3 ms·

> You also got the initial product for free and you're using the time of the maintainer to review your things, for free. It goes both ways. The user isn't owe

by elihu 4y ago

> You also got the initial product for free and you're using the time of the maintainer to review your things, for free. It goes both ways. The user isn't owed free stuff from random people on the Internet, but by the same token the software maintainer isn't owed users. If the maintainer wants users (which is to say, if the maintainer wants other people to invest time and effort using the software) they'll have to work for it. Some projects do want to have a lot of users and are willing to put in that effort, and those are the projects that make me want to use their software. Those are the projects that are making the world better off. Dealing with people is hard, though, and it's perfectly understandable that some people don't have time for that. And if a project already has more bug reports and feature requests than its maintainers have time to deal with, then adding more is just making the backlog bigger. > You wouldn't trade £100 for £1, so why do you expect maintainers to drop everything and look at your "free £1"? It's not a zero-sum interaction. If I report a bug, there's a pretty decent chance that the maintainer wants the bug fixed as much as I do -- fixing the bug is not a favor they're doing for me, it's a favor they're doing for me, them, and everyone else who uses the software. On the other hand, maybe I'm the only one affected and it's not a high priority for them. That's for them to decide. > Someone took time to build something, uploaded their work (for free) for your edification and you expect more. Something is wrong with this thought. Is it? I think I'd rather live in a world where people have higher expectations for software, whether money changed hands or not. I do think though that it makes sense to hold large projects like Firefox or the Linux kernel or OpenSSH to a very different standard than something somebody did in their spare time. And it's worth keeping in mind that there are a whole lot of different reasons why free and open source software projects exist, and some of them have commercial business models and substantial funding and some of them don't. Sometimes it's not even obvious which is which if you're not intimately familiar with the project. Just because users of the software aren't paying directly for its development doesn't mean that no one is.

samsquire 4y ago
What I take issue with is the demands of users, they're not the people doing the work. If I'm doing the work and not getting paid for it, I decide what I work on. The users demands are an input, which has a value which is more than 0 but less than my freedom's value which is worth more than 0 to me. We can all expect and want better, the question is the same people with the expectations are not the people doing the work and especially not the people paying. In other words, you can demand whatever you want but if you're not prepared to put any effort into it, why should I? It costs nothing to have an opinion or expectation or demand but it doesn't cost nothing to do the work required of that demand. There's no such thing as a free lunch and work isn't free. Why should I drop everything for YOUR wants and demands? Who gave you that authority? You say that as if the users are doing the worker or maintainer a favour. Objectively, adding users to a project adds more work to a project. The favour is going to the users, not in the reverse direction. I don't like it when people think they're doing me a favour when the reverse is true. Users overvalue their value and underestimate their costs to the maintainer and don't want to pay for their costs. People are difficult. > if the maintainer wants other people to invest time and effort using the software) they'll have to work for it. I take issue with this, you're essentially saying that the maintainer pays again in effort to get users, to benefit users. What exactly is the maintainer getting in return for having users besides users? More work.

by elihu 4y ago

samsquire 4y ago

What I take issue with is the demands of users, they're not the people doing the work. If I'm doing the work and not getting paid for it, I decide what I work on. The users demands are an input, which has a value which is more than 0 but less than my freedom's value which is worth more than 0 to me. We can all expect and want better, the question is the same people with the expectations are not the people doing the work and especially not the people paying. In other words, you can demand whatever you want but if you're not prepared to put any effort into it, why should I? It costs nothing to have an opinion or expectation or demand but it doesn't cost nothing to do the work required of that demand. There's no such thing as a free lunch and work isn't free. Why should I drop everything for YOUR wants and demands? Who gave you that authority? You say that as if the users are doing the worker or maintainer a favour. Objectively, adding users to a project adds more work to a project. The favour is going to the users, not in the reverse direction. I don't like it when people think they're doing me a favour when the reverse is true. Users overvalue their value and underestimate their costs to the maintainer and don't want to pay for their costs. People are difficult. > if the maintainer wants other people to invest time and effort using the software) they'll have to work for it. I take issue with this, you're essentially saying that the maintainer pays again in effort to get users, to benefit users. What exactly is the maintainer getting in return for having users besides users? More work.