Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965111AbbBBVMg (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:12:36 -0500 Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org ([148.251.95.138]:39283 "EHLO cvs.linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754448AbbBBVMf (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:12:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:12:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Kay Sievers cc: Takashi Iwai , Jens Axboe , Oliver Neukum , LKML Subject: Re: How to fix CDROM/DVD eject mess? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1919 Lines: 39 On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Kay Sievers wrote: > > All the technical details aside, this is a bold statement -- how do you > > know what the user actually wants? > > By working with people who spent a lot of time with the questions what > the default behavior of user interfaces should be. Buttons, especially > physical ones, need to give immediate feedback to the user. If they > don't give it it, people will look for something else to get what they > want. It still covers a group of people only, not all of them. A UI is a convention, there may be different ones. There is little if anything more frustrating in interacting with computers than an UI that "knows better" what I want to do than I do, with no way to override the built-in logic. I am not a statistical sample, I am an individual with my own preferences. I have suffered from such built-in assumptions myself and I talked many times to people who complained about them too. > > I for one want to see the medium locked if in use, just as it has been > > since 1990s. If I wanted to do an emergency eject (the equivalent of > > ripping out a USB cable), then I would use a paperclip in the manual eject > > hole. So you've got a counterexample to your assertion now. All people > > are not the same. > > It's just the current default setup and intentional behavior. You or > your distribution can for sure implement something else. Fair enough, but if this is a matter of decisions made by a distribution, then why is this an issue raised on LKML? What does it have to do with the kernel or why does it have to be addressed in the kernel, one way or another? Or does it indeed? Maciej -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/