3 ms·

Only a scant handful of the open source alternatives in that table (Linux, git, gitlab, audacity, vlc media player) are compelling, if we use some measure of ad

by sidlls 4y ago

Only a scant handful of the open source alternatives in that table (Linux, git, gitlab, audacity, vlc media player) are compelling, if we use some measure of adoption as compelling. Most of the rest are all but unknown or so sparsely used as to be negligible compared to the software they supposedly displaced or will displace. My (probably controversial) opinion is that this is because many (most) of these alternatives are developed by people with an ideology as their agenda rather than to meet market demands. The OSS alternatives in almost every case are inferior in terms of features and usability as a result of this.

Gigachad 4y ago
I don't think the problem is that the development is agenda driven. It's more that the "last 10%" of work takes 99% of the effort. These alternatives look very good on a checkbox list but when you actually try to use them they just don't hold up and the work to get them there is immense. It's why almost relevant software has an army of workers behind them and more than just developers. A few devs on there own are never going to be able to keep up.
- sidlls 4y ago
  I think our points are aligned. The agenda driven nature of the genesis of these alternatives is part of the reason few developers work on them. Which, as you note, is why the “last 10%” doesn’t get done.
- k__ 4y ago
  Reminds me of an app I build. 4 screens for the main tasks 12 screens for onboarding
pjmlp 4y ago
Yes, it is the hippie culture of the 70's community gardens and such applied to software, eventually everyone went to Wall Street and similar places during the 80's. Similarly, after the FOSS wave, we are now back at models similar to shareware and demoware, because guess what, money is important.
butterNaN 4y ago
It is impossible to be without ideology. Even if you think you're free from it, you just subscribe to the 'default' ideology of your environments. Meeting market demands _is_ an ideology.
- sidlls 4y ago
  That’s a fair point: but it doesn’t change the underlying narrative. The ideology motivating development of (F)OSS alternatives frequently produces software that is not as good as that produced by a market-demand ideology.
  - butterNaN 4y ago
    I would agree on that. My initial diagnosis is that it's because of limited/nil feedback. Market driven projects at least have some sort of user feedback (e.g. early market research) that drives the development. It is often flawed but it's better than just a bunch of engineers assuming stuff.
isaacremuant 4y ago
I'd argue that LibreOffice, Inkscape, 7zip, Firefox, FileZilla, OBS, bitwarden are also well known, well used and compelling. Hell, OBS is arguably better than anything out there. There's also Blender. I think your bias is too strong. It's not so much controversial as misguided. People do things to meet their own needs and pain points and then products evolve. Having paid people behind products would make you think a product will be better but it's not necessarily the case. Also, different products might be better at different things (Firefox, despite some backsteps, is still more customizable than the closed source alternatives).

by sidlls 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago

I don't think the problem is that the development is agenda driven. It's more that the "last 10%" of work takes 99% of the effort. These alternatives look very good on a checkbox list but when you actually try to use them they just don't hold up and the work to get them there is immense. It's why almost relevant software has an army of workers behind them and more than just developers. A few devs on there own are never going to be able to keep up.

sidlls 4y ago
I think our points are aligned. The agenda driven nature of the genesis of these alternatives is part of the reason few developers work on them. Which, as you note, is why the “last 10%” doesn’t get done.
k__ 4y ago
Reminds me of an app I build. 4 screens for the main tasks 12 screens for onboarding

pjmlp 4y ago

Yes, it is the hippie culture of the 70's community gardens and such applied to software, eventually everyone went to Wall Street and similar places during the 80's. Similarly, after the FOSS wave, we are now back at models similar to shareware and demoware, because guess what, money is important.

butterNaN 4y ago

It is impossible to be without ideology. Even if you think you're free from it, you just subscribe to the 'default' ideology of your environments. Meeting market demands _is_ an ideology.

sidlls 4y ago
That’s a fair point: but it doesn’t change the underlying narrative. The ideology motivating development of (F)OSS alternatives frequently produces software that is not as good as that produced by a market-demand ideology.
- butterNaN 4y ago
  I would agree on that. My initial diagnosis is that it's because of limited/nil feedback. Market driven projects at least have some sort of user feedback (e.g. early market research) that drives the development. It is often flawed but it's better than just a bunch of engineers assuming stuff.

isaacremuant 4y ago

I'd argue that LibreOffice, Inkscape, 7zip, Firefox, FileZilla, OBS, bitwarden are also well known, well used and compelling. Hell, OBS is arguably better than anything out there. There's also Blender. I think your bias is too strong. It's not so much controversial as misguided. People do things to meet their own needs and pain points and then products evolve. Having paid people behind products would make you think a product will be better but it's not necessarily the case. Also, different products might be better at different things (Firefox, despite some backsteps, is still more customizable than the closed source alternatives).