If you say "no, we're not pursuing this feature because it's impossible" and users have used other software that implements the feature to a reasonable degree of functionality, you're not doing yourself any favours in terms of shutting down demands. You'd be better off either not giving a reason at all, or giving reasons that are clearer to people who aren't as knowledgable.

Reasons are actually stated, they explained it is not feasible for the general case.

Once the devs have made clear they don’t plan to do exceptions (as other software do) then users should accept it and move on instead of keep harassing volunteers.

... except VLC implements time-based seeking which has pretty much the same requirements and is consequently not possible with literally all files either. But both are possible with 99.99% of video files you will come accross.

VLC developers are of course free to reject any feature request but if they do it by bullshitting their users (and that includes tacking on additional requirements that no user actually needs like perfect support for all formats under the sun) then they will be rightfully called out for it. Then throwing a tantrum and citing CoC violations is not going to improve things.

It's their project so ultimately they get to choose to run it into the ground but this kind of behavior is not something I want to support as a user os I will stay away from VLC which includes not making helpful bug reports and not donating.

Why is it incumbent on the developers (who know their codebase and its capabilities better than the forum posters) to explain their decision to the forum posters begging for a feature, and not only explain it, but explain the decision and the reasoning behind in such clarity and depth that the forum posters (who might not even be programmers, let alone know the code base) understand it sufficiently well to refrain from begging and insulting?

Because - and more so for the maintainers/managers of those projects - being able to communicate effectively is part of what it means to run a successful project?

That may even mean that you have to hold yourself to a higher standard than some low-effort post on the part of some casual user. Especially if you're the boss, the maintainer, the leader. And if that's asymmetric then yes it is - but to be a maintainer/manager of a project is also asymmetric. Good managers might also promote that culture more widely across all the project's contributors and so yes it may apply to all developers, too.

Not everyone that engages with your project is going to be perfect, some may even be rude. But as a representative of that project it's a skill to be able to cope with that, on behalf of the project (not you). I think one of the most underrated skills of a FOSS maintainer is a degree of fault-tolerance, to use a systems analogy.

Or, you could argue that no, it's not incumbent on a maintainer to be anything, even to be kind. But then don't expect your users to come back.

But he didn't "just" say no:

> If it's so easy, why are you not doing it? Talk is cheap.

> I'll be waiting for your patch. Surely you're not as lazy and incompetent as the existing volunteer developers.

I'd say that is pretty toxic.

Specifically, that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time. It is precisely the kind of language that keeps people away from contributing to open source. It's the very definition of toxic.

This is taken out of context. He actually respects contributors, including their decision to not implement reverse play.

The meaning here is "if you think the existing contributors are so incompetent and lazy as you are implying, then do you better".

I think he got caught up in the argument and thet he should have just put the question in a FAQ entry and lock the thread before people start mentioning nazis.

> lock the thread before people start mentioning nazis.

Which will invariably happen. What was that "rule" called again?

It's Godwin's law (of Nazi analogies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Thanks for this. It seems you got that I misunderstood. I've clarified my point in another reply.

Also agree that if this is a question that keeps coming up a much better response would be to simply explain your reasoning once in an FAQ that carefully presents the argument and point all future discussions to that entry. Done.

To the average user, it's not at all obvious why reverse play is so much harder than it looks. Surely it's possible to understand that users might be confused by this? An well written FAQ on the subject would solve all of this.

The QuickTime API supported reverse play in 1993 (or before), when I enjoyed using it for "back and forth" animated sprites. Here's the documentation I wrote when working at Kaleida Labs on a ScriptX animation library that used QuickTime, and depended on its support for playing videos backwards:

https://www.donhopkins.com/home/catalog/lang/scriptx/anim.ht...

ScriptX's QuickTime renderer would even play audio backwards and at whatever speed, too. ScriptX had excellent multimedia synchronization, and it would have been considered a terrible bug if it was not possible to synchronize video and audio with any arbitrary clock, no matter what the scale and direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScriptX

The whole point that Remi was making is that doing this for one format is probably easy. Doing this for all formats in a consistent manner with a consistent experience is not easy, verging on impossible. Other players only support a limited set of formats, so can do this easily. VLC supports everything, so therefore has to handle all the bizarre quirks that make this a very difficult task.

Quite remarkable that you call the developer toxic when those were his replies paraphrasing what users had said and demanded up-thread.

> that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time.

He is not dissing the other developers. He is one of those developers that had been called lazy and incompetent by the forum posters. For example (from the thread):

> it's mostly an excuse to not implement the feature (and be "cool" about it with one-word answers).

> Please consider implementing this. It's not hard.

> All of the players I've named are open source, so it's easy to check how they are doing it.

> Seriously how hard is it to implement it? All Ive been hearing from the developers are excuses, excuses, excuses. I dont see how other players were able to have it. This is just pure laziness.

> I'm not here to program the app, I'm just here to find a simple feature and/or request it.

Personally, I would hold the people using a free product and begging for features without contributing anything to a higher standard than the developers that donate their time implementing it.

Yes ok, I did read the thread but didn't get the reference. I wouldn't say it's "quite remarkable", more simply that I misunderstood. My apologies.

But I stand by the broader point that I do not think his attitude is at all constructive or helpful, and while I am sure he is fed of up what he views as entitled users this is not a productive way to handle it. The toxicity is that it casts shade on FOSS and pushes people away from the community. And VLC would be half what it is today without it's users. He would do well to remember that, too.

Ah, fair enough. I think we agree mostly then - he is fed up, he is justified in it, yet it is not very productive. (I wouldn't call it toxic, though.)

> And VLC would be half what it is today without it's users. He would do well to remember that, too.

I disagree. It would be exactly the same as it is now without the users. The users have not contributed anything to the project. Popularity doesn't write code, it just creates communication overhead.

Again, this is not commercial software. Commercial software needs popularity. For FOSS projects, popularity is cool and can be an ego-boost for the maintainers, even open some doors and get some funding, but it's not the point of thing (and never covers costs anyway). The point is to write some good code that scratches some itch the maintainers have.

That whole point of view from the users, of "you owe us because your thing is popular now" is toxic entitlement. If you didn't contribute to the project, you didn't affect it, and you're owed nothing, absolutely nothing, by the maintainers. Everyone would do well to remember that.

It may be slightly rude but it's also correct and it's something that not enough people realize, so they need ot be told. If you want something done, you can ask, but if the answer is no, you have to do it yourself. That's reality in FOSS.