> You talk as if everyone using it experiences bugs very frequently…
I said that it crashed “when I used it”. I thought that was enough to make it explicit that I was talking about my own experiences—but I don’t think that should be necessary.
Just like when you talk about how Audacity doesn’t crash when you use it, I know you’re talking about your experiences, and not anyone else’s.
> Because it sounds like you are trying to speak on behalf of every user.
That interpretation is incorrect.
> Maybe it's hard for you to believe I used it for years and never had one problem. It does seem like you can't really hear what I'm saying.
What you said is that my criticisms didn’t seem “fair”. I do a lot of software development—it’s my job—and when a piece of software I write works for user X and crashes for user Y, my conclusion is usually “my software is buggy”. If user Y complains that my software is buggy, I would consider their complaints completely valid and want to fix it—and it looks like the Audacity team has made some great strides fixing bugs that don’t affect everyone equally—which is a very typical experience when fixing bugs.
To quote the release notes for version 3.0, “Some [bugs] though were really juicy high priority bugs that would have mattered a lot to the people affected by them.” It sounds like the Audacity team, at the very least, were aware that some users had very negative experiences with the software and I’m glad that they’re making stability a priority.
I said that it crashed “when I used it”. I thought that was enough to make it explicit that I was talking about my own experiences—but I don’t think that should be necessary.
Just like when you talk about how Audacity doesn’t crash when you use it, I know you’re talking about your experiences, and not anyone else’s.
> Because it sounds like you are trying to speak on behalf of every user.
That interpretation is incorrect.
> Maybe it's hard for you to believe I used it for years and never had one problem. It does seem like you can't really hear what I'm saying.
What you said is that my criticisms didn’t seem “fair”. I do a lot of software development—it’s my job—and when a piece of software I write works for user X and crashes for user Y, my conclusion is usually “my software is buggy”. If user Y complains that my software is buggy, I would consider their complaints completely valid and want to fix it—and it looks like the Audacity team has made some great strides fixing bugs that don’t affect everyone equally—which is a very typical experience when fixing bugs.
To quote the release notes for version 3.0, “Some [bugs] though were really juicy high priority bugs that would have mattered a lot to the people affected by them.” It sounds like the Audacity team, at the very least, were aware that some users had very negative experiences with the software and I’m glad that they’re making stability a priority.