4 ms·

That's one of the funniest titles I've read in a long time. That said, this is an incoherent rant. What does Google/Facebook's "jealously guarded" user data ha

That's one of the funniest titles I've read in a long time. That said, this is an incoherent rant. What does Google/Facebook's "jealously guarded" user data have to do with how FOSS developers are treated and remunerated? I get the feeling that if I could time-travel back to magically solve the social media and data privacy problem purely with FOSS, some other non-sequitur complaint would pop off the queue into the slot for that sentence. ["Besides, even with FOSS we still don't control the hardware", "FOSS UIs stink", "Year of the Linux Desktop LOL", "FOSS has just as many bugs as proprietary software", "GNU is less secure than IOS"].push("etc.");

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> That said, this is an incoherent rant. What does Google/Facebook's "jealously guarded" user data have to do with how FOSS developers are treated and remunerated? It's because arguably in the past (80-90s) the highest value was with the code, and it was it that was jealously guarded. Now the code doesn't have that much value and there are clones of almost everything, and the weight shifted towards the piles of user data. In other words, if I'm motivated enough, I can create a Facebook clone (with less useless functionality but arguably better user experience) in 2-3 months, but I'll never be able to gather a fraction of the user data they managed to get.
- throwaway12iii 8y ago
  You can't create a facebook clone in 2-3 months. Facebook is like FacebookOS, it probably has emacs somewhere in there. The size of functionality that FB provides is like a Mammoth (one of the ones standing on a turtle with the world on its back). Maybe something simpler with some subset of the functionality that some subset of users care about. Your point still stands about taking a long time to suck up the data. Also, now you'll probably get thrown in jail for doing 1% of the shady evil shit FB have done (and continue to do!).
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    > Facebook is like FacebookOS, it probably has emacs somewhere in there. The size of functionality that FB provides is like a Mammoth (one of the ones standing on a turtle with the world on its back). I'm aware of that. The question is: how much of this functionality is actually used and appreciated by the users? > Maybe something simpler with some subset of the functionality that some subset of users care about. I'd venture to say "the majority of users care about". I did some amateurish research a while ago asking people how they are using FB. Most just scroll the feed, chat via FB, click "like" and occasionally comment; some participate in FB groups. There is a ton of functions rarely used, and some are deliberately broken (for example, FB deliberately removed past birthday notifications to create a sense of urgency to log on more often, and you need a workaround to catch up if you log in less often). If you actually start using HumHub and compare it to FB, the former is a real pleasure to use. Will it ever have more users? Practically speaking, it's impossible. In any case, my point is not how fast one can create a usable FB clone, but that the code itself is no longer something that need to be jealously guarded.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > I'll never be able to gather a fraction of the user data they managed to get But they got that user data, though having the code. The code is still the essential bit in the first place. If someone else had had the Facebook code before they did, they could have gotten the data.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    Code has become a commodity of sorts, just like construction expertise for build 20 story high rises. It's a good clean data set to train ML models that is the current proprietary advantage set.
    - keypress 8y ago
      Then there should be a push for anonymous open data sets.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        In practice it turns out to be nearly impossible to anonymise data sets.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
keypress 8y ago
Aside: FOSS UIs may stink, but I've never really understood this. As the UI should be the easy bit. That said most web sites, browsers and even the desktop still has quite a poor interface. Remarkable given the technological options.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > The UI should be the easy bit. That's your problem right there. Many (most?) FOSS contributors are in it for the intellectual challenge. Designing a good UI is perceived as a lesser problem compared to technical challenges, and therefore disregarded. Also, design is not the comfort zone of most FOSS contributors (which is why some FOSS projects do dedicated outreach programs not only to women or minorities, but also to designers). Also, I think there is still some "it was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" mentality. I frequently see it justified it as an avoidance tactic for developer burnout: By making it hard to use your software (e.g. by providing no documentation, or by coating the documentation with a thick layer of jargon), the only users you'll get are the ones persistent enough to work through that on their own, and those will be the ones that deliver high-quality bug reports and contributions.
  - keypress 8y ago
    But there are many rewards to wrapping these products up. MS did well with their little tabbed UIs and checkboxes. It felt more like a mixing desk, easier than say discovering and typing command line options. I don't think people have a 'this should be hard to use mentality'. I've been with programmers and designers who have had not one idea about designing the interface. They are fine cloning, but not at innovating. And frequently the UI is just born out of cluelessness. Or with websites, the design constraints sometimes override the ergonomics, or even kill code orthognalness.
  - forgottenpass 8y ago
    These are common explanations to read online, but when you Occam's razor them to another explanation (which I'll share in a second) they build unnecessary narrative around motivation. What if lots of open source GUIs are bad for the same reason many commercial and enterprise-internal GUIs are bad: the core of the problem was solved and the team lacked sufficient incentive to keep working on quality of life enhancements.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

> That said, this is an incoherent rant. What does Google/Facebook's "jealously guarded" user data have to do with how FOSS developers are treated and remunerated? It's because arguably in the past (80-90s) the highest value was with the code, and it was it that was jealously guarded. Now the code doesn't have that much value and there are clones of almost everything, and the weight shifted towards the piles of user data. In other words, if I'm motivated enough, I can create a Facebook clone (with less useless functionality but arguably better user experience) in 2-3 months, but I'll never be able to gather a fraction of the user data they managed to get.

throwaway12iii 8y ago
You can't create a facebook clone in 2-3 months. Facebook is like FacebookOS, it probably has emacs somewhere in there. The size of functionality that FB provides is like a Mammoth (one of the ones standing on a turtle with the world on its back). Maybe something simpler with some subset of the functionality that some subset of users care about. Your point still stands about taking a long time to suck up the data. Also, now you'll probably get thrown in jail for doing 1% of the shady evil shit FB have done (and continue to do!).
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > Facebook is like FacebookOS, it probably has emacs somewhere in there. The size of functionality that FB provides is like a Mammoth (one of the ones standing on a turtle with the world on its back). I'm aware of that. The question is: how much of this functionality is actually used and appreciated by the users? > Maybe something simpler with some subset of the functionality that some subset of users care about. I'd venture to say "the majority of users care about". I did some amateurish research a while ago asking people how they are using FB. Most just scroll the feed, chat via FB, click "like" and occasionally comment; some participate in FB groups. There is a ton of functions rarely used, and some are deliberately broken (for example, FB deliberately removed past birthday notifications to create a sense of urgency to log on more often, and you need a workaround to catch up if you log in less often). If you actually start using HumHub and compare it to FB, the former is a real pleasure to use. Will it ever have more users? Practically speaking, it's impossible. In any case, my point is not how fast one can create a usable FB clone, but that the code itself is no longer something that need to be jealously guarded.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> I'll never be able to gather a fraction of the user data they managed to get But they got that user data, though having the code. The code is still the essential bit in the first place. If someone else had had the Facebook code before they did, they could have gotten the data.
- woolvalley 8y ago
  Code has become a commodity of sorts, just like construction expertise for build 20 story high rises. It's a good clean data set to train ML models that is the current proprietary advantage set.
  - keypress 8y ago
    Then there should be a push for anonymous open data sets.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      In practice it turns out to be nearly impossible to anonymise data sets.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

keypress 8y ago

Aside: FOSS UIs may stink, but I've never really understood this. As the UI should be the easy bit. That said most web sites, browsers and even the desktop still has quite a poor interface. Remarkable given the technological options.

majewsky 8y ago
> The UI should be the easy bit. That's your problem right there. Many (most?) FOSS contributors are in it for the intellectual challenge. Designing a good UI is perceived as a lesser problem compared to technical challenges, and therefore disregarded. Also, design is not the comfort zone of most FOSS contributors (which is why some FOSS projects do dedicated outreach programs not only to women or minorities, but also to designers). Also, I think there is still some "it was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" mentality. I frequently see it justified it as an avoidance tactic for developer burnout: By making it hard to use your software (e.g. by providing no documentation, or by coating the documentation with a thick layer of jargon), the only users you'll get are the ones persistent enough to work through that on their own, and those will be the ones that deliver high-quality bug reports and contributions.
- keypress 8y ago
  But there are many rewards to wrapping these products up. MS did well with their little tabbed UIs and checkboxes. It felt more like a mixing desk, easier than say discovering and typing command line options. I don't think people have a 'this should be hard to use mentality'. I've been with programmers and designers who have had not one idea about designing the interface. They are fine cloning, but not at innovating. And frequently the UI is just born out of cluelessness. Or with websites, the design constraints sometimes override the ergonomics, or even kill code orthognalness.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  These are common explanations to read online, but when you Occam's razor them to another explanation (which I'll share in a second) they build unnecessary narrative around motivation. What if lots of open source GUIs are bad for the same reason many commercial and enterprise-internal GUIs are bad: the core of the problem was solved and the team lacked sufficient incentive to keep working on quality of life enhancements.