Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Add missing S2 caps flag to S2API

[CityK <cityk@rogers.com>]

VDR User wrote:
> This conversation is about addressing and finding a solution
> to a problem.  

Agreed.

> I'm not even the person who originally brought up the
> solution used in multiproto but as far as I can see, it does seem to
> be a great solution so I question why that method shouldn't be
> adopted.
>   

Fair enough, and upon casual inspection, it sounds like the multiproto
method is done well and can be adopted ... so lets move towards that
direction with that in mind and with whatever other good suggestions can
be fleshed out of the discussion.

> I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously after your absurd
> comment. 
> ....
> It's ridiculous I need to point any of this out to you but one
> possible reason is that _you_ are in fact the one trolling here.
> Afterall, the only posting you've made has absolutely nothing to do
> with the subject, while all of mine do.  
> ... 
> And by the way, most of us have accepted the outcome of the
> s2api/multiproto controversy.  Maybe it's about time you find a way to
> move on as well. 
>   

Andy's comment might have been harsh, but your earlier comments (
http://marc.info/?l=linux-dvb&m=122763079609781&w=2) have, shall we say,
been a touch on the harsh side too and there is plenty of reason why
those might have drawn the ire of someone like Andy; specifically:

a) "How could you possibly miss such a fundamental element?!"

Retort: As has already been pointed out: stuff happens, gets overlooked
... Second, from a developers perspective (like Andy's), it gets
exceedingly annoying when users bitch and complain about how lacking or
(as a gross exaggeration) "brain dead" some developer's code is ... such
cases are obviously not ripe with constructive commentary, nor do they
provide much incentive for developers to continue with projects if the
users prove to be ungrateful for the free lunch

b) "I have yet to hear any response from any of them about this
issue.Seems as though when the issue was beating multiproto,
communication was at the peak. Now that the decision has been made, good
luck to get a reply. :\"

Retort: By its very nature, this is a provocative comment.

In addition to the point made by Andy (and I too am not lining up on
either side of the Multiproto vs S2API holy war), I will note the
inherent contextual error in "the silence is deafening" stance and why
it doesn't float squat:

Manu was absent from the lists and activity, for personal reasons, for a
sustained period (5-6 months?). That's not a knock on him, its just a
fact. Steven has been absent from the lists and activity for, what, 3-4
weeks? Suddenly this is an international incident that demands immediate
resolve? Come on! Fact of the matter is, the whole S2 thing is long in
coming, and likely has a number of areas that will need to be ironed out
in future -- this would be the case regardless of whether it is
Multiproto or S2API that is pressed forth. Things WILL get resolved.
Give them time. Tone back expectations.

As a second point of issue, perhaps you have not noticed, but meaningful
traffic on the mail lists would appear to be down substantially over the
last while -- though, on the flip side, the number of "is this device
supported" and "can someone write a driver for this" posts is increasing
disproportionately to the number of interested or available developers.
So, the point (once again), is that the absence of discussion, even upon
meaningful subject matters, is not necessarily indicative of anything
further then there being a lack of discussion at this point in time.
Silence does not a conspiracy make.

c) "Hey, stranger things have happened. Not much surprised me these days."

Retort: This, of course, was in response to Klaus', self described,
sarcastic conspiracy comment. Though your own later comment ("most of us
have accepted the outcome of the s2api/multiproto controversy") does not
specifically indicate that you include yourself within that group of
accepting individuals, it strikes me that if you truly were a member,
then you would have passed up on providing such a response to Klaus --
instead, you availed yourself to the opportunity to stoke the flame.

[For the record -- I don't particularly like the way the whole S2
situation played out. BUT I see it as a case of where there is blame on
both sides. However, being a pragmatist, I (like many others) would like
to see that whole issue put to rest and, instead, press forth in a
progressive manner. I believe that the best of both works can be or
should be adopted. Perhaps it is naive on my part, but I can't see why
one is inherently or universally better than the other -- then again,
that argument is relatively moot to me -- there is no singular solution
other than to adapt and continuously try to improve. I hate rigidity,
whether it is idealogical or otherwise.]

> Please contribute something relevant or find some other thread to infect.

Andy is a developer and contributes to the v4l-dvb code base on a
regular basis. That's pretty darn relevant to me. If you did not like
his comment, then perhaps you could have ignored it, or perhaps you
could have reflected inwards upon how your own loose comments, as
illustrated above, might have been viewed as contemptuous by some.

_______________________________________________
linux-dvb mailing list
linux-dvb@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb