3 ms·

Have you considered that maybe they aren't a programmer and don't have the technical knowledge to add a feature like that? This kind of attitude is one of the t

Have you considered that maybe they aren't a programmer and don't have the technical knowledge to add a feature like that? This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Personally: every time I use OO, I'm reminded of how much better Word is--in interface (the ribbon is GREAT), features (everything you could ever need), compatibility (you can save in PDF), etc.

jrockway 17y ago
This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Sorry, but it's just the reality. Very few people write Free Software out of pure altruism. They write it because they have a problem they need to solve. Often there is personal gain in sharing this solution with the world (reputation, free bugfixes, etc.), so people do. This is the open source / free software movement in a nutshell. If this attitude drives you away from getting something for free, then I guess that's too bad. The community only benefits marginally from consumers; it benefits from producers. If you are never willing to produce, the community can probably live without you.
- assemble 17y ago
  Somebody has to consume your product or there is no reason to build it. If OO wants to compete with a high-quality commercial product, they should act like it. I use Windows and Office because they are superior products, with enough of a quality increase that I'm willing to pay for it. I really doubt people would mind shelling out their hard earned cash for Desktop Linux or OO if they were viable alternatives, but as it stands: they aren't. I'm fine with being a producer in a few of the fields I care about (I work on one of the few remaining Perl BBSes), when I'm not busy getting paid to write software. I don't want to have to help write my OS, my Office software, my text editor(s), my web browser, my music player, etc. I just want these things to work in (at least) a predictable fashion. Anyway, I really do think that the open source community needs to lose the attitude if they ever want to gain traction in the wider non-programmer community.

jrockway 17y ago

This kind of attitude is one of the things that drives people away from Linux and the open-source movement in general. Sorry, but it's just the reality. Very few people write Free Software out of pure altruism. They write it because they have a problem they need to solve. Often there is personal gain in sharing this solution with the world (reputation, free bugfixes, etc.), so people do. This is the open source / free software movement in a nutshell. If this attitude drives you away from getting something for free, then I guess that's too bad. The community only benefits marginally from consumers; it benefits from producers. If you are never willing to produce, the community can probably live without you.

assemble 17y ago
Somebody has to consume your product or there is no reason to build it. If OO wants to compete with a high-quality commercial product, they should act like it. I use Windows and Office because they are superior products, with enough of a quality increase that I'm willing to pay for it. I really doubt people would mind shelling out their hard earned cash for Desktop Linux or OO if they were viable alternatives, but as it stands: they aren't. I'm fine with being a producer in a few of the fields I care about (I work on one of the few remaining Perl BBSes), when I'm not busy getting paid to write software. I don't want to have to help write my OS, my Office software, my text editor(s), my web browser, my music player, etc. I just want these things to work in (at least) a predictable fashion. Anyway, I really do think that the open source community needs to lose the attitude if they ever want to gain traction in the wider non-programmer community.