4 ms·

I would argue that the opposite is the case for most people. Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it. I

by woah 6y ago

I would argue that the opposite is the case for most people. Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it. If you are an average user, this is you. Open source, on the other hand, is generally adapted to the needs of whoever wants to do some unpaid work on it. This is why open source text editors are great. The users are the developers. This is also why open source applications (graphics, office, etc) are so horrible. Most developers don't use that stuff, or don't use it enough to put in some free work fixing GIMP. Desktop OS's are somewhere in the middle. Developers use them, but the things that would make an open source OS easy for the common user aren't fixed. As a result, they are generally only used by those who get enjoyment out of fixing their desktop, sort of like a classic car enthusiast who loves to spend a Sunday afternoon in the garage with a wrench.

amelius 6y ago
> Open source, on the other hand, is generally adapted to the needs of whoever wants to do some unpaid work on it. Ironically, even commercial software has headed in the direction of "unpaid work", with its ad-based monetization.
yogthos 6y ago
My whole point is that what people pay for changes over time. So, if you invest in a piece of software, then it's very likely going to continue evolving to stay profitable and chase whatever new fads happen to be. This has been the case with literally every piece of commercial software I've ever used. And a lot of the time the changes either have absolutely no value for me, or they're actually detrimental to my workflow. And clearly I'm not alone, because every time a major version change happens with popular commercial products a lot of users will complain about it. However, they have no power to do anything since they just have to follow whatever the current trend is, or find a new piece of software to use. It's also a false dichotomy to claim that software is either commercial or open source. There are plenty of companies making money from open source products. This is a good combination since it provides commercial funding for the project, but also ensures that the users can always fork it if it and move it in a different direction from the original developers. I also disagree that open source applications are in any ways horrible. GIMP and Libre Office are both excellent piece of software that work perfectly fine. I use GIMP all the time, and I have much easier time getting around it than Photoshop. Also, would like to hear more about what specifically needs to be fixed on Linux. For example, what deficiencies does Elementary OS have compared to Windows?
- elagost 6y ago
  > what deficiencies does Elementary OS have compared to Windows? From a regular user's perspective, every answer you'll get boils down to "the bugs aren't in the same places as Windows". Most Open Source/Free software these days is as good or better than its proprietary equivalent.
em-bee 6y ago
i haven't had todo any work on syncthing yet. that thing just works.
m463 6y ago
I have had this conversation with "most people" a number of times. "I'm just a regular guy and I want to get my stuff done, but these programs are doing stuff I can't stop." > Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it Here's what has happened. Because apple is a hardware manufacturer, their app store makes software a complement. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ "A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements." So the price of gas goes down, the sales of cars goes up. and vice versa. For apple, they can drive the cost of software to zero. In the beginning software couldn't really sell well above 99 cents, and now most software is free. So now people are used to free stuff. But it is a trick. Free stuff pays for itself with tricky in-app purchases, or tricky sell-your-data. Apple doesn't care, because all the free software is selling gajillions of iphones. But it would have been much better (for individuals and society) if people made and sold stuff, and if people just paid for stuff and got rid of the trickery.
_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
> Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it. If you are an average user, this is you. That's certainly what their marketing departments are paid to have people think.

by woah 6y ago

amelius 6y ago

> Open source, on the other hand, is generally adapted to the needs of whoever wants to do some unpaid work on it. Ironically, even commercial software has headed in the direction of "unpaid work", with its ad-based monetization.

yogthos 6y ago

My whole point is that what people pay for changes over time. So, if you invest in a piece of software, then it's very likely going to continue evolving to stay profitable and chase whatever new fads happen to be. This has been the case with literally every piece of commercial software I've ever used. And a lot of the time the changes either have absolutely no value for me, or they're actually detrimental to my workflow. And clearly I'm not alone, because every time a major version change happens with popular commercial products a lot of users will complain about it. However, they have no power to do anything since they just have to follow whatever the current trend is, or find a new piece of software to use. It's also a false dichotomy to claim that software is either commercial or open source. There are plenty of companies making money from open source products. This is a good combination since it provides commercial funding for the project, but also ensures that the users can always fork it if it and move it in a different direction from the original developers. I also disagree that open source applications are in any ways horrible. GIMP and Libre Office are both excellent piece of software that work perfectly fine. I use GIMP all the time, and I have much easier time getting around it than Photoshop. Also, would like to hear more about what specifically needs to be fixed on Linux. For example, what deficiencies does Elementary OS have compared to Windows?

elagost 6y ago
> what deficiencies does Elementary OS have compared to Windows? From a regular user's perspective, every answer you'll get boils down to "the bugs aren't in the same places as Windows". Most Open Source/Free software these days is as good or better than its proprietary equivalent.

em-bee 6y ago

i haven't had todo any work on syncthing yet. that thing just works.

m463 6y ago

I have had this conversation with "most people" a number of times. "I'm just a regular guy and I want to get my stuff done, but these programs are doing stuff I can't stop." > Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it Here's what has happened. Because apple is a hardware manufacturer, their app store makes software a complement. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ "A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements." So the price of gas goes down, the sales of cars goes up. and vice versa. For apple, they can drive the cost of software to zero. In the beginning software couldn't really sell well above 99 cents, and now most software is free. So now people are used to free stuff. But it is a trick. Free stuff pays for itself with tricky in-app purchases, or tricky sell-your-data. Apple doesn't care, because all the free software is selling gajillions of iphones. But it would have been much better (for individuals and society) if people made and sold stuff, and if people just paid for stuff and got rid of the trickery.

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago

> Commercial software is adapted to the needs of the greatest number of people who will pay for it. If you are an average user, this is you. That's certainly what their marketing departments are paid to have people think.