7 ms·

> The real root cause of "user hostility" is that companies are run by humans and humans are self-serving and want to make more money. At least for software, w

by ohazi 6y ago

> The real root cause of "user hostility" is that companies are run by humans and humans are self-serving and want to make more money. At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed, and if any of that does turn up, you never lose access to the last-good version and source, in case you or someone else wants to fork it. That's not to say that there aren't valid complaints about the availability and usability of free software. There are some free applications that can do amazing things, but are genuinely less intuitive than comparable commercial software. It's not surprising that users who aren't free software diehards don't want to use these tools. There are also entire ecosystems where free software just isn't a thing, e.g. phone software and hosted user services.

mawise 6y ago
This type of thinking has been a huge motivator to my side project as I try to envision what a more user-centric internet could look like. The core being self-hosted internet infrastructure--my project being an open-source, easy-to-run, _private_ blog. https://simpleblogs.org https://simpleblogs.org
jokethrowaway 6y ago
That's not sustainable. Most OSS nowadays is produced by big companies looking at OSS as a way to retain or capture more engineering talent. It somehow works for small individuals because having a nice github can be useful to get a job or bypass the ridiculous interviewing process of the day. A few heroes barely live off donations from wealthy companies and patreons, others sell development courses on the side. The real problem is that companies in our society grow too much and we end up with a few outliers companies and hordes of employees. Unfortunately, as soon as a company gets money or becomes successful enough to lobby the government for more regulations, they can effectively make it harder for competitor to pop up. The fact that starting a business is a logistic hassle because of corporate taxes is another barrier. I'd like to see more micro companies and individuals providing value to society instead of giant corporations. OSS can be a part of that, but it doesn't have to be.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The parent comment was specifically talking about free software, not open source software. The latter is commonly produced by large companies, but the former is much rarer.
m463 6y ago
checks-and-balances. free software puts pressure on the giants. (lets see when the free software phones come out over the next year or two how they do) Look, capitalism works. But unfettered capitalism could use free software.
thewebcount 6y ago
> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed Sorry, but this is laughable. Instead of self-serving greed, you have self-serving "what interests the person writing it." That leaves us with open source software that has horrible user interfaces and is every bit as user-hostile as for-pay software. (For example, see the recent arguments about git's UI in this thread[0].) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374268
- b855f1d0ea394ac 6y ago
  I think, personally, that it's because only the most iconoclastic individuals are willing to put in the effort to make truly free software (like MIT licensed, for example) since they have the raw, unfettered drive (based on their hatred of the mainstream) required to work through the years of programming for zero monetary returns that it takes to produce a feature-complete software project that does something worthwhile. I believe we could partially solve this problem if we could better support the work-a-day developer with a great idea, who either doesn't have the risk profile to quit their job or doesn't have the free time to slave away in their home after their normal job. These people tend to be the programmer/engineer who worked in one or several companies in a similar industry, has seen the mistakes and insights from each, and can visualize a better data structure for a common operation in this industry, or perhaps even a new operational model that works more efficiently for optimizing some common problem. However, those developers just don't have the incentive/drive/motivation to do it, and usually that's because their method of survival is to sell their time to another person/corporation in exchange for money that can be used to buy food, shelter, etc. and thus they are too tired, too demotivated, or perhaps they just want to spend some time with their family and friends. Whatever the reason, if you allow them some more of their free time to work on other stuff, these developers will come up with amazing things. There is an argument that some make about the "laziness" of developers who can't do a job and become a CEO of a startup and have a family, but why insinuate or argue that they're too lazy and unworthy when we could un-block their "laziness" and get great results for humanity? (My view is that no one is "lazy", just that some people have a higher "activation energy", but once they are "activated" most people will work as hard as the next.) Also, I personally think software serving the interests of one person is going to be generally better than software serving the interests of greed, but I have no evidence, just a feeling from my life experiences.
bsder 6y ago
> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. No it doesn't. We have FAR too many pieces of open source software that are maintained by one person who gets no support. Good software requires sustained support--generally from corporations. Even something as venerable as emacs was just one of many until Lucid put a huge amount of effort behind it.
MrGilbert 6y ago
> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Imho, that's not the solution to the problem mentioned by GP. One needs to control self-serving greed, not give everything for free. I still need to live from something, but I don't need to earn six-figure numbers. I agree that software can be free, if you happen to find people who support the idea behind it. But that doesn't happen that often. What does work for me is that everything I write in my sparetime is freely available. It's like other people do volunteering work.
pabs3 6y ago
Of course the situation is far better than with proprietary software, but there is plenty of free software that has user hostile privacy violations. For one example (Cura), the only reason the authors fixed the issue is that the GDPR forced them to do so. Most people don't have the skills one would need to discover nor fix these issues. https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/2810 https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/2810 There is also plenty of free software for mobile phones and hosted user services. https://wiki.debian.org/Mobile https://wiki.debian.org/Mobile https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud

by ohazi 6y ago

mawise 6y ago

This type of thinking has been a huge motivator to my side project as I try to envision what a more user-centric internet could look like. The core being self-hosted internet infrastructure--my project being an open-source, easy-to-run, _private_ blog. https://simpleblogs.org https://simpleblogs.org

jokethrowaway 6y ago

That's not sustainable. Most OSS nowadays is produced by big companies looking at OSS as a way to retain or capture more engineering talent. It somehow works for small individuals because having a nice github can be useful to get a job or bypass the ridiculous interviewing process of the day. A few heroes barely live off donations from wealthy companies and patreons, others sell development courses on the side. The real problem is that companies in our society grow too much and we end up with a few outliers companies and hordes of employees. Unfortunately, as soon as a company gets money or becomes successful enough to lobby the government for more regulations, they can effectively make it harder for competitor to pop up. The fact that starting a business is a logistic hassle because of corporate taxes is another barrier. I'd like to see more micro companies and individuals providing value to society instead of giant corporations. OSS can be a part of that, but it doesn't have to be.

saagarjha 6y ago
The parent comment was specifically talking about free software, not open source software. The latter is commonly produced by large companies, but the former is much rarer.

m463 6y ago

checks-and-balances. free software puts pressure on the giants. (lets see when the free software phones come out over the next year or two how they do) Look, capitalism works. But unfettered capitalism could use free software.

thewebcount 6y ago

> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Still made by humans, but usually without the self-serving greed Sorry, but this is laughable. Instead of self-serving greed, you have self-serving "what interests the person writing it." That leaves us with open source software that has horrible user interfaces and is every bit as user-hostile as for-pay software. (For example, see the recent arguments about git's UI in this thread[0].) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24374268

b855f1d0ea394ac 6y ago
I think, personally, that it's because only the most iconoclastic individuals are willing to put in the effort to make truly free software (like MIT licensed, for example) since they have the raw, unfettered drive (based on their hatred of the mainstream) required to work through the years of programming for zero monetary returns that it takes to produce a feature-complete software project that does something worthwhile. I believe we could partially solve this problem if we could better support the work-a-day developer with a great idea, who either doesn't have the risk profile to quit their job or doesn't have the free time to slave away in their home after their normal job. These people tend to be the programmer/engineer who worked in one or several companies in a similar industry, has seen the mistakes and insights from each, and can visualize a better data structure for a common operation in this industry, or perhaps even a new operational model that works more efficiently for optimizing some common problem. However, those developers just don't have the incentive/drive/motivation to do it, and usually that's because their method of survival is to sell their time to another person/corporation in exchange for money that can be used to buy food, shelter, etc. and thus they are too tired, too demotivated, or perhaps they just want to spend some time with their family and friends. Whatever the reason, if you allow them some more of their free time to work on other stuff, these developers will come up with amazing things. There is an argument that some make about the "laziness" of developers who can't do a job and become a CEO of a startup and have a family, but why insinuate or argue that they're too lazy and unworthy when we could un-block their "laziness" and get great results for humanity? (My view is that no one is "lazy", just that some people have a higher "activation energy", but once they are "activated" most people will work as hard as the next.) Also, I personally think software serving the interests of one person is going to be generally better than software serving the interests of greed, but I have no evidence, just a feeling from my life experiences.

bsder 6y ago

> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. No it doesn't. We have FAR too many pieces of open source software that are maintained by one person who gets no support. Good software requires sustained support--generally from corporations. Even something as venerable as emacs was just one of many until Lucid put a huge amount of effort behind it.

MrGilbert 6y ago

> At least for software, we know of one solution that works: free (as in speech) software. Imho, that's not the solution to the problem mentioned by GP. One needs to control self-serving greed, not give everything for free. I still need to live from something, but I don't need to earn six-figure numbers. I agree that software can be free, if you happen to find people who support the idea behind it. But that doesn't happen that often. What does work for me is that everything I write in my sparetime is freely available. It's like other people do volunteering work.

pabs3 6y ago

Of course the situation is far better than with proprietary software, but there is plenty of free software that has user hostile privacy violations. For one example (Cura), the only reason the authors fixed the issue is that the GDPR forced them to do so. Most people don't have the skills one would need to discover nor fix these issues. https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://wiki.debian.org/PrivacyIssues https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/2810 https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/2810 There is also plenty of free software for mobile phones and hosted user services. https://wiki.debian.org/Mobile https://wiki.debian.org/Mobile https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud