I would like to state that the intent of my message was not to imply that
users are lazy, stupid, or incapable. Simply that they are users.
When something is stated as "released" it is a stamp saying "this works how
it is supposed to." It gives the user the implication that everything is
functioning as it should, or as reasonably close as feasible. With something
like freezes, a user will instantly realize either they're doing something
wrong, or something wrong is with the software, and seek answers. If you
tell them something is 'released' and it halves the battery life of their
player, the simple assumption is 'this software draws more power'. It's
Occam's Razor. It may be incorrect in this case, but the majority of users
will make that assumption. In fact it's not a stupid one at all, really, but
it's one that we don't want to be made.
I just wanted to clarify that the mentioned view of users is definitely not
why I feel the way I do. People will trust us when we release it, and to
give them something like that is a betrayal of their trust. I mean, it's
clearly possible to put it in large red letters on the download page, or
something else, but users can also get it from their friends, or a direct
link in the forum, or somewhere else entirely. We can't control the
circumstances under which they receive the software, and as much as we'd
like to try, we can't guarantee that they receive the proper documentation
with it, or even know that the resources at rockbox.org exist. But we can
avoid putting our stamp of approval on what is essentially an unfinished
On 6/1/06, Jonathan Corbet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andrew Hart <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments below concerning the typical
> > user who is too lazy, stupid or incapable of taking five minutes to read
> > the release notes.
> Wow. Is that really how this project views its users? That will put
> off more people than the battery life issue ever could.
> I guess I would counter that users who cannot be bothered to read the
> written materials will never succeed in installing the bootloader, and
> thus will not be affected by the battery life problem. For the rest, a
> prominent note in the installation instructions should be a sufficient
> word to the wise.
> I still think that H3xx Rockbox is an improvement over the stock
> firmware in enough ways that it is worth making generally available. If
> the project would rather leave it out of the 3.0 release, it's not a
> huge deal, though; as has been pointed out, those of us who want it can
> still find it.
Received on Thu Jun 1 23:31:00 2006