5 ms·

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 comparis

by 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.
    - ykclakuf 1y ago
      That wasn't really a problem even a bit over a decade earlier when I started looking into switching things up. You look what is popular, you install ubuntu, it goes to usb stick which you insert in computer -> click next until you're on desktop. Nothing special. I think the really annoying parts were more related to nothing being quite perfect; things tearing, having iffy support for mixed resolution and refresh rates, sometimes browser not using hw acceleration and fans spinning up. Everything you could live with, but dealing papercuts.
    - bloppe 1y ago
      This is funny but it's telling that people often resort to exaggerations to paint Linux as hard to use. Any major distro is a lot easier to set up than it was 15 years ago. Sure, most people's eyes gloss over the moment I try to explain the distinction between Linux and GNU, but if you're really that uncurious about how the system works then what's the point of switching to Linux anyway. Windows / Mac already get you most of the way there, especial now that WSL is a thing.
      - graemep 1y ago
        > what's the point of switching to Linux anyway. Windows / Mac already get you most of the way there What is the point of using Windows or Mac when Linux will get you most of the way there? Linux has a lot of advantages for users who are not interested in the technology. Longer hardware upgrade cycle, ease of maintenance and upgrades, more resource efficient, more secure (partly because it is less targetted as a desktop - but what matters is if you use Linux you are less likely to have issues), better privacy....
        bloppe 1y ago
        I've been daily-driving Linux for decades. I know how valuable it is. But I'm also "that guy" who likes examining every little piece of my system. I thought we were talking about the normies who just "hear good things" about Linux (especially soft-core developers) but aren't really interested in everything going on under the hood, and are willing to shell out a grand or two every couple years for new hardware and tech support.
  - Asooka 1y ago
    > You can in theory just fork it and run your own version That is not feasible for a large portion of users. Even seasoned developers would struggle to maintain a personal fork of anything but the simplest open-source software. Proprietary software also has an escape hatch, it's called "Voting with your wallet", i.e. giving your money to someone else who solves your problem better. The set of people who have money is much larger than the set of computer programmers. Giving money to software you want to support has proven to be the most reliable way to direct software development. Granted, sometimes you're a Softimage user and Autodesk acquires the company making your software and then kills it to remove competition for their other 3D programs. Those cases are much rarer than the case where you want a consistently supported GUI for your OS and your only option is to write it yourself. When you think about it, development of proprietary software is a lot more democratised than open-source software, because average users can direct where development goes by voting with their wallets, or even without their wallets in the case of piracy, which still drives development via second-order network effects. BitTorrent has done more for practical software freedom than GNU ever did.
FinnKuhn 1y ago
In recent years it appears that at least for Microsoft different teams working on Windows also aren't really coordinating with each other resulting in a scattered OS with duplicated implementations of similar features and a dozen different UI styles.
tbrownaw 1y ago
> 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. No, but each of those two systems is ruled by one dictator and has one blessed way to do things. For example in the Windows / .NET world, it's WinForms, er I mean WPF, er I mean... > Also, I'm not sure what kind of standard this author is pining for. It sounds like a wish for the clarity of a cathedral rather than the chaos of a bazaar.
- bloppe 1y ago
  It's a silly comparison because the author implies that OSS is a monolith that's failing to coordinate amongst its parts, whereas proprietary software firms are individuals that excel at self-coordination but are never expected to coordinate amongst each other. Individual OSS projects are often good at self-coordination. You don't need standards if you just reinvent the wheel yourself AKA how proprietary software often works.
jowea 1y ago
Maybe it's a bunch of volunteers vs large hierarchical for profit organizations? Even through there are some of the latter working on FOSS.

by bloppe 1y ago

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.
  - ykclakuf 1y ago
    That wasn't really a problem even a bit over a decade earlier when I started looking into switching things up. You look what is popular, you install ubuntu, it goes to usb stick which you insert in computer -> click next until you're on desktop. Nothing special. I think the really annoying parts were more related to nothing being quite perfect; things tearing, having iffy support for mixed resolution and refresh rates, sometimes browser not using hw acceleration and fans spinning up. Everything you could live with, but dealing papercuts.
  - bloppe 1y ago
    This is funny but it's telling that people often resort to exaggerations to paint Linux as hard to use. Any major distro is a lot easier to set up than it was 15 years ago. Sure, most people's eyes gloss over the moment I try to explain the distinction between Linux and GNU, but if you're really that uncurious about how the system works then what's the point of switching to Linux anyway. Windows / Mac already get you most of the way there, especial now that WSL is a thing.
    - graemep 1y ago
      > what's the point of switching to Linux anyway. Windows / Mac already get you most of the way there What is the point of using Windows or Mac when Linux will get you most of the way there? Linux has a lot of advantages for users who are not interested in the technology. Longer hardware upgrade cycle, ease of maintenance and upgrades, more resource efficient, more secure (partly because it is less targetted as a desktop - but what matters is if you use Linux you are less likely to have issues), better privacy....
      - bloppe 1y ago
        I've been daily-driving Linux for decades. I know how valuable it is. But I'm also "that guy" who likes examining every little piece of my system. I thought we were talking about the normies who just "hear good things" about Linux (especially soft-core developers) but aren't really interested in everything going on under the hood, and are willing to shell out a grand or two every couple years for new hardware and tech support.
- Asooka 1y ago
  > You can in theory just fork it and run your own version That is not feasible for a large portion of users. Even seasoned developers would struggle to maintain a personal fork of anything but the simplest open-source software. Proprietary software also has an escape hatch, it's called "Voting with your wallet", i.e. giving your money to someone else who solves your problem better. The set of people who have money is much larger than the set of computer programmers. Giving money to software you want to support has proven to be the most reliable way to direct software development. Granted, sometimes you're a Softimage user and Autodesk acquires the company making your software and then kills it to remove competition for their other 3D programs. Those cases are much rarer than the case where you want a consistently supported GUI for your OS and your only option is to write it yourself. When you think about it, development of proprietary software is a lot more democratised than open-source software, because average users can direct where development goes by voting with their wallets, or even without their wallets in the case of piracy, which still drives development via second-order network effects. BitTorrent has done more for practical software freedom than GNU ever did.

FinnKuhn 1y ago

In recent years it appears that at least for Microsoft different teams working on Windows also aren't really coordinating with each other resulting in a scattered OS with duplicated implementations of similar features and a dozen different UI styles.

tbrownaw 1y ago

> 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. No, but each of those two systems is ruled by one dictator and has one blessed way to do things. For example in the Windows / .NET world, it's WinForms, er I mean WPF, er I mean... > Also, I'm not sure what kind of standard this author is pining for. It sounds like a wish for the clarity of a cathedral rather than the chaos of a bazaar.

bloppe 1y ago
It's a silly comparison because the author implies that OSS is a monolith that's failing to coordinate amongst its parts, whereas proprietary software firms are individuals that excel at self-coordination but are never expected to coordinate amongst each other. Individual OSS projects are often good at self-coordination. You don't need standards if you just reinvent the wheel yourself AKA how proprietary software often works.

jowea 1y ago

Maybe it's a bunch of volunteers vs large hierarchical for profit organizations? Even through there are some of the latter working on FOSS.