4 ms·

I switched to Linux a couple years ago and overall am glad I did, but it's only a partial solution. As I see it, one way to phrase the problem is that Linux (a

I switched to Linux a couple years ago and overall am glad I did, but it's only a partial solution. As I see it, one way to phrase the problem is that Linux (along with its ecosystem) isn't really user-focused either. It's developer-focused. Tons of weird decisions get made that are grounded in developer desires quite removed from any user concerns. There are a lot of developers out there that do care about users, so often you get something decent, but it's still a bit off-center.

vanviegen 2y ago
Can you name some example(s) please?
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  Almost everything? :-) Okay, maybe that's unfair. A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install. But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused. Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of great open-source software out there and overall I think I'm happier with it than I would be with modern Windows (let alone MacOS; whether I'm happier than I was with Windows pre-10 is a tougher question). But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    > A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") That was only a problem for extension developers. Users weren't really impacted as developers built new versions of popular extensions. > and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. No one ever asked for the iphone/smartphones, yet people buy them instead of dumb phones. My firefox has evolved a bit over the year if I look at former screenshots, but everything happened so gradually it has never been a problem for users. And all kind of software do, not only FOSS. > Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install. There are so many apps available through the software repos and flatpak packages that users who aren't into building a software from source shouldn't even feel concerned. > But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused. Prioritization is happening everywhere, in proprietary software too. Dev teams work with finite time and resource constraints. PRs welcome is a bonus, not a con. > But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world. Mostly only when they are paid for it. And some proprietary dev also don't implement stuff they don't like. I don't think you can generalize, this behavior is not based on the choice of license. Some FOSS projects also do work on some features if users raise a bounty for it.
    - BrenBarn 2y ago
      > And all kind of software do, not only FOSS. Sure, I agree. That's basically all I'm saying. FOSS gets rid of the tracking and dark patterns but it's still not what I'd call user-focused. It's like in proprietary software the decisions are made based on what the developer wants, and in FOSS it's made based on what the developer wants. But in theory with FOSS there could be people out there who are taking the opportunity of freedom from profit-driven orientation to actually figure out what users want and do that with the same level of drive that proprietary companies apply to seek profit. But it doesn't happen. It's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd call truly user-focused.
surgical_fire 2y ago
> As I see it, one way to phrase the problem is that Linux (along with its ecosystem) isn't really user-focused either. Maybe because I am tech-literate, but I find Linux so much more user friendly than OSX. Linux Mint is what I have running in my personal computer, and I can't remember the last time it got in my way of doing anything I wanted. Amazing OS, that has no right of being that good and stable while also being free - reason why I make a yearly 20 bucks donation out of gratitude. Meanwhile there's not a single day that I don't curse at the MacBook I am forced to use for work. I have no idea how Apple has so many fanboys with that shit OS. Maybe people really like to have a slick looking toy, no matter if actually using it is an awful experience.

vanviegen 2y ago

Can you name some example(s) please?

BrenBarn 2y ago
Almost everything? :-) Okay, maybe that's unfair. A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install. But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused. Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of great open-source software out there and overall I think I'm happier with it than I would be with modern Windows (let alone MacOS; whether I'm happier than I was with Windows pre-10 is a tougher question). But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  > A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") That was only a problem for extension developers. Users weren't really impacted as developers built new versions of popular extensions. > and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. No one ever asked for the iphone/smartphones, yet people buy them instead of dumb phones. My firefox has evolved a bit over the year if I look at former screenshots, but everything happened so gradually it has never been a problem for users. And all kind of software do, not only FOSS. > Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install. There are so many apps available through the software repos and flatpak packages that users who aren't into building a software from source shouldn't even feel concerned. > But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused. Prioritization is happening everywhere, in proprietary software too. Dev teams work with finite time and resource constraints. PRs welcome is a bonus, not a con. > But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world. Mostly only when they are paid for it. And some proprietary dev also don't implement stuff they don't like. I don't think you can generalize, this behavior is not based on the choice of license. Some FOSS projects also do work on some features if users raise a bounty for it.
  - BrenBarn 2y ago
    > And all kind of software do, not only FOSS. Sure, I agree. That's basically all I'm saying. FOSS gets rid of the tracking and dark patterns but it's still not what I'd call user-focused. It's like in proprietary software the decisions are made based on what the developer wants, and in FOSS it's made based on what the developer wants. But in theory with FOSS there could be people out there who are taking the opportunity of freedom from profit-driven orientation to actually figure out what users want and do that with the same level of drive that proprietary companies apply to seek profit. But it doesn't happen. It's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd call truly user-focused.

surgical_fire 2y ago

> As I see it, one way to phrase the problem is that Linux (along with its ecosystem) isn't really user-focused either. Maybe because I am tech-literate, but I find Linux so much more user friendly than OSX. Linux Mint is what I have running in my personal computer, and I can't remember the last time it got in my way of doing anything I wanted. Amazing OS, that has no right of being that good and stable while also being free - reason why I make a yearly 20 bucks donation out of gratitude. Meanwhile there's not a single day that I don't curse at the MacBook I am forced to use for work. I have no idea how Apple has so many fanboys with that shit OS. Maybe people really like to have a slick looking toy, no matter if actually using it is an awful experience.