this thread IMO. Yes, there surely are better terms to use for characterising the relationship of Debian recipients to the Debian Project. The issue is that the

Re: Debian does not have customers

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:19:00PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > "Jeremy T. Bouse" writes: > > > I'll start off by saying I haven't read the whole thread and only > > caught this because of the subject line change. > > I direct you to Russ's message in this thread that

Re: Debian does not have customers

"Jeremy T. Bouse" writes: > I'll start off by saying I haven't read the whole thread and only > caught this because of the subject line change. I direct you to Russ's message in this thread that explains exactly why “customer” is a misleading term for the relationship

Re: Debian does not have customers

e >>> customer], other people do not - and, IMO, refusing or otherwise >>> failing to understand what they mean when they use the term that >>> way is not helpful. >> That's a point of disagreement, then. I think Russ's drawing >> attention to the fact Deb

Re: Debian does not have customers

>> failing to understand what they mean when they use the term that >> way is not helpful. > > That's a point of disagreement, then. I think Russ's drawing > attention to the fact Debian does not have customers is helpful: it > clarifies the discussion and explicitly ackno

Debian does not have customers (was: Bug#837606: general: system freeze)

elpful. That's a point of disagreement, then. I think Russ's drawing attention to the fact Debian does not have customers is helpful: it clarifies the discussion and explicitly acknowledges a fact that may have been ignored by the person using that term ambiguously. As Russ describes so eloquently,