> 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?
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.
> 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?
> 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"
Yeah, that's the core difference in our readings I think, the mere fact that they say openly they welcome someone contributing the feature, does mean they agree with it, why offer to accept such a contribution otherwise? Are they lying/not being honest, and the PR would just sit there without being accepted.
It's clear you think so, and it does feel like you have past experience with the project so I guess that is what it is. I don't have your past experience, so I don't know, but hits me as strange to ask for contributions for a feature you don't actually want, I don't understand why'd they do that.
> They could be encouraging people to submit PRs
The text I read, gave me the impression they are encouraging people to submit PRs, but maybe there is something between the lines I'm missed when I read it.
They say they welcome contributions in general and that users generally don't submit PRs to go with their feature requests. They don't say they will accept a PR for the specific feature or that they want one. As much as it may seem obvious, it's technically not what they said.
> It's clear you think so, and it does feel like you have past experience with the project so I guess that is what it is. I don't have your past experience, so I don't know, but hits me as strange to ask for contributions for a feature you don't actually want, I don't understand why'd they do that.
I was a member of a discussion I linked in another comment about password complexity requirements, but I do not have experience with raising other issues or trying to get features accepted, so none of this is a simple grudge, just a very pedantic reading of their response.
I do have experience with manipulators that use exactly this kind of language to make good implications that they don't actually intend to honor. (Including myself at points.) So maybe my reading is unnecessarily pessimistic, but it's not based on some prior experience with them, just the particular way they made their statement.
> They don't say they will accept a PR for the specific feature
Again, to me it's 100% clear they would accept a PR, but I guess there is nuance in "we welcome community contributions" and "your PR would be greatly appreciated"...
Also again, obviously you've already made up your mind. But as the perspective of someone who never interacted with the project, the impression (based on their words) is that they'd like a PR for this feature.
Besides "they don't intend to honor it!1!" which is essentially a guess, do you have any previous cases where they actually explicitly said they'd accept a contribution and then they dragged their feet accepting it/rejected it?
I think we should agree to disagree here -- I read their comment and it says they generally accept contributions, but nothing about the specific contribution. You read their comment and it looks perfectly clear to you that they're looking to accept the specific contribution.
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?