4 ms·

Stallman said (paraphrasing) "If free software were inferior, using it would still be the right thing to do. Fortunately, it is also superior in terms of featur

by andai 3y ago

Stallman said (paraphrasing) "If free software were inferior, using it would still be the right thing to do. Fortunately, it is also superior in terms of features and experience." That being said, Stallman (still?) uses mostly terminal based software, so that take is a bit biased.

LightFog 3y ago
I think that might be wishful thinking on his part - I remember hearing about him consuming some types of web content via a friend downloading html and emailing it to him! He has spoken plenty about confronting the convenience-freedom trade off that anyone consuming software will be confronted with though.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
> "If free software were inferior, using it would still be the right thing to do. Fortunately, it is also superior in terms of features and experience." It blows me away just how out of touch one otherwise-intelligent man can be. FOSS often has severe usability issues compared to popular proprietary counterparts -- just look at any article here talking about trying to use Matrix or get friends/relatives to use it, it's basically always a big dumpster fire. Yet somehow you still have people recommending it.
- the_gipsy 3y ago
  Yes, but it's not constantly trying to trick you into paying, or locking you in to some format/platform that will lead to you paying. Those are also big usability issues.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    No, not really. I mean, those are issues, but more of monetization than usability. The usability decrease from those things is fairly small.
    - the_gipsy 3y ago
      Yes, they are usability issues, if I can't trust the software and need to evaluate every step it makes, because it might do something against my interests. That's quite the cognitive overload. I'm not saying that it's strictly worse or the same as with FOSS software. Just a different tradeoff.
- rapnie 3y ago
  It is true that highest quality FOSS is found at the level of libraries and frameworks, not on the end-user app level. There's still a lot to win by improving the practices on this level, which require more than pure technical focus. And other people than devs getting involved with their skills. Requires better FOSS tools and practices to make that happen. That is a challenge for the future of FOSS. It's also one tackled by people using the FOSS apps, prepared to bear with inconveniences, give their feedback, and not ditching them on a whim for the first proprietary competitor that is better. Yes, that is not for everyone to be involved with. I am quite happy to see more people who do.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    A lot of FOSS enthusiasts want the UX to be bad, because to them the UX that is bad for most people is actually fine. I think the issue is less getting a designer interested, and more that it would be really hard to get consensus. Changing UX is more subjective AND intrusive compared to adding more features or improving performance. Changing the UI means changing people's existing flows, as opposed to a new feature that can just be one more button somewhere.
    - rapnie 3y ago
      It is understandable, since the majority of FOSS enthusiasts consist of developers, techie folks. An audience of power users that indeed have different preferences for their UX. There's a lack of people involved in FOSS projects (e.g. designers) that inform these developers on the expectations of the user base that their FOSS project is targeting. FOSS devs want to see their project get uptake and use, and need different voices that tell them (with good arguments) how to achieve that. Lacking that biased UX hampers project objectives.
      - hx8 3y ago
        I don't think there is a consensus among developers of front-end FOSS that becoming the market leader is a high priority. Non-power users will never submit a PR, and rarely even write a useful bug report. They effectively give very little back to the project, except maybe some clout that comes with a large user base. There are some exceptions, but the ones that care the most about market share either have a corporate backer that is profiting from the project (Microsoft, Chromium) or require large numbers for the project to be successful (Firefox, Fediverse).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vaylian 3y ago
> Stallman (still?) uses mostly terminal based software, so that take is a bit biased. The Linux terminal is fairly comfy and depending on the task, it can be vastly superior to graphical applications. The opposite can also be true for other tasks. It really depends on what someone wants to do with their computer.

by andai 3y ago

LightFog 3y ago

I think that might be wishful thinking on his part - I remember hearing about him consuming some types of web content via a friend downloading html and emailing it to him! He has spoken plenty about confronting the convenience-freedom trade off that anyone consuming software will be confronted with though.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

> "If free software were inferior, using it would still be the right thing to do. Fortunately, it is also superior in terms of features and experience." It blows me away just how out of touch one otherwise-intelligent man can be. FOSS often has severe usability issues compared to popular proprietary counterparts -- just look at any article here talking about trying to use Matrix or get friends/relatives to use it, it's basically always a big dumpster fire. Yet somehow you still have people recommending it.

the_gipsy 3y ago
Yes, but it's not constantly trying to trick you into paying, or locking you in to some format/platform that will lead to you paying. Those are also big usability issues.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  No, not really. I mean, those are issues, but more of monetization than usability. The usability decrease from those things is fairly small.
  - the_gipsy 3y ago
    Yes, they are usability issues, if I can't trust the software and need to evaluate every step it makes, because it might do something against my interests. That's quite the cognitive overload. I'm not saying that it's strictly worse or the same as with FOSS software. Just a different tradeoff.
rapnie 3y ago
It is true that highest quality FOSS is found at the level of libraries and frameworks, not on the end-user app level. There's still a lot to win by improving the practices on this level, which require more than pure technical focus. And other people than devs getting involved with their skills. Requires better FOSS tools and practices to make that happen. That is a challenge for the future of FOSS. It's also one tackled by people using the FOSS apps, prepared to bear with inconveniences, give their feedback, and not ditching them on a whim for the first proprietary competitor that is better. Yes, that is not for everyone to be involved with. I am quite happy to see more people who do.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  A lot of FOSS enthusiasts want the UX to be bad, because to them the UX that is bad for most people is actually fine. I think the issue is less getting a designer interested, and more that it would be really hard to get consensus. Changing UX is more subjective AND intrusive compared to adding more features or improving performance. Changing the UI means changing people's existing flows, as opposed to a new feature that can just be one more button somewhere.
  - rapnie 3y ago
    It is understandable, since the majority of FOSS enthusiasts consist of developers, techie folks. An audience of power users that indeed have different preferences for their UX. There's a lack of people involved in FOSS projects (e.g. designers) that inform these developers on the expectations of the user base that their FOSS project is targeting. FOSS devs want to see their project get uptake and use, and need different voices that tell them (with good arguments) how to achieve that. Lacking that biased UX hampers project objectives.
    - hx8 3y ago
      I don't think there is a consensus among developers of front-end FOSS that becoming the market leader is a high priority. Non-power users will never submit a PR, and rarely even write a useful bug report. They effectively give very little back to the project, except maybe some clout that comes with a large user base. There are some exceptions, but the ones that care the most about market share either have a corporate backer that is profiting from the project (Microsoft, Chromium) or require large numbers for the project to be successful (Firefox, Fediverse).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vaylian 3y ago

> Stallman (still?) uses mostly terminal based software, so that take is a bit biased. The Linux terminal is fairly comfy and depending on the task, it can be vastly superior to graphical applications. The opposite can also be true for other tasks. It really depends on what someone wants to do with their computer.