4 ms·

> hate this. "we don't want this on principle... but we would accept it if you did it yourself!" just say you don't feel like it! don't act like it's a bad thin

> hate this. "we don't want this on principle... but we would accept it if you did it yourself!" just say you don't feel like it! don't act like it's a bad thing except for when somebody else does it for you, that's just dishonest. What is there to hate here, I don't understand? They first provide a concise overview of the current situation. Then how they personally feel about it. Finally they leave it open and end it with "If you want it badly enough, we'll accept outside contributions for it". They're not saying that they're against the feature in principle, they're saying that they themselves don't plan to spend time implementing it, but if users really want it and contribute the feature itself, they'll be happy to maintain it once merged. This seems like the ideal solution? What would be better here?

LoganDark 2mo ago
First they say they do not want the feature: "we do not recommend using RustDesk with a public IP alone, that's also why direct ip access is turned off by default." Then they say you should contribute it. It's mixed messaging, it seems like they're trying to hide "won't implement this" behind "this is a bad idea in general". They should just say they won't implement it and that they're open to contributions, not that it's a bad idea and that they "strongly" recommend against it, but that maybe if someone opens a PR anyway they'll consider it.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > First they say they do not want the feature: "we do not recommend using RustDesk with a public IP alone, that's also why direct ip access is turned off by default." Massive misunderstanding from your perspective if this is your take away. They're saying that based on the current state of the program, they don't recommend that particular approach. Nowhere in that quote of yours, does it give an indication that they don't want that feature. The only thing unambiguous from that quote, is that due to the current state of the program, they don't recommend that approach, and explains why one of the defaults is like it is. If they didn't like the idea, or didn't want the feature, they'd say so, but they do not say that out loud, so why would you assume so?
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    there is another interpretation indeed, that is simply: "the Direct IP feature wasn't designed to be secure so we don't recommend using it right now, but if you contribute improvements we might accept them" but I think it's phrased pretty stupidly, especially by pointing out to the askers that "very few" submit a pull request. that's just, shaming? "stop asking, do it yourself" which I hate just as much as hiding your real response behind recommendations.
    - embedding-shape 2mo ago
      > but I think it's phrased pretty stupidly, especially by pointing out to the askers that "very few" submit a pull request. that's just, shaming? That's is a statement of truth though? "Many ask, none provide, you want it, you contribute it" seems to be the vibe, which is completely understandable and also expected in FOSS. It's not hostile or shaming for the sake of shaming. Yes, I guess you can see it as "shaming", but no I don't think it's bad. Users ask for stuff, you don't want to spend the time implement it, so you tell them to implement it themselves, and you'd accept it if they wanted it upstream to make it available for all. Isn't this the ideal scenario? I still don't understand what you think would be better here? Saying "No, we don't want that" even if they're OK with the feature existing? Or saying "Yes, we don't need it, but we'll put aside our needs just for you" would have been better?
      - LoganDark 2mo ago
        > That's is a statement of truth though? "Many ask, none provide, you want it, you contribute it" seems to be the vibe, which is completely understandable and also expected in FOSS. It's not hostile or shaming for the sake of shaming. I understand a lot of projects take this attitude but that doesn't mean it's always deserved. > Yes, I guess you can see it as "shaming", but no I don't think it's bad. Users ask for stuff, you don't want to spend the time implement it, so you tell them to implement it themselves, and you'd accept it if they wanted it upstream to make it available for all. Isn't this the ideal scenario? I think it's upsetting here. Not "bad", not even necessarily inappropriate or disproportionate but upsetting. Not because I wanted them to do the work for me but because I would have wanted to feel actually welcome to do the work myself instead of made to feel like it would be a further annoyance. This kind of attitude from the project genuinely makes it feel like if I opened a PR, it would sit and rot just like the many issues have. It does not make me feel like they are actually interested in the problem or empathize with their users whatsoever, so what motivation would they have to accept the work even if it was done for them? > I still don't understand what you think would be better here? Saying "No, we don't want that" even if they're OK with the feature existing? Or saying "Yes, we don't need it, but we'll put aside our needs just for you" would have been better? Did you not see the example I already posted elsewhere in the thread? Here it is again: I prefer when projects say "we don't have the resources for this but we agree it would be nice" Here, they aren't agreeing with it whatsoever, they just say they don't have it and that they don't recommend using the related features and that they won't consider it without a pull request. That's basically "we don't have this, won't build this and won't consider user requests" and it has absolutely nothing positive for the people who would build such a PR. As much as they technically don't need such things because they're perfectly clear and if you don't like it you can suck it up or fork or quit computing to go live on a farm, do you not see how their response could have been better? They could be encouraging people to submit PRs but instead they're shaming people for not doing it. That response would only be deserved towards people who genuinely have expressed that they want it for free, but nobody has expressed this and yet they are still taking this attitude. It's disappointing and does not foster a culture of genuine contribution, just a culture of "stop being entitled"
cge 2mo ago
They comment years after immediately closing the bug as wontfix, vaguely talk about users for expressing interest in features while not being willing to open a PR, when people in the thread had actually been asking, over a long period of time, whether they would accept a PR or were just opposed to the feature outright, and say they would welcome community contributions even though they think the feature is unnecessary. Then they immediately lock the issue and delete at least one comment. I certainly interpreted the response as meaning that anyone actually trying to implement the feature would find the PR an exercise in frustration. It may be there were some cultural confusions about context and implication, but considering that they locked the issue, people weren't exactly encouraged to ask for clarification. And the developers have a sketchy enough reputation already from other incidents.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > It may be there were some cultural confusions [...] And the developers have a sketchy enough reputation already from other incidents. Yeaah, both these points kind of makes it clear that both you and the author might have previous history with the history that goes beyond the messages that were referenced, and I don't have that context at all. I have no idea what "previous incidents" you might be referring to, so with that said I'll say that everything I've previously stated only been based on the text of that particular issue, nothing else. Based on the text from the issue alone, seems they're open to have the feature proposed as a PR to them, then if they typically reject any PRs, I have no idea about.

LoganDark 2mo ago

First they say they do not want the feature: "we do not recommend using RustDesk with a public IP alone, that's also why direct ip access is turned off by default." Then they say you should contribute it. It's mixed messaging, it seems like they're trying to hide "won't implement this" behind "this is a bad idea in general". They should just say they won't implement it and that they're open to contributions, not that it's a bad idea and that they "strongly" recommend against it, but that maybe if someone opens a PR anyway they'll consider it.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
> First they say they do not want the feature: "we do not recommend using RustDesk with a public IP alone, that's also why direct ip access is turned off by default." Massive misunderstanding from your perspective if this is your take away. They're saying that based on the current state of the program, they don't recommend that particular approach. Nowhere in that quote of yours, does it give an indication that they don't want that feature. The only thing unambiguous from that quote, is that due to the current state of the program, they don't recommend that approach, and explains why one of the defaults is like it is. If they didn't like the idea, or didn't want the feature, they'd say so, but they do not say that out loud, so why would you assume so?
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  there is another interpretation indeed, that is simply: "the Direct IP feature wasn't designed to be secure so we don't recommend using it right now, but if you contribute improvements we might accept them" but I think it's phrased pretty stupidly, especially by pointing out to the askers that "very few" submit a pull request. that's just, shaming? "stop asking, do it yourself" which I hate just as much as hiding your real response behind recommendations.
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > but I think it's phrased pretty stupidly, especially by pointing out to the askers that "very few" submit a pull request. that's just, shaming? That's is a statement of truth though? "Many ask, none provide, you want it, you contribute it" seems to be the vibe, which is completely understandable and also expected in FOSS. It's not hostile or shaming for the sake of shaming. Yes, I guess you can see it as "shaming", but no I don't think it's bad. Users ask for stuff, you don't want to spend the time implement it, so you tell them to implement it themselves, and you'd accept it if they wanted it upstream to make it available for all. Isn't this the ideal scenario? I still don't understand what you think would be better here? Saying "No, we don't want that" even if they're OK with the feature existing? Or saying "Yes, we don't need it, but we'll put aside our needs just for you" would have been better?
    - LoganDark 2mo ago
      > That's is a statement of truth though? "Many ask, none provide, you want it, you contribute it" seems to be the vibe, which is completely understandable and also expected in FOSS. It's not hostile or shaming for the sake of shaming. I understand a lot of projects take this attitude but that doesn't mean it's always deserved. > Yes, I guess you can see it as "shaming", but no I don't think it's bad. Users ask for stuff, you don't want to spend the time implement it, so you tell them to implement it themselves, and you'd accept it if they wanted it upstream to make it available for all. Isn't this the ideal scenario? I think it's upsetting here. Not "bad", not even necessarily inappropriate or disproportionate but upsetting. Not because I wanted them to do the work for me but because I would have wanted to feel actually welcome to do the work myself instead of made to feel like it would be a further annoyance. This kind of attitude from the project genuinely makes it feel like if I opened a PR, it would sit and rot just like the many issues have. It does not make me feel like they are actually interested in the problem or empathize with their users whatsoever, so what motivation would they have to accept the work even if it was done for them? > I still don't understand what you think would be better here? Saying "No, we don't want that" even if they're OK with the feature existing? Or saying "Yes, we don't need it, but we'll put aside our needs just for you" would have been better? Did you not see the example I already posted elsewhere in the thread? Here it is again: I prefer when projects say "we don't have the resources for this but we agree it would be nice" Here, they aren't agreeing with it whatsoever, they just say they don't have it and that they don't recommend using the related features and that they won't consider it without a pull request. That's basically "we don't have this, won't build this and won't consider user requests" and it has absolutely nothing positive for the people who would build such a PR. As much as they technically don't need such things because they're perfectly clear and if you don't like it you can suck it up or fork or quit computing to go live on a farm, do you not see how their response could have been better? They could be encouraging people to submit PRs but instead they're shaming people for not doing it. That response would only be deserved towards people who genuinely have expressed that they want it for free, but nobody has expressed this and yet they are still taking this attitude. It's disappointing and does not foster a culture of genuine contribution, just a culture of "stop being entitled"

cge 2mo ago

They comment years after immediately closing the bug as wontfix, vaguely talk about users for expressing interest in features while not being willing to open a PR, when people in the thread had actually been asking, over a long period of time, whether they would accept a PR or were just opposed to the feature outright, and say they would welcome community contributions even though they think the feature is unnecessary. Then they immediately lock the issue and delete at least one comment. I certainly interpreted the response as meaning that anyone actually trying to implement the feature would find the PR an exercise in frustration. It may be there were some cultural confusions about context and implication, but considering that they locked the issue, people weren't exactly encouraged to ask for clarification. And the developers have a sketchy enough reputation already from other incidents.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
> It may be there were some cultural confusions [...] And the developers have a sketchy enough reputation already from other incidents. Yeaah, both these points kind of makes it clear that both you and the author might have previous history with the history that goes beyond the messages that were referenced, and I don't have that context at all. I have no idea what "previous incidents" you might be referring to, so with that said I'll say that everything I've previously stated only been based on the text of that particular issue, nothing else. Based on the text from the issue alone, seems they're open to have the feature proposed as a PR to them, then if they typically reject any PRs, I have no idea about.