From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DCDC139085 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41EB221C12C; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from acheron.yagibdah.de (acheron.adminart.net [85.183.141.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ECA121C06C for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from heimdali.yagibdah.de ([192.168.3.20]) by acheron.yagibdah.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cIjJE-00044r-5p for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:47:56 +0100 Received: from lee by heimdali.yagibdah.de with local (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cIjJE-0001LL-28 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:47:56 +0100 From: lee To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] from Firefox52: NO pure ALSA?, WAS: Firefox 49.0 & Youtube... Audio: No In-Reply-To: <633971a7-81d4-a3a4-5a85-714218780f8f@gmail.com> (Alan McKinnon's message of "Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:26:34 +0200") Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 22:34:51 +0100 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <87mvfs6hvo.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> References: <20161015182743.GB4541@solfire> <20161216101951.GA29887@g0n.xdwgrp> <20161216131315.GA4052@g0n.xdwgrp> <20161216165118.GA26704@g0n.xdwgrp> <20161217055520.GA13608@waltdnes.org> <20161217085341.311b4c0f@digimed.co.uk> <5a387b87-b1cd-f061-3008-3c774973b483@gentoo.org> <1db1de34-2bb4-9597-61fd-030a2e7f5209@gentoo.org> <87zijt5glw.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <633971a7-81d4-a3a4-5a85-714218780f8f@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Archives-Salt: 8c3be818-7635-4a45-bc7c-1df7fae947e3 X-Archives-Hash: 4f91b92a3c09aa6efaaa34a7af5d78c8 Alan McKinnon writes: > On 18/12/2016 18:47, lee wrote: >> Rich Freeman writes: >> >>> The universe of Linux systems that are running Firefox but not >>> Pulseaudio is fairly small at this point. >> >> Pulseaudio eats away about 10% CPU without any benefit whatsoever, not >> to mention that it makes things more complex and less reliable. Why >> would anyone use it? >> >> Developers might try to make their lifes easier by developing software >> to the point where nobody wants to use it, except for the few developers >> perhaps. With firefox, a policy like that contradicts their claims. >> >> >> This is another issue which comes up quite often with FOSS. Developers >> claim to be doing something in the interest of their users and are >> asking for support. When you take a closer look, you find that they >> don't, and when you offer support, they do not want it. >> >> Why can't they just say that they are making software for themselves the >> way they want it and don't care about what anyone else says or wants? >> It only gives reason to distrust someone when you find that they do not >> do what they claim to be doing. >> > > I think you are over-simplifying the situation here. Step back and look > at the problem from the angle of "it's a bunch of people doing stuff" > and not from a tech-centric angle. It's a people problem. > > You could make a valid case that the Mozilla devs are outright lying - > they said they want xvy, and your offer to help provide xyz was > rejected. But is it really that simple? I think it's more a case of the > devs would like contributions for xyz and they don't mention the > "everyone knows" "hidden assumption" of environment abc and general > method def. Ahhhh, that's the usual tripping point. > > I don't know the specifics of your particular case, but my first > approximation guess is that there's an abc and def in there which the > devs didn't think to mention. Happens all the time, usually with > stunningly obvious stuff that "everyone" thought "everyone else" knew > about. Things like future roadmaps, planned features, and the individual > personal preferences of each dev. > > I guess I'll saying don't be too quick to shoot from the hip - more > looking less assuming is often the better path. It really is that simple because it is the way it turns out. It doesn't matter /why/ it turns out that way. There is no assuming involved, and I have no reason to try to figure out what hidden agenda a bunch of developers might have, or to make assumptions about one. It won't change anything. That doesn't keep me from noticing that what is being said is very different from what is being done. If the bunch of people wants to change that, /they/ need to do so.