5 ms·

The problem isn't marketing. It's culture. While there are many benefits to free and open source software it encourages a take-it-or-leave-it attitude where sof

by aiyodev 10y ago

The problem isn't marketing. It's culture. While there are many benefits to free and open source software it encourages a take-it-or-leave-it attitude where software is released that's user unfriendly, full of bugs, and has little to no documentation. If someone dare ask about a problem they are having, often the closest thing to help they receive is "Why didn't you just use [esoteric Linux command]? Are you an idiot?"

xlayn 10y ago
It depends on the forum/group. For example I've been a more active member on XDA for Cyanogen mod and I did a rude comment; I got my attention immediately called and the maintainer respond the question, same goes for HN. OTOH... the Linux kernel group it's probably a "little bit" tougher....
jdoliner 10y ago
Maybe the cultural problem is actually that people like you expect open source projects to be like companies except that you don't have to give them money? Most open source code is written by someone because they want it and then they release it so others can see the code. Of course there's a take-it-or-leave-it attitude... why would they care if you take it? They don't get anything if you take it, you taking it was never their goal. You're just some entitled guy on the internet who decided he wanted to use the software, had a problem and now thinks the developer should do some free work for him.
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Maybe with a little help understanding it, more people would be able to contribute more back.
- calinet6 10y ago
  There's a problem somewhere in the system of open source and the people who use it, and everyone above me provided many examples of dysfunction. It's dysfunction of a system with a very unclear reward framework, primarily centered around curiosity, pride, and drive. Developers want to build something they consider good; often they want to build something that others will find good and use, and there's intrinsic value and joy in that for them: not all developers are selfish, many do it for others. Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there; users who are programmers both demand more goodness and contribute of their own accord, making a kind of trade in kind. Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect, and it could be seen as helpful or at least informative to give the creators an idea of how this pridefully created thing could be made better and help more people. This is natural. No one owes anyone anything; this is all just unavoidable human behavior and psychology. It is not a particular group or person's fault that this convoluted system is not effective. But the wise will look beyond the individual needs and wants of the actors and help find ways to improve how the Open Source paradigm—the system itself—can be improved.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward it. Although I also run a company behind that project and do get paid for some small subset of the work I do on the project; it'd be a lot harder to maintain that attitude if I didn't. I don't think open-source is perfect, it could be better and in my opinion is constantly improving. I disagree quite a bit with your characterization here though. You talk about there being a problem somewhere in open source and how it's not any particular persons fault that this convoluted system is not effective... what on earth is your definition of "effective" that it's failing to meet? You mention how "Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there" that sounds pretty effective to me. Consider some concrete examples here: - Linux, cornerstone of the web used by millions would have cost several billion dollars to build in a non open-source way. - Android, used on millions of phones because it's open source and others can modify it. - Chrome and firefox - Every programming language Believe it or not these projects didn't succeed despite the fact that they're open-source, they succeed very much because of it. So yeah, let's all grab the dick to the left and pretend that open-source is some broken paradigm that doesn't produce results because some new project doesn't have nice enough documentation. > Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect Some projects will care about these types of users, many won't. That's just the reality of software and there's no obligation to include everyone. Talk to an illiterate person and they'll tell you all about how ineffective the publishing industry is. That doesn't mean publishing should change.
    - couchand 10y ago
      Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.
- aiyodev 10y ago
  That's a huge problem. Some times we end up shitty solutions to problems because the people who wrote the software do not care to fix its bugs and there's a lack of investment in creating better solutions because the free, open source solutions exist. Just look at the state of version control software. Other times we end up with a good, expensive commercial product and a free, crappy open source product with a huge gulf in quality and price between. Examples: Photoshop and GIMP, MS Office and OpenOffice.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    You're always going to end up with shitty solutions to some problems. Making open-source projects good requires several people to devote their lives to it. Very few projects achieve critical mass and all the other ones languish in obscurity. There's always going to be way more failed projects than successful ones. If you consider their existence a huge problem in open-source then it seems the only fix would be to stop trying. I don't think crappy solutions dissuade people from making better ones, if anything all they do is cause people to think: "These guys obviously got nowhere with this project and I don't see what I'm going to do better." But given the amount of duplication in open-source I don't think people really even think that either. It's just that they attempt to make a better version and fail leaving the world with another shitty project. Or, in rare cases they actually succeed and we do wind up with something great. But we wouldn't ever get there if we didn't make 10 of those "shitty solutions" along the way.
  - slrz 10y ago
    True, gigantic GUI programs such as full Office suites featuring heavy featuritis aren't the best match for volunteer-based development efforts. They just involve too much mind-numbing busywork. What's your point regarding versin control software?
- michaelscott 10y ago
  "you taking it was never their goal" I'd disagree. That's pretty much the point of making the software open source: so that others can take and use it within the confines of whatever licence the dev decides. The point is to get it out there and into the hands of other devs, not for them to simply look at or dive through but very often to manipulate, improve and use. In that sense these projects do actually operate the way companies do, but without the depth of support and speed that we would expect if we were actually laying down our cold, hard cash to get the goods.

by aiyodev 10y ago

xlayn 10y ago

It depends on the forum/group. For example I've been a more active member on XDA for Cyanogen mod and I did a rude comment; I got my attention immediately called and the maintainer respond the question, same goes for HN. OTOH... the Linux kernel group it's probably a "little bit" tougher....

jdoliner 10y ago

Maybe the cultural problem is actually that people like you expect open source projects to be like companies except that you don't have to give them money? Most open source code is written by someone because they want it and then they release it so others can see the code. Of course there's a take-it-or-leave-it attitude... why would they care if you take it? They don't get anything if you take it, you taking it was never their goal. You're just some entitled guy on the internet who decided he wanted to use the software, had a problem and now thinks the developer should do some free work for him.

Larrikin 10y ago
Maybe with a little help understanding it, more people would be able to contribute more back.
calinet6 10y ago
There's a problem somewhere in the system of open source and the people who use it, and everyone above me provided many examples of dysfunction. It's dysfunction of a system with a very unclear reward framework, primarily centered around curiosity, pride, and drive. Developers want to build something they consider good; often they want to build something that others will find good and use, and there's intrinsic value and joy in that for them: not all developers are selfish, many do it for others. Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there; users who are programmers both demand more goodness and contribute of their own accord, making a kind of trade in kind. Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect, and it could be seen as helpful or at least informative to give the creators an idea of how this pridefully created thing could be made better and help more people. This is natural. No one owes anyone anything; this is all just unavoidable human behavior and psychology. It is not a particular group or person's fault that this convoluted system is not effective. But the wise will look beyond the individual needs and wants of the actors and help find ways to improve how the Open Source paradigm—the system itself—can be improved.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Admittedly my response is another extreme from the parent comment. I run an open-source project and certainly don't have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward it. Although I also run a company behind that project and do get paid for some small subset of the work I do on the project; it'd be a lot harder to maintain that attitude if I didn't. I don't think open-source is perfect, it could be better and in my opinion is constantly improving. I disagree quite a bit with your characterization here though. You talk about there being a problem somewhere in open source and how it's not any particular persons fault that this convoluted system is not effective... what on earth is your definition of "effective" that it's failing to meet? You mention how "Users find their creation fascinating and good, if not better than anything out there" that sounds pretty effective to me. Consider some concrete examples here: - Linux, cornerstone of the web used by millions would have cost several billion dollars to build in a non open-source way. - Android, used on millions of phones because it's open source and others can modify it. - Chrome and firefox - Every programming language Believe it or not these projects didn't succeed despite the fact that they're open-source, they succeed very much because of it. So yeah, let's all grab the dick to the left and pretend that open-source is some broken paradigm that doesn't produce results because some new project doesn't have nice enough documentation. > Users who are not programmers or not skilled enough (by no fault of their own) are using it out of necessity or because it is good, but due to the disconnects in the method of creation, it's not inherently good in ways that users expect Some projects will care about these types of users, many won't. That's just the reality of software and there's no obligation to include everyone. Talk to an illiterate person and they'll tell you all about how ineffective the publishing industry is. That doesn't mean publishing should change.
  - couchand 10y ago
    Maybe it's useful to point out here that: - Chrome is built on Chromium, which is open source, but Chrome itself is not. - Android is based on open source technologies, but is, again, not itself open source in many cases. - Many, if not most, programming language implementations are not open source. In fact, you're dating yourself with this claim, as those with more experience remember the dark days of paying for compilers. Even C compilers. I wholly agree with your sentiment, that open source projects work very hard and get little credit. I'd expect the GP agrees as well. Could you be a bit more generous to the author of the comment you responded to? Your point really lines up quite well with theirs, if you spend a few moments considering them.
aiyodev 10y ago
That's a huge problem. Some times we end up shitty solutions to problems because the people who wrote the software do not care to fix its bugs and there's a lack of investment in creating better solutions because the free, open source solutions exist. Just look at the state of version control software. Other times we end up with a good, expensive commercial product and a free, crappy open source product with a huge gulf in quality and price between. Examples: Photoshop and GIMP, MS Office and OpenOffice.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  You're always going to end up with shitty solutions to some problems. Making open-source projects good requires several people to devote their lives to it. Very few projects achieve critical mass and all the other ones languish in obscurity. There's always going to be way more failed projects than successful ones. If you consider their existence a huge problem in open-source then it seems the only fix would be to stop trying. I don't think crappy solutions dissuade people from making better ones, if anything all they do is cause people to think: "These guys obviously got nowhere with this project and I don't see what I'm going to do better." But given the amount of duplication in open-source I don't think people really even think that either. It's just that they attempt to make a better version and fail leaving the world with another shitty project. Or, in rare cases they actually succeed and we do wind up with something great. But we wouldn't ever get there if we didn't make 10 of those "shitty solutions" along the way.
- slrz 10y ago
  True, gigantic GUI programs such as full Office suites featuring heavy featuritis aren't the best match for volunteer-based development efforts. They just involve too much mind-numbing busywork. What's your point regarding versin control software?
michaelscott 10y ago
"you taking it was never their goal" I'd disagree. That's pretty much the point of making the software open source: so that others can take and use it within the confines of whatever licence the dev decides. The point is to get it out there and into the hands of other devs, not for them to simply look at or dive through but very often to manipulate, improve and use. In that sense these projects do actually operate the way companies do, but without the depth of support and speed that we would expect if we were actually laying down our cold, hard cash to get the goods.