Amarok has a few bugs

[Bölvaður]

...or does it?

If you see someone ranting because of some bugs. What can we say to a person like that, but still be helpful?

Here is a reply I want to see more often:

Have you posted a bug report?


but of course only if this is a real bug with the software.
if it's not it possibly should be considered a flame bait for replies like the ones I list below ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓


Here are a few replies I do not want to see again:


It's not a bug, it's a feature!
It is working for me
Then don't use it
ur doin it rong
Perhaps you shouldn't be using a computer... you are scaring it


ok perhaps they aren't phrased exactly like that but I hope you get the point.
It might be ok to point out that person is actually using the program incorrectly. Or to point out more suitable program that would solve the persons task better. Pointing the person to a tutorial on how to use the program he's trying to use.

Sometimes I feel like there are too many replies that shouldn't have been posted. I will watch out not to be one of those my self, what about you :P


The reason why I made this thread:

Make two threads, one titled "this software has a few bugs" and "this software is worse than Hitler" and it's not hard to figure out which will get more responses.

[RiceMonster]

It's a feature not a bug. It works for me, and if it doesn't then don't use it. Maybe you should consider not using a computer at all.







But seriously, I agree with much of what you're saying. I don't like when people suggest that because it works or doesn't work for them, this must be the case for everyone else.

[ticopelp]

Does the clunky, nonintuitive user interface of Amarok 2 count as a bug? If I file a report will they consider changing it?

(I love Amarok 1.4 and use it daily, btw)

[RabbitWho]

So far 36 views vs 6 hee hee

[ticopelp]

So far 36 views vs 6 hee hee

The mods already closed the other thread. I should have added "on another message board" to the end of my statement -- such frivolity is frowned upon here.

[hoppipolla]

*gulp*... hehe!

Usually I'm quite accepting of bugs though, Amarok just has a LOT! :)

I still love it though ^_^

[Simian Man]

That's like saying Idaho has a few potatoes.




I wish the mods didn't close your other thread. That one was a lot more fun :).

[Chronon]

"It's working for me" does serve a role in certain situations. When someone claims that "A doesn't work at all!" it can be taken as a claim of fact, rather than a conditional statement of one person's observations. Replying with "it is working for me" serves to demonstrate that this is not a universal behavior, without refuting the OP's statement. I.e., it may be viewed as a way of pointing out that the claim of something not working is conditional.

Of course this phrase can be used in a way that suggests that the OP is not being truthful in their claims and I don't think that's appropriate. I also don't think that multiple "works for me" posts in a thread are helpful. However, I have no problem with making a "works for me" post if the tone of the discussion suggests that a universal problem exists and I do not experience this problem.

Isolating the factors that distinguish the "works for me" case from the case that exhibits the bug can also help to produce a helpful bug report.