[Konversation-devel] [konversation] [Bug 329793] Krash!

[andy_90254 at yahoo.com]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329793

--- Comment #7 from andy_90254 at yahoo.com ---
What I object to is the message you're sending.  The problem has not been
resolved in any sense of the word.  "Deflected" would be closer to the truth. 
"Won't fix" is also reasonable nomenclature for this situation.  "Resolved"
implies fixed.  While that may be what you consider it as far as the
application code proper is concerned, it is not an accurate reflection of the
status of the problem from my point of view.

There are facts, and then there is customer service.  If you wouldn't say it to
your grandmother, then you shouldn't say it to anyone else, especially not a
customer.  And yes, anyone using the software is a customer aka user.

The fact that nobody else is willing to go out of their way to take the time
and energy I put forth, along with the knowledge required to make it all the
way to this point speaks not to the solidity of the software, but of the
tenaciousness of the user.  I spent over 8 hours today alone chasing this down
trying to get it resolved.  The vast majority of users - especially those of a
non-technical background - wouldn't put up with, nor spend their time on this
kind of nonsense.  First the application would get dumped for something else,
and failing satisfaction with that - then abandonment for a different OS
entirely where the support system doesn't force the user to be a tech guru.

I've been using Linux for years and I've been as big an evangelist as anyone. 
But quite frankly I'm embarrassed to recommend it to anyone without a strong
technical background because of exactly this kind of issue and associated
attitude.

I do appreciate that the problem is not strictly within the konversation code
proper, but instead within a component used by konversation, but that doesn't
mean there's nothing you can do.  To say "nor do we have such old Qt versions
ourselves to test with" is patently false, because I didn't go out of my way to
downgrade to this version.  This is what came with the system and is readily
available to anyone that wants it as I installed it fresh not one month ago -
the one labeled "LTS" - Long Term Support as you well know.  Do I expect you to
go out of your way to test with an older version when something newer and more
exciting is available?  No, not really and I can appreciate that there is a
newer library component which may or may not fix the issue.

While upgrading to newer software (where "software" could mean a wide variety
of things from just the library to the entire OS) might be the proper solution
from your point of view - and I'm not necessarily objecting to that as the
solution (upgrading the library, not the OS), what I do object to is the
general "it's not my problem you're on your own" attitude.  Which leads me back
to - is that what you'd tell your grandmother?

The proper way to have handled this would have been to take ownership of the
problem - whether it's truly your area of responsibility or not - and guide me
as far as you're able.  That means this response "The crash happens deep in the
Qt library. I suggest to update Qt to version 4.8.5. While you are using newest
KDE 4.12, you are still using a quite old Qt 4.8.2." was a very good start and
I applaud Cristoph for it, but could have gone one small step further with "Do
you need help with how to do that?" and then a bit of handholding through the
process; even if you didn't know how and it meant figuring it out yourself. 
Instead that was the end of it as far as your team were concerned.  As the
process failed (locating a pre-built library as well as compiling one), I
should have then been helped with reporting the issue to the proper place;
personally "walked" to the next link in the chain so that I didn't feel
abandoned.

Finding that place - and procedure -took me all day today, when with a bit of
help from someone knowledgeable like yourselves, that time could have very well
been reduced to minutes.  And that's the real issue here - the "we really don't
care because it works for us so go figure it out for yourself" mentality.

No response is expected, just do better next time.  For granny's sake.  It's
just the right way to treat people.  Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.

Thanks

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.