52 ms·

I'm not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? My assertion: Inertia of user base is by far the largest predictor of what will stick in a market.

by taeric 1y ago

I'm not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? My assertion: Inertia of user base is by far the largest predictor of what will stick in a market. If you can create a critical mass of users, then you will get a more uniform set of solutions. For fun, look into bicycles and how standardized (or, increasingly not) they are. Is there a solid technical reason for multiple ways to make shoes that connect to pedals? Why are there several ways to shift from your handlebars? With the popularity of disk brakes, why don't we have a standard size for pads? I think there are a lot of things that we tell ourselves won from some sort of technical reasoning. The more you learn of things, the less this seems true, though. Not, btw, that there aren't some things that die due to technical progress.

dkkergoog 1y ago
All those things have s price point
skydhash 1y ago
> I'm not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? I think it's not even an issue. Most open source projects are implementations (maybe flawed), and few are new propositions. If something was not fully defined in the standard/protocol/interface, the implementation may come up with its own extensions that are incompatible with others. But that's how you choose implementations, you're supposed to commit to one and not use a mismatch. So if you're using GNOME, try not to depend on something that depends on having the whole KDE installed. If you're using OpenRC, anything systemd is prohibited. All projects are consistent within themselves, the only thing you need to do is to avoid conflicts by having two things doing the same job and to ollow the installed system guidelines. I don't mind fragmentation. What I mind is dependency due to laziness and not a real need (like using a couple of glibc specific library for no real reason just because you're working on Debian) or taking the time to support windows and macos, but tying yourself to glibc on Linux because reasons.
- LtWorf 1y ago
  In my experience most people who want to avoid the glibc do so because they disagree with the values of free software. After this premise, can you explain to me why I should waste my time to help them? Let's not forget that we are talking about open source software and they could fix it themselves if they so desire.
- graemep 1y ago
  > So if you're using GNOME, try not to depend on something that depends on having the whole KDE installed. I disagree with this bit. When i used a Gtk desktop I still used KDE applications so I had lots of KDE libraries installed. I use KDE now and I still have lots of Gtk applications installed. Its slightly wasteful of storage and memory but is still a lot less resource hungry than Windows.
pixl97 1y ago
>why don't we have a standard size for pads? Because each manufacturer can't put a premium on their pads that way.
FridgeSeal 1y ago
> For fun, look into bicycles and how standardized (or, increasingly not) they are. Because triangles are a fantastic, high-strength shape, that suits the loads a bicycle is subject to. For the vast majority of cases, it’s a very solid choice. We deviate when specific UX requirements are required (city bikes having a battery and a low stepover to suit a variety of clothing, and the motor makes up for additional weight required. > Is there a solid technical reason for multiple ways to make shoes that connect to pedals? All of them attempt to address the same requirement, and make different tradeoffs depending on use-case and environment. > Why are there several ways to shift from your handlebars? Price points, performance reqs, handlebar setup, environmental (is it expected to be subject to mud rocks and trees constantly?) and weight. > With the popularity of disk brakes, why don't we have a standard size for pads? Same as for shifters: the braking compound and design for a race road bike will be really different to what a DH race bike requires.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  > All of them attempt to address the same requirement, and make different tradeoffs depending on use-case and environment. All road shoes/pedals interface have the same requirements. All XC ones have the same ones, All Dh ones, same. > Same as for shifters: the braking compound and design for a race road bike will be really different to what a DH race bike requires. Regardless if we are talking shifters, breaks or pedals interface among a specific line (road, gravel, xc, DH) the requirements stay the same and more importantly those formats/shapes/interface almost never vary accross price point: All mtb shifters from a given manufacturer and amount of gears available are usually interchangeable. A deore shifter can operate an XTR derailleur. Same SPD cleats accross all MTB pedals from Shimano. Same brake pad shape is used accross all lines for a given number of pistons. More importantly pads and calipers are usually interchangeable between road and mtb for a given manufacturer. Conpound, requirements and price point as little to do with it as manufacturers release pads with different compound but same shape. What makes all these formats not standards is because every manufacturer wants to have its own for 2 reasons: 1) think it knows better 2) aim to capture a market and become a monopoly (through cleats format) Only rarely they discuss between each others or release a standard and don't ask for royalties. Same as proprietary software vendors. The open source fragmentation only really comes from reason 1.
em3rgent0rdr 1y ago
> not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? Was going to say this too, cause competing proprietary software companies generally don't coordinate. Macs don't easily run Windows programs and vice versa. Unless an alliance or some agreement to adhere to some standards body is made, the collaboration issue is part of both worlds.
bloppe 1y ago
It's really not an open source issue. It's a more general issue than that. The author provides as counterexamples MacOS and Windows, but that's a silly comparison. Apple nor Microsoft never coordinated with anybody else on their APIs. Closed source developers are never as good at coordinating with others as OSS developers are. Sure, they can invest more in their own products, but that's a different issue. Also, I'm not sure what kind of standard this author is pining for. We have Wayland and freedesktop.org. Pretty much any Linux app can already run on pretty much any DE
- mbreese 1y ago
  I don’t think of it as a coordination issue. OSS can coordinate well. What it can’t do is make decisions. Most times there are at least two possible implementations for a given task (with different legitimate trade-offs). The OSS approach isn’t to pick the implementation that works for the most people, but rather support both implementations. Many times the only decision is to not to decide. The best projects have someone who will make unilateral decisions. They might be right or wrong, but it’s done and decided. Companies with an organizational hierarchy do that much better than a decentralized group of OSS developers.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    The underappreciated benefit of OSS is that you have an escape hatch from coordination if you disagree enough. You can in theory just fork it and run your own version, even if nobody else agrees. But you have to bear the associated development cost yourself. Choice looks like fragmentation. But the existence of alternatives is very important.
    - transcriptase 1y ago
      Until someone wants to switch from Windows/MacOS to Linux and is presented with two dozen popular distros, half a dozen desktop choices for each with no explanation of what the acronyms mean or why someone should care, immediately gets prompted about things like bootloaders and various partition schemes, until they finally get to a desktop and their mouse is stuck at 0.01% pointer speed regardless of what the mouse options are set to because the maintainer of sdctlxinputmd got mad at the maintainer of some dependency and decided the user can install and configure what lets sdctlxinputmd work with the OS settings panel. Oh except installing those requires configuring new sources and overriding disallowing proprietary drivers because some other maintainer is a purist who added friction because Nvidia doesn’t provide their firmware source code under the PLGPPGL 4.1 Licence.
Bouncingsoul1 1y ago
I'm not sure which point you are trying to make with the bikes. For road racing the UCI quite famously sets quite strict standards. For "normal" use, if you live within the US or EU will also have some standards (mostly conserning road saftey). Of course you may cherry pick some exceptions, but IMO this doesn't drive the point.
- prmoustache 1y ago
  UCI only has power on formats [1] used in race. It definitely influences the market but it has no say on which width of handlebar can I use on my own bike as long as I don't pin a number in a UCI sanctionnd race. [1] I prefer using that word because most aren't really standardised.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    And also, not sure how the ratios are today, but 8 years ago, an order of magnitude more people raced bicycles in triathlons than in UCI sanctioned races, where the UCI has no control.
skywhopper 1y ago
It’s not at all. As a counter-example, in the 00s, open source rapidly coalesced to using git, which has been so incredibly successful that it has now been adopted for many private corporate proprietary software repositories as well. I don’t think you can take a general lesson from any particular example here. Coordination of complex systems among thousands of competing and cooperative components is very hard and unpredictable, and why things happen depends on random events and personalities in ways that are not generalizable.
ClumsyPilot 1y ago
> Inertia of user base is by far the largest predictor of what will stick in a market Why are you calling open source of market? These appear to be feuds and battle of ideas fought between contributors, with minimal input from end users. There is no price signal at all Re. Bicycles, it’s not a healthy market. Shimano dominates with 70% share in gears and brakes. Top 3 manufacturers have what, 95%+? Also look at how cargo bikes cost 3x what a normal bike does, but have same components. With that structure, users have zero input on size of breakpads.
thewebguyd 1y ago
There's still an agreement on what's beneficial, even if the how isn't standardized. TO use your bicycle analogy, it's widely accepted that clipping into pedals is beneficial, we've found it improves power transfer and efficiency - the idea of clipping in is standardized, but the implementation (cleat design) is still open for interpretation. We see this in open source too - we can coordinate and all agree on a core idea or problem that needs solving, but still end up with different, competing implementations. It's not a bad thing, choice is good and often leads to innovation as different approaches compete and evolve. I do think you are right on your first point - that inertia of user base is the predictor of what will stick. Even Linux, stuck around due to licensing and availability (and then user inertia from that) rather than any technical superiority.
AcaciaSkier 1y ago
> Is there a solid technical reason for multiple ways to make shoes that connect to pedals? Yes! - Toe clips give you more power than just flat pedals. You can use regular shoes with them. - Straps (similar to toe clips) can and be used with regular shoes / trainers and allow you to control the pedal stroke up and down. Fixed gear riders use them a lot. - MTB style cleats are easier to unclip and re-clip than Road style cleats as you are more likely to need to clip / unclip quickly. - Road style cleats provide better power transfer, the shoes are far stiffer as well. > Why are there several ways to shift from your handlebars? Two reasons. The first is that the technology has improved over time. I have ridden old racing bikes where the shifter was not on the handlebar and on the downtube. You had to feel the position of the next gear while steering with the other hand. It is difficult for people that haven't ridden a road bike before to get used to. Secondly the different types of bikes have the rider in different positions and thus their hands will be in a different position. Thus the different shifter types. The moral of the story is that different requirements, require different solutions. BTW almost everything else around the pedal and the shifter is standardised. The hub are normally one of a few sizes, wheel sizes have a few standard sizes, bottom brackets are almost all the same sizes, headsets have a few standard sizes. I have a mountain bike from 1995 that I've put a brand new stem on because the headsets are the same size as they were in 1995.

by taeric 1y ago

dkkergoog 1y ago

All those things have s price point

skydhash 1y ago

> I'm not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? I think it's not even an issue. Most open source projects are implementations (maybe flawed), and few are new propositions. If something was not fully defined in the standard/protocol/interface, the implementation may come up with its own extensions that are incompatible with others. But that's how you choose implementations, you're supposed to commit to one and not use a mismatch. So if you're using GNOME, try not to depend on something that depends on having the whole KDE installed. If you're using OpenRC, anything systemd is prohibited. All projects are consistent within themselves, the only thing you need to do is to avoid conflicts by having two things doing the same job and to ollow the installed system guidelines. I don't mind fragmentation. What I mind is dependency due to laziness and not a real need (like using a couple of glibc specific library for no real reason just because you're working on Debian) or taking the time to support windows and macos, but tying yourself to glibc on Linux because reasons.

LtWorf 1y ago
In my experience most people who want to avoid the glibc do so because they disagree with the values of free software. After this premise, can you explain to me why I should waste my time to help them? Let's not forget that we are talking about open source software and they could fix it themselves if they so desire.
graemep 1y ago
> So if you're using GNOME, try not to depend on something that depends on having the whole KDE installed. I disagree with this bit. When i used a Gtk desktop I still used KDE applications so I had lots of KDE libraries installed. I use KDE now and I still have lots of Gtk applications installed. Its slightly wasteful of storage and memory but is still a lot less resource hungry than Windows.

pixl97 1y ago

>why don't we have a standard size for pads? Because each manufacturer can't put a premium on their pads that way.

FridgeSeal 1y ago

> For fun, look into bicycles and how standardized (or, increasingly not) they are. Because triangles are a fantastic, high-strength shape, that suits the loads a bicycle is subject to. For the vast majority of cases, it’s a very solid choice. We deviate when specific UX requirements are required (city bikes having a battery and a low stepover to suit a variety of clothing, and the motor makes up for additional weight required. > Is there a solid technical reason for multiple ways to make shoes that connect to pedals? All of them attempt to address the same requirement, and make different tradeoffs depending on use-case and environment. > Why are there several ways to shift from your handlebars? Price points, performance reqs, handlebar setup, environmental (is it expected to be subject to mud rocks and trees constantly?) and weight. > With the popularity of disk brakes, why don't we have a standard size for pads? Same as for shifters: the braking compound and design for a race road bike will be really different to what a DH race bike requires.

prmoustache 1y ago
> All of them attempt to address the same requirement, and make different tradeoffs depending on use-case and environment. All road shoes/pedals interface have the same requirements. All XC ones have the same ones, All Dh ones, same. > Same as for shifters: the braking compound and design for a race road bike will be really different to what a DH race bike requires. Regardless if we are talking shifters, breaks or pedals interface among a specific line (road, gravel, xc, DH) the requirements stay the same and more importantly those formats/shapes/interface almost never vary accross price point: All mtb shifters from a given manufacturer and amount of gears available are usually interchangeable. A deore shifter can operate an XTR derailleur. Same SPD cleats accross all MTB pedals from Shimano. Same brake pad shape is used accross all lines for a given number of pistons. More importantly pads and calipers are usually interchangeable between road and mtb for a given manufacturer. Conpound, requirements and price point as little to do with it as manufacturers release pads with different compound but same shape. What makes all these formats not standards is because every manufacturer wants to have its own for 2 reasons: 1) think it knows better 2) aim to capture a market and become a monopoly (through cleats format) Only rarely they discuss between each others or release a standard and don't ask for royalties. Same as proprietary software vendors. The open source fragmentation only really comes from reason 1.

em3rgent0rdr 1y ago

> not entirely clear why/how this is an open source issue? Was going to say this too, cause competing proprietary software companies generally don't coordinate. Macs don't easily run Windows programs and vice versa. Unless an alliance or some agreement to adhere to some standards body is made, the collaboration issue is part of both worlds.

bloppe 1y ago

It's really not an open source issue. It's a more general issue than that. The author provides as counterexamples MacOS and Windows, but that's a silly comparison. Apple nor Microsoft never coordinated with anybody else on their APIs. Closed source developers are never as good at coordinating with others as OSS developers are. Sure, they can invest more in their own products, but that's a different issue. Also, I'm not sure what kind of standard this author is pining for. We have Wayland and freedesktop.org. Pretty much any Linux app can already run on pretty much any DE

mbreese 1y ago
I don’t think of it as a coordination issue. OSS can coordinate well. What it can’t do is make decisions. Most times there are at least two possible implementations for a given task (with different legitimate trade-offs). The OSS approach isn’t to pick the implementation that works for the most people, but rather support both implementations. Many times the only decision is to not to decide. The best projects have someone who will make unilateral decisions. They might be right or wrong, but it’s done and decided. Companies with an organizational hierarchy do that much better than a decentralized group of OSS developers.
- pjc50 1y ago
  The underappreciated benefit of OSS is that you have an escape hatch from coordination if you disagree enough. You can in theory just fork it and run your own version, even if nobody else agrees. But you have to bear the associated development cost yourself. Choice looks like fragmentation. But the existence of alternatives is very important.
  - transcriptase 1y ago
    Until someone wants to switch from Windows/MacOS to Linux and is presented with two dozen popular distros, half a dozen desktop choices for each with no explanation of what the acronyms mean or why someone should care, immediately gets prompted about things like bootloaders and various partition schemes, until they finally get to a desktop and their mouse is stuck at 0.01% pointer speed regardless of what the mouse options are set to because the maintainer of sdctlxinputmd got mad at the maintainer of some dependency and decided the user can install and configure what lets sdctlxinputmd work with the OS settings panel. Oh except installing those requires configuring new sources and overriding disallowing proprietary drivers because some other maintainer is a purist who added friction because Nvidia doesn’t provide their firmware source code under the PLGPPGL 4.1 Licence.

Bouncingsoul1 1y ago

I'm not sure which point you are trying to make with the bikes. For road racing the UCI quite famously sets quite strict standards. For "normal" use, if you live within the US or EU will also have some standards (mostly conserning road saftey). Of course you may cherry pick some exceptions, but IMO this doesn't drive the point.

prmoustache 1y ago
UCI only has power on formats [1] used in race. It definitely influences the market but it has no say on which width of handlebar can I use on my own bike as long as I don't pin a number in a UCI sanctionnd race. [1] I prefer using that word because most aren't really standardised.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  And also, not sure how the ratios are today, but 8 years ago, an order of magnitude more people raced bicycles in triathlons than in UCI sanctioned races, where the UCI has no control.

skywhopper 1y ago

It’s not at all. As a counter-example, in the 00s, open source rapidly coalesced to using git, which has been so incredibly successful that it has now been adopted for many private corporate proprietary software repositories as well. I don’t think you can take a general lesson from any particular example here. Coordination of complex systems among thousands of competing and cooperative components is very hard and unpredictable, and why things happen depends on random events and personalities in ways that are not generalizable.

ClumsyPilot 1y ago

> Inertia of user base is by far the largest predictor of what will stick in a market Why are you calling open source of market? These appear to be feuds and battle of ideas fought between contributors, with minimal input from end users. There is no price signal at all Re. Bicycles, it’s not a healthy market. Shimano dominates with 70% share in gears and brakes. Top 3 manufacturers have what, 95%+? Also look at how cargo bikes cost 3x what a normal bike does, but have same components. With that structure, users have zero input on size of breakpads.

thewebguyd 1y ago

There's still an agreement on what's beneficial, even if the how isn't standardized. TO use your bicycle analogy, it's widely accepted that clipping into pedals is beneficial, we've found it improves power transfer and efficiency - the idea of clipping in is standardized, but the implementation (cleat design) is still open for interpretation. We see this in open source too - we can coordinate and all agree on a core idea or problem that needs solving, but still end up with different, competing implementations. It's not a bad thing, choice is good and often leads to innovation as different approaches compete and evolve. I do think you are right on your first point - that inertia of user base is the predictor of what will stick. Even Linux, stuck around due to licensing and availability (and then user inertia from that) rather than any technical superiority.

AcaciaSkier 1y ago

> Is there a solid technical reason for multiple ways to make shoes that connect to pedals? Yes! - Toe clips give you more power than just flat pedals. You can use regular shoes with them. - Straps (similar to toe clips) can and be used with regular shoes / trainers and allow you to control the pedal stroke up and down. Fixed gear riders use them a lot. - MTB style cleats are easier to unclip and re-clip than Road style cleats as you are more likely to need to clip / unclip quickly. - Road style cleats provide better power transfer, the shoes are far stiffer as well. > Why are there several ways to shift from your handlebars? Two reasons. The first is that the technology has improved over time. I have ridden old racing bikes where the shifter was not on the handlebar and on the downtube. You had to feel the position of the next gear while steering with the other hand. It is difficult for people that haven't ridden a road bike before to get used to. Secondly the different types of bikes have the rider in different positions and thus their hands will be in a different position. Thus the different shifter types. The moral of the story is that different requirements, require different solutions. BTW almost everything else around the pedal and the shifter is standardised. The hub are normally one of a few sizes, wheel sizes have a few standard sizes, bottom brackets are almost all the same sizes, headsets have a few standard sizes. I have a mountain bike from 1995 that I've put a brand new stem on because the headsets are the same size as they were in 1995.