3 ms·

I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. That’s not me trying to personally attack them it’s that j

I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. That’s not me trying to personally attack them it’s that just so many seem to lack any kind of QA - some bugs I’ve encountered are reproducible almost immediately with using the program. Basic integration of all these solutions often ends up with a less satisfactory solution than a “commercial”/closed source version. I’m sure some naysayers will come up with platitudes like “no funding makes it more difficult” and “well it’s open source just fix it”. For the first one, like I said some of the bugs or cumbersome problems are not even difficult to reproduce. Basic pointing and clicking by the devs would find it. For the second, come on, they can’t just misdirect all their users with “fix it yourself” - we might not know how, might not know the language or framework, or simply might not want to spend the time trying to figure out some tedious workflow involving self hosted Git repos or some poorly documented spaghetti build process. At the end of the day the devs themselves are in the best position to fix.

everdrive 5y ago
>I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. A lot of the closed-source software is also quite bad, but in a wholly different way: Sure, the UI is clean and the software is not complicated per se, but often your ability to simply retrieve information has been intentionally degraded in favor of an algorithmic discovery queue. The UI, while simple enough, changes for no good reason far too often. Often these UI changes are seemingly for the worse, so I can only guess that they improve "engagement." And of course, although the application may be simple to use, it's often built with "dark patterns," which are meant to shape your behavior. Yes, you can ignore or overcome these, but it's a hurdle which should never exist in the first place. By contrast, I don't think anyone loves Rhythmbox, (the open source itunes clone) but I've been using it for a decade and the UI has not appreciably changed at all. The application is definitely not perfect, but I can at least work around its flaws because those flaws are consistent. And really, why would a file-based music player need to change its UI much at all? There are no dark patterns to speak of, it's not trying to addict me into consuming more content, or paying for some subscription service.
yoyohello13 5y ago
Unfortunately, at this point, it's just the price you have to pay for software freedom. You're underestimating the difficulty of fixing bugs, even if they are "not difficult to reproduce". Most FOSS devs are doing all this work for free and most of the time the only feedback they get is "you're UI, UX is broken/bad". What incentive do they have to spend days of their free time optimizing the UX?
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  If they actually care about the project then the incentive is already there to make sure all of it works - not just everything apart from the UX/UI - this attitude is exactly why it's all broken.
kristov 5y ago
To state something you probably already know: The goal of FOSS is freedom to view and change the code. It makes no guarantees about quality or usability. Despite that, a lot of FOSS software is of great quality. But it's not the goal.

everdrive 5y ago

>I think he had a point, some OSS software is objectively just bad - UX, UI, bugs, overly complicated. A lot of the closed-source software is also quite bad, but in a wholly different way: Sure, the UI is clean and the software is not complicated per se, but often your ability to simply retrieve information has been intentionally degraded in favor of an algorithmic discovery queue. The UI, while simple enough, changes for no good reason far too often. Often these UI changes are seemingly for the worse, so I can only guess that they improve "engagement." And of course, although the application may be simple to use, it's often built with "dark patterns," which are meant to shape your behavior. Yes, you can ignore or overcome these, but it's a hurdle which should never exist in the first place. By contrast, I don't think anyone loves Rhythmbox, (the open source itunes clone) but I've been using it for a decade and the UI has not appreciably changed at all. The application is definitely not perfect, but I can at least work around its flaws because those flaws are consistent. And really, why would a file-based music player need to change its UI much at all? There are no dark patterns to speak of, it's not trying to addict me into consuming more content, or paying for some subscription service.

yoyohello13 5y ago

Unfortunately, at this point, it's just the price you have to pay for software freedom. You're underestimating the difficulty of fixing bugs, even if they are "not difficult to reproduce". Most FOSS devs are doing all this work for free and most of the time the only feedback they get is "you're UI, UX is broken/bad". What incentive do they have to spend days of their free time optimizing the UX?

lloydatkinson 5y ago
If they actually care about the project then the incentive is already there to make sure all of it works - not just everything apart from the UX/UI - this attitude is exactly why it's all broken.

kristov 5y ago

To state something you probably already know: The goal of FOSS is freedom to view and change the code. It makes no guarantees about quality or usability. Despite that, a lot of FOSS software is of great quality. But it's not the goal.