5 ms·

We should recognize that many times network effects are not the problem, but the low quality of the free software offerings. Many free software advocates are O

We should recognize that many times network effects are not the problem, but the low quality of the free software offerings. Many free software advocates are OK with ugly and bad interfaces, bad documentation, etc. and they don't understand why anyone would prefer the proprietary alternative. As a community, if we want to make normal people use (and donate to) free software, we should increase our quality standards. It's important that the whole user experience (downloading, installing and using software) is smooth. For example: I can give many good reasons to use Jitsi instead of Zoom, but if Jitsi's usability or video quality is not on par with Zoom's, all my reasons crumble at the eyes of normal people, and we shouldn't blame them. (Just an example, not saying Jitsi is bad.)

Pragmus 6y ago
I think we also need to realize the difference between a "pretty" interface and a functional one. I think it's possible to have something that's not ugly and yet not bloated to hell. It just depends on actually understanding UI design in a way that is universal to your audience. For instance, I doubt most people find pre-XP windows "Ugly", if anything a lot of us yearn for that era of interface.
stkdump 6y ago
Not to take away from your point, but you can be sure that most (almost all) companies that create non-trivial high quality software use a lot of free software to create it. This is the advantage they have. They can use their resources very efficiently to pick an choose the right combination of free stuff and also pick and choose which parts to implement out of their own pocket. The open source movement is like government subsidies in that it helps companies make better products with fewer own resources spent.
jerome-jh 6y ago
Free software documentation is usually pretty good, and installing SW on just about any Linux distro is very smooth. Uninstalling is just as smooth. As for the ugliness, one could also say they a given UI is "time tested" (eg Gimp, Gnumeric). Unfortunately a number of projects feel they have to change their UI as often as commercial SW (Firefox, Evince, Ubuntu). I would certainly prefer they remain away from that temptation and remain "ugly". Some people favor efficiency above all.

Pragmus 6y ago

I think we also need to realize the difference between a "pretty" interface and a functional one. I think it's possible to have something that's not ugly and yet not bloated to hell. It just depends on actually understanding UI design in a way that is universal to your audience. For instance, I doubt most people find pre-XP windows "Ugly", if anything a lot of us yearn for that era of interface.

stkdump 6y ago

Not to take away from your point, but you can be sure that most (almost all) companies that create non-trivial high quality software use a lot of free software to create it. This is the advantage they have. They can use their resources very efficiently to pick an choose the right combination of free stuff and also pick and choose which parts to implement out of their own pocket. The open source movement is like government subsidies in that it helps companies make better products with fewer own resources spent.

jerome-jh 6y ago

Free software documentation is usually pretty good, and installing SW on just about any Linux distro is very smooth. Uninstalling is just as smooth. As for the ugliness, one could also say they a given UI is "time tested" (eg Gimp, Gnumeric). Unfortunately a number of projects feel they have to change their UI as often as commercial SW (Firefox, Evince, Ubuntu). I would certainly prefer they remain away from that temptation and remain "ugly". Some people favor efficiency above all.