4 ms·
That view seems a little shoehorned because the parent comment specified "protocol", implying that it would be the connection between client and storage, thus n
by nvrspyx 6y ago
That view seems a little shoehorned because the parent comment specified "protocol", implying that it would be the connection between client and storage, thus not user-facing.
Regardless,
* Blender
* Godot
* Krita
* GitLab
* Olive
* Firefox
* Thunderbird
* NextCloud
* Amarok
* Vital
* and more
The problem isn't an "economic model". The problem is that most open-source projects simply don't attract UI designers, UX researchers, and users because contribution flows are more technical or geared toward developers.
UX research isn't "expensive" when referring to open-source projects because it predominantly requires people: designers, researchers, and users. The whole foundation of open-source is volunteerism.
- Lammy 6y agoThis view is the one that feels shoehorned. "Normies" (not pejorative) have no idea what a protocol is. They just want something that works and is convenient as possible. That's how we ended up at the $free+$surveillance App Store / modern Web model.
- satyrnein 6y agoWhat IS the contribution flow for a designer, anyway? If they can't submit a PR, it seems like the best they can do is submit an issue with a mockup. Are volunteer developers likely to jump on that and implement it? Most developers I've worked with don't exactly love going back and forth with designers on UI stuff.
- lupire 6y agoVolunteerism is much rarer than paid work, and paid work prefers proprietary too get the money to pay. And volunteerism was much more popular in the 1990s when it was easy to write software by hard to sell it. App stores suffocated open source by offering a path to revenue.