5 ms·

"the users still stick around and get angry because they made dumb, uninformed choices as a consumer and think it's our fault." If this is the attitude of Wayl

by 7e 8y ago

"the users still stick around and get angry because they made dumb, uninformed choices as a consumer and think it's our fault." If this is the attitude of Wayland developers, it goes a long way towards explaining Wayland's ten year road of non-adoption.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Here's to another 10 years of non adoption, if wayland means "we don't care about popular (even dominant) use cases, now piss off".
nickpsecurity 8y ago
The alternative is that the volunteers cave in to strangers who bought anti-FOSS hardware by making the volunteers' software much crummier over a long period of agonizing work. I think volunteers wanting clean FOSS being expected to do that shows a negative, selfish attitude plus lack of cooperation on the NVIDIA consumers making those demands, not the developers. To illustrate with my own example, I bought a Linux-compatible laptop when I wanted to run Linux on a desktop. That rewarded the seller for effort they put in, reused the FOSS work already performed, and required no demands to be made of volunteers. These things are a two-way street. So, I met them in the middle. Did it again getting a Thinkpad cuz I wanted to try BSD's later this year. Supported all of them. If trying to maximize adoption, you have to tolerate people's indifference and selfishness. They dont want to maximize sales for anti-FOSS company. So, they're telling that company's customers the issue, suggesting a switch, and having something waiting for AMD buyers.
- xyzzy_plugh 8y ago
  You can't complain about adoption while taking a holier-than-thou stance towards users. Since when has FOSS meant that I _can't_ work with proprietary bits? As a user, this is my choice. If software is going to dictate where I spend my money, then I'm less inclined to adopt it. That's not freedom.
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    I have distinct memories of people buying PC hardware specifically because it came with a "compatible with Windows Vista" sticker, and they were thinking of switching. I didn't read any "holier-than-thou" sentiment in the parent comment. It's not unreasonable to expect users to think about the things they want to be compatible with when buying hardware. "I want to be able to use the next version of Windows"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with the next version of Windows. "I want to use this printer from my iPad"... buy a printer known to be compatible with that model of iPad. "I want to use this printer from GNU/Linux"... buy a printer known to be compatible with GNU/Linux. "I want to use OpenBSD"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with OpenBSD. "I want to use Ubuntu 17.10"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with Wayland.
    - recursive 8y ago
      Your memory involves a sticker on the box with the information you needed. You could draw an analogy if there were a "compatible with linux" sticker on some hardware. People generally don't understand what linux is, or what a distribution is, or what versions of any of the above are new or upcoming. None of these problems apply to Microsoft, since there are many fewer versions, less fragmentation, and a marketing budget.
      - LukeShu 8y ago
        That's an unfair comment on 2 counts. Firstly, it's refuting a different point than the one I was making. If the problem were "it's too difficult to determine if hardware is compatible with the distro I want to use," (which is a real problem) then the comment would at least be relevant. But the comment I was replying to said "If software is going to dictate where I spend my money [what hardware I buy], ..."; they were rejecting the validity the claim that they should consider which software they use when making a hardware purchase, which is true for no OS, and no reasonable user expects to be true. Secondly, you are demanding an impossible task. Because GNU/Linux distros have less marketing budget, and not enough dominance, and can't convince hardware vendors to put a sticker on the box... they need to have better hardware compatibility than Microsoft, and just be compatible with all the hardware? Microsoft has vastly more resources to dedicate to hardware compatibly than just about any other organization, and hardware vendors themselves test their hardware with Windows. Expecting a less-popular desktop operating system to work with more arbitrary hardware than Windows does is unreasonable. I get that "being able to try it out with the hardware I already own" is a hugely powerful thing. But most users who want to make any other switch accept that they might need to buy some new hardware when doing it. A user switching from a Windows laptop to an iPad as their daily-driver accepts that they may need to get a new printer that's compatible. They may even realize that they have an older iPad, and research the printer they want to make sure it's compatible with their model, and not blindly trust the AirPrint badge on the box. Few users would think that level of due-diligence is unreasonable. Saying "that research is difficult for GNU/Linux distros" is very different than saying "expecting any level of research at all is unreasonable".
ldh 8y ago
If, as a consumer of software and hardware, you presume that it's incumbent upon people expending their own energy for free to cater to your personal situation and/or purchasing habits, you'll keep taking whatever you're given and I don't feel bad when creators ignore you. "Market adoption" is not a driving force here.
- comex 8y ago
  By the same token, if, as a developer of software, you presume that it’s incumbent upon people spending their own money to buy hardware that caters to your software design, one should not feel bad if users ignore your project and use alternatives that are compatible instead – namely X. If Wayland developers truly do not care about adoption of their software, then that’s fine. But it means that UI frameworks which do care about adoption will have to continue to support both X and Wayland as backends indefinitely, increasing complexity. That’s okay for now, since removing X support would be a long way off in any case. But if enough years go by without at least a plausible route towards being able to remove it in the future, they may eventually decide to address the complexity issue by dropping Wayland instead.
LukeShu 8y ago
In general, users of $foo have no problem researching their hardware purchases to make sure that they are compatible with $foo. ...unless foo=FOSS. When buying a printer, many users have no problem researching the printer to make sure it works with their specific model of iPad, then turn around and say that it's their GNU/Linux distro's fault that it doesn't work with that printer.
saulrh 8y ago
Yes. Even if the analysis is exactly correct, this is not an acceptable way to think about or communicate the results. It leads thought in anti-user directions and shuts down communication. Compare to something like this: "We need to provide potential users of Wayland with better information, both to better calibrate their expectations and ensure that anger is properly directed and to help them make more informed buying decisions in the future." Of fucking course you have a communication problem when your relationship with your userbase is founded on logic like "doing anything other than calling them idiots and ignoring them is useless and we shouldn't surrender to idiocy".
roenxi 8y ago
You phrase that as though there is a real choice here. There is not. The open source community has had experience with how to interact with closed source drivers since the Linux 0.01 in 1991 and that experience screams "don't do it". Xorg has been a technical disaster for more than a decade; I have sympathy for the people who want to use Nvidia cards, but they are going to have to use X.org and like it anyway because that is all Nvidia supports. Attempting to run a project based on the opinions of a group of Nvidia devs who (1) don't care about your project and (2) don't care about your goals is technical madness. It took the kernel more than a decade of stubbornness before all the other device driver writers caved and supported decent design. As far as I recall Nvidia is literally the last major device driver who refuses to play ball with open source. If Nvidia users can't use Wayland for driver reasons that is because of Nvidia's choices and there isn't anything the Wayland devs can do without repeating all the mistakes of X.org. If it takes another decade before Nvidia caves and behaves like a good corporate citizen then that is a decade well spent by the Wayland devs. Long term maintainability will eventually trump short term user issues; just like it did for wifi et al. It is unfortunate Nvidia is making their user's lives hard, but the writing has been on the wall since AMD started open sourcing their driver stack in the 2008 era.
- saulrh 8y ago
  The problem here isn't the interaction with the nvidia devs. Like you said, flatly refusing to work with their binary drivers is WAI. The problem here is the interaction with wayland's users and potential users. It is perfectly possible to post exactly what you said here, along with other useful information about why and how people should expect their nvidia cards to fail to behave, instead of saying things like "users are idiots and will blame us no matter what we do". Communicating with users better will not only reduce anger at Wayland, accelerate its adoption, and improve its quality, it'll direct at least some of that anger at nvidia thereby directly enhancing the no-cooperation strategy you describe here.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Android and ChromeOS show it is possible to have it other way when FOSS religion doesn't stand in the way.
skybrian 8y ago
Yep, that's the trade-off. Volunteer projects just aren't going to do whatever it takes, because market share doesn't override all other considerations. But maybe that's okay. With a viable alternative, we can be patient.

by 7e 8y ago

throwaway2048 8y ago

Here's to another 10 years of non adoption, if wayland means "we don't care about popular (even dominant) use cases, now piss off".

nickpsecurity 8y ago

The alternative is that the volunteers cave in to strangers who bought anti-FOSS hardware by making the volunteers' software much crummier over a long period of agonizing work. I think volunteers wanting clean FOSS being expected to do that shows a negative, selfish attitude plus lack of cooperation on the NVIDIA consumers making those demands, not the developers. To illustrate with my own example, I bought a Linux-compatible laptop when I wanted to run Linux on a desktop. That rewarded the seller for effort they put in, reused the FOSS work already performed, and required no demands to be made of volunteers. These things are a two-way street. So, I met them in the middle. Did it again getting a Thinkpad cuz I wanted to try BSD's later this year. Supported all of them. If trying to maximize adoption, you have to tolerate people's indifference and selfishness. They dont want to maximize sales for anti-FOSS company. So, they're telling that company's customers the issue, suggesting a switch, and having something waiting for AMD buyers.

xyzzy_plugh 8y ago
You can't complain about adoption while taking a holier-than-thou stance towards users. Since when has FOSS meant that I _can't_ work with proprietary bits? As a user, this is my choice. If software is going to dictate where I spend my money, then I'm less inclined to adopt it. That's not freedom.
- LukeShu 8y ago
  I have distinct memories of people buying PC hardware specifically because it came with a "compatible with Windows Vista" sticker, and they were thinking of switching. I didn't read any "holier-than-thou" sentiment in the parent comment. It's not unreasonable to expect users to think about the things they want to be compatible with when buying hardware. "I want to be able to use the next version of Windows"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with the next version of Windows. "I want to use this printer from my iPad"... buy a printer known to be compatible with that model of iPad. "I want to use this printer from GNU/Linux"... buy a printer known to be compatible with GNU/Linux. "I want to use OpenBSD"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with OpenBSD. "I want to use Ubuntu 17.10"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with Wayland.
  - recursive 8y ago
    Your memory involves a sticker on the box with the information you needed. You could draw an analogy if there were a "compatible with linux" sticker on some hardware. People generally don't understand what linux is, or what a distribution is, or what versions of any of the above are new or upcoming. None of these problems apply to Microsoft, since there are many fewer versions, less fragmentation, and a marketing budget.
    - LukeShu 8y ago
      That's an unfair comment on 2 counts. Firstly, it's refuting a different point than the one I was making. If the problem were "it's too difficult to determine if hardware is compatible with the distro I want to use," (which is a real problem) then the comment would at least be relevant. But the comment I was replying to said "If software is going to dictate where I spend my money [what hardware I buy], ..."; they were rejecting the validity the claim that they should consider which software they use when making a hardware purchase, which is true for no OS, and no reasonable user expects to be true. Secondly, you are demanding an impossible task. Because GNU/Linux distros have less marketing budget, and not enough dominance, and can't convince hardware vendors to put a sticker on the box... they need to have better hardware compatibility than Microsoft, and just be compatible with all the hardware? Microsoft has vastly more resources to dedicate to hardware compatibly than just about any other organization, and hardware vendors themselves test their hardware with Windows. Expecting a less-popular desktop operating system to work with more arbitrary hardware than Windows does is unreasonable. I get that "being able to try it out with the hardware I already own" is a hugely powerful thing. But most users who want to make any other switch accept that they might need to buy some new hardware when doing it. A user switching from a Windows laptop to an iPad as their daily-driver accepts that they may need to get a new printer that's compatible. They may even realize that they have an older iPad, and research the printer they want to make sure it's compatible with their model, and not blindly trust the AirPrint badge on the box. Few users would think that level of due-diligence is unreasonable. Saying "that research is difficult for GNU/Linux distros" is very different than saying "expecting any level of research at all is unreasonable".

ldh 8y ago

If, as a consumer of software and hardware, you presume that it's incumbent upon people expending their own energy for free to cater to your personal situation and/or purchasing habits, you'll keep taking whatever you're given and I don't feel bad when creators ignore you. "Market adoption" is not a driving force here.

comex 8y ago
By the same token, if, as a developer of software, you presume that it’s incumbent upon people spending their own money to buy hardware that caters to your software design, one should not feel bad if users ignore your project and use alternatives that are compatible instead – namely X. If Wayland developers truly do not care about adoption of their software, then that’s fine. But it means that UI frameworks which do care about adoption will have to continue to support both X and Wayland as backends indefinitely, increasing complexity. That’s okay for now, since removing X support would be a long way off in any case. But if enough years go by without at least a plausible route towards being able to remove it in the future, they may eventually decide to address the complexity issue by dropping Wayland instead.

LukeShu 8y ago

In general, users of $foo have no problem researching their hardware purchases to make sure that they are compatible with $foo. ...unless foo=FOSS. When buying a printer, many users have no problem researching the printer to make sure it works with their specific model of iPad, then turn around and say that it's their GNU/Linux distro's fault that it doesn't work with that printer.

saulrh 8y ago

Yes. Even if the analysis is exactly correct, this is not an acceptable way to think about or communicate the results. It leads thought in anti-user directions and shuts down communication. Compare to something like this: "We need to provide potential users of Wayland with better information, both to better calibrate their expectations and ensure that anger is properly directed and to help them make more informed buying decisions in the future." Of fucking course you have a communication problem when your relationship with your userbase is founded on logic like "doing anything other than calling them idiots and ignoring them is useless and we shouldn't surrender to idiocy".

roenxi 8y ago

You phrase that as though there is a real choice here. There is not. The open source community has had experience with how to interact with closed source drivers since the Linux 0.01 in 1991 and that experience screams "don't do it". Xorg has been a technical disaster for more than a decade; I have sympathy for the people who want to use Nvidia cards, but they are going to have to use X.org and like it anyway because that is all Nvidia supports. Attempting to run a project based on the opinions of a group of Nvidia devs who (1) don't care about your project and (2) don't care about your goals is technical madness. It took the kernel more than a decade of stubbornness before all the other device driver writers caved and supported decent design. As far as I recall Nvidia is literally the last major device driver who refuses to play ball with open source. If Nvidia users can't use Wayland for driver reasons that is because of Nvidia's choices and there isn't anything the Wayland devs can do without repeating all the mistakes of X.org. If it takes another decade before Nvidia caves and behaves like a good corporate citizen then that is a decade well spent by the Wayland devs. Long term maintainability will eventually trump short term user issues; just like it did for wifi et al. It is unfortunate Nvidia is making their user's lives hard, but the writing has been on the wall since AMD started open sourcing their driver stack in the 2008 era.

saulrh 8y ago
The problem here isn't the interaction with the nvidia devs. Like you said, flatly refusing to work with their binary drivers is WAI. The problem here is the interaction with wayland's users and potential users. It is perfectly possible to post exactly what you said here, along with other useful information about why and how people should expect their nvidia cards to fail to behave, instead of saying things like "users are idiots and will blame us no matter what we do". Communicating with users better will not only reduce anger at Wayland, accelerate its adoption, and improve its quality, it'll direct at least some of that anger at nvidia thereby directly enhancing the no-cooperation strategy you describe here.
pjmlp 8y ago
Android and ChromeOS show it is possible to have it other way when FOSS religion doesn't stand in the way.

skybrian 8y ago

Yep, that's the trade-off. Volunteer projects just aren't going to do whatever it takes, because market share doesn't override all other considerations. But maybe that's okay. With a viable alternative, we can be patient.