To make it clear: I am not against Open Source Software, in fact, I am for it. But I am increasingly frustrated with Open Source software written by hobbyists; hobbyists who write a specific application or library because they need a specific function out of their applications, for their own needs and only their own needs. Here’s what happened:
UPDATE: Some explanation here. Make sure you read it first.A few days ago I was in the middle of a cyclone in the desktop-devel-list gnome mailing list asking the gnome devs to include the Gnome users in the process of evolving Gnome (because currently feature requests are getting very much ignored on their bugzilla). I just wanted the Gnome users to be asked (whatever the way, not just by using a poll) what are their most needed features and having the Gnome devs implement the ones that makes sense to implement. This way, more users would be happier about the apparently “closed” nature of Gnome’s development.
I got the answer I expected from the Novell/Sun/Red-Hat people: “regarding market research, we care about it only when happens from our marketing department and to our customers”. They don’t care about the “generic” Gnome user. That’s ok. Understandable. These guys have a business to run.
However, I was not happy from the answer I got from the Gnome developers who don’t work for a Gnome-related corporation:
“A feature will be implemented if and only if there is a developer who wants to implement it” (it was later mentioned in the discussion that this is if the developer actually has such a need himself for the feature).
I do not like or agree with the above statement, because I see software as simple tools. Only good tools can ultimately succeed. And I want Open Source to succeed.
Tools are meant to do what people need to do (integrating them after careful consideration without bloating the platform, of course). If the Gnome devs completely cut off their users in such a way, I see no reason why anyone would would still want to run Gnome. Their voice would never be heard because the corporate developers don’t care about their kind, and the hobbyist developers don’t care anyway. And that’s the reason why many Gnome users left the platform over the past 2 years: closed development cycle. There is a real community problem here, and the thing is, the gnome devs pretty much agree that there is one but they don’t seem to care to do something about it. For example, the No1 Gnome feature request, a menu editor that actually works properly, is still not realized after so many years. And the decision for the spatial Nautilus that created an uproar to the Gnome user community (users had to wait 6 months to get a checkbox on the preference panel to get back to the Classic View instead of having to go dirty with GConf) was pretty much taken single handedly by Red Hat.
Sure, not every developer is like that. There are many other OSS developers who actively ask for feedback. On GnomeFiles.org I see third party GTK+ developers asking for feedback almost everyday, and as a user, this really makes me feel good about their applications. But that’s not the norm and definitely not the norm with Gnome. Open source devs generally only code whatever they personally need, and that’s a huge difference from a commercial application where the “customer” is being asked repeatedly what features he/she needs in the application.
You may argue that in the second case you pay real money to get such support, but in my book, engineering is engineering. In our article yesterday about “The Ten Worst Engineering Pitfalls” by Keith F. Kelly, on the No2 spot you will find this: “2. Basing the design on your own motives rather than on users’ needs.” So, no matter if something is developed for OSS or for commercial reasons, the principle of engineering remains the same, because in both cases, the software is released out there to be consumed by [innocent] people. So in both cases, there is some responsibility on what the user would expect out of a given application and in the case of Gnome, there are a few millions of users that developers should take into account. If these developers really don’t want user feedback, they should close down their bugzilla, stop offering their software freely (only use it for their own needs), stop sending press releases out and stop asking for donations on their front page. It’s as simple as that.
If the “plain user” entity in the OSS world is such a taboo why the hell would I want to use OSS software? Just because the code is open? I don’t personally have any real use for the source code (and most normal users don’t either). I don’t do C anymore (in the case of Gnome) and I can’t possibly pay $100-200 per hour to a consultant to add features for me. All that “the source code is open, send me patches” it’s all looney-baloney for the vast majority of users. However, I wouldn’t mind at all paying about $30 per year to a big project like Gnome, but get assured that users aren’t cut off from its development process (the current donation scheme does not take care of this).
Red Hat’s Havoc Pennington & Novell’s Jimmac suggest that users write an analysis and test cases of a feature request the user wants to see implemented, because this way you might get the developer motivated to actually implement it. The problem I see with this is two fold:
a. Not many people have a clue how to write a test case or use Gimp/Photoshop to create a mockup to illustrate their point. They can only quickly describe what they need, and that’s that.
b. Normal users don’t use bugzilla. Only power users & developers do. Besides, no one likes spending time to register.
It’s the project itself that needs to do the right moves to reach its audience and take a pick on their problems, not the other way around. For example, Apple has a very simple feedback page on their web site that doesn’t require registering (as opposed to bugzilla which is very technical and requires extra thinking) where “normal” users can send, well, feedback. Apple developers use Apple’s bug reporting page on their developer’s sub-site, but plain users just have a form with few straight-forward fields to write down their gripes. Problem is, OSS developers don’t like anything that’s not filed on their bugzilla (“if it’s not filed, it doesn’t exist” they say), but point of the matter is, the user should be the center of attention and incovenience-free, not the developer.
What I like to see, is some market research. Approach all kinds of users, put their gripes in line, make a note of their features they really need and evaluate them. Then, create a project plan and distribute the tasks that need to be done to your developers and make sure they deliver what they must deliver. People will say “that’s not how OSS works”, but as a user, I don’t really care how OSS works. I care about using software that’s been properly developed taking users into account rather than purely developers’ needs. Be careful: I am not asking the OSS developers to implement every little thing that’s asked out there, I am asking them to simply take users into account and get an idea of what the whole of their userbase needs. Extracting useful information from the mass will be difficult, but it is achievable if the right resources & infrastructure are into place.
I personally find it “deteriorating” for any user to use Open Source software made from such ‘lone’ developers and not by a company which specifically asks for feature requests or does market research. It would be like the user does not respect him/herself by using a tool that does not do all it could do or all things the user needs it to do (please note: that’s in the cases where the application indeed does not do everything the user needs — other OSS software are really rich already, e.g. emacs, apache, postgresql etc).
To me, software is a tool, nothing more. I am as practical as it goes when it comes to computers. I don’t idolize them and I don’t have a political ideology about software or hardware (and in fact, I personally take pity to anyone who does — there’s more important things in this world than to be political over bits and bytes).
If something is open source, that’s cool, it’s a meta-feature that the closed source apps don’t have, and I welcome it and I embrace it. But when it comes to software written by hobbyists who don’t want to implement anything apart from what they personally need, and systematically ignore their users (apart for their crashing bug reports, which is the only thing that they seem to need them for), I refuse to use that software, because I respect myself and my choices. I prefer to shed down the right money for the right commercial software (open or closed), than to use half-baked, half-implemented OSS software made by deaf developers.
While this might not be a huge problem for small time applications, it is a big problem when a project that’s used by millions has the same attitude towards its users. It’s disappointing, to say the least.
>2: if you design a house with a toilet in the living room, you shouldn’t complain when nobody buys it.
Nobody will buy it, but there will always be enough people to use it anyway, and be thankful for that.
That’s just not good enough.
I think you’ve uncritically accepted the canard that consumers ‘demand’ products and that is what gets produced.
Little could be further from the truth in any system of production.
If a producer is corporate, such as a typical industrial company, a product is produced and then a marketing scheme is developed to sell it.
If a producer is individual, such as the ‘hobbyists’ you are once again pillorying, he or she produces for his or her own use and then someone else MAY find the product of use and it MAY become popular.
In neither of these cases is the consumer consulted about what to produce – nor she the consumer ever been so treated.
If you don’t like this state of affairs, the only remedy is to enter the production system yourself.
I have been moderated out of this comment section for making the same statements this author has made.
I’m sorry, but you didn’t make the same statement as Eugenia.
Basically, what you’re saying is that “OSS is a hobby-hack.” What Eugenia said is that she is increasingly frustrated by the refusal of some OSS developers to listen to their user’s demand. That’s completely different.
That you would claim to be agreeing with the author to then launch into an inflammatory anti-Linux tirade is probably the reason why you got modded down.
This also explains why Linux really hasn’t made a dent in Microsoft’s market share.
In the desktop, it has made a dent, albeit a small one (dents are by definition small). In server space, the competition is much tighter.
Even with all the problems and bad press MS gets, their software is just flat better.
Just because the market share is bigger doesn’t mean the software is better.
They run circles around Linux.
Konqueror is a better browser than explorer.
Mplayer is a better media player than WMPlayer.
Evolution and Kmail are better mail programs than Outlook Express.
Gimp is better than MS Paint (remember, you specifically talked about Microsoft apps).
And Linux always seems to be playing catch-up to MS.
Sure. Hey, have you heard about that Windows LiveCD-R that lets you record your files as separate tracks when you log out?
Oh yeah, that’s right, that’s Puppy Linux. My mistake.
yea, because RedHat and SUSE have absolutely no interest to listen to their users when working on OSS projects
“As others have pointed out, it’s highly hypocritical of Eugenia to be telling others that this is her site and she can run it anyway she wants (*hint* Look at some moderated comments on articles) and here she is, doing the exact same thing to OSS developers and actually *expecting* them to conform to her wishes.”
First, anyone posting in the OS forums or commenting on an article here is subkect to the OS forums rules. Comments aren’t moderated down just as a result of some sort of dictatorship on the part of Eugenia.
Second, I didn’t get from the editorial that she expected the GNOME developers to “conform to her wishes”. She just expected to be taken in consideration, which is perfectly natural and understandable.
Finally, the claims that GNOME (or KDE or Linux) are hobby projects are RIDICULOUS.
Well, I think the saying that applies here is “talking the talk but not walking the walk,” especially if you throw around phrases like “enabling software freedom for everyone,” and “an intuitive and attractive desktop for end-users” on your about page.
If you are explicitly marketing your software as a tool that everyone can use, then you should have a design process that includes users from a wide variety of demographic groups.
@Chum:
If a producer is corporate, such as a typical industrial company, a product is produced and then a marketing scheme is developed to sell it.
Complete and total twaddle. Production lines are expensive. Design is expensive. Market research is relatively cheap. Very few people are going to invest millions of dollars in a production line for a product that has not been sketched, seen by several focus groups, prototyped, seen by several more focus groups, taste tested and mother approved. Only then do you dip into your cash reserves or take out the loan to make your product in large quantities.
What is it with people? Is OSS somehow a holy entity that can not, MUST NOT be critized? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; most OSS is just a pile of useless crap! The people producing that crap would do well to listen to the feedback they receive.
IF you are coding just for your own fun and purposes, fine, do whatever you wish. However, IF you wish people to actually use your software you better listen to them. Or else you won’t have those users. I have understood that Gnome is trying to be one of the big contenders in DE arena.
“If you want a feature and can’t do it yourself pay someone to code it for you”. Yeah, right. Professional programmers are expensive. If I like your suggestion I’ll code it for free. If not.. pay me 100 EUR/hour and I might consider implementing the feature for you. Doesn’t sound such a good idea anymore, does it?
BTW, in professional/commercial software development a code monkey pretty much never designs the software, especially not the GUI or interaction, which as it happens, are the worst parts of most OSS. Just as an example, bugzilla is a great tool.. except everytime I have to use it my eyes bleed and head explodes because of its’ horrible UI, and I’m not the only one.
It’s funny how many people at our office do NOT use gnome or kde, but WindowMaker or some other simple windowmanager in addition to xterm and commandline tools. And no, I don’t use them because I want to, but because there is really no alternative when you just want to get the job done.
Would it be nice if all OSS devs listened to their users and implemented everything they wanted? Yes.
If a developer doesn’t want to code something, should they have to, on a users request? No!
The argument that “Gnome is claiming to have good software therefore they have to pay attention to my nagging” is so bogus. The Gnome people say their DE is good because in their opinion, it is good. They didn’t trick you into using it, they didn’t make any grand promises that it would solve all your problems, or that it would have features that you like.
Like others have said, OSS developers are often saint like in their patience, it’s far more often that the users are incredibly annoying, arrogant pricks. Read any mailing list, you’ll see far more abusive users than anyone else.
I belong to the OpenCV mailing list (image processing library) and I’m always amazed at how many people lack the basic communication skills to ask a question, and yet expect people to hand them answers on a silver platter. Too often you will see posts like:
I want to use opencv but it wont work. and I also want to use my webcam with it. someone help me. PLEASE. VERY URGENT
So who the hell wants to answer to users like that?
Wow. What a temper tantrum. You gave the grossest misrepresenation of what happened possible. You didn’t just go in to the mailing list and give feedback – something very easy to do; you’ve had the privilege of dropping feed back to actual developers, which you cannot claim is possible with MS or Apple. No, you ran in and said you wanted a to create a poll that would be _officially sanctioned/sponsored_ by GNOME that would be used to gather feature requests. Sorry, but no developer is going to develop according to a poll. And it is absurd to throw a fit like this because they didn’t want to sponsor your awful idea. I’ve been an avid reader for a long time, but I’m not returning here again.
Quag7 wrote: Along the lines of something two folks suggested in this discussion, I wanted to ask if anyone knows of a generalized bounty project for major open source software packages.
This is on my mind since the bounties from Novell started. There is no page like that right now, but there has been several; most of them during the dotcom boom.
I’m right now trying to write a paper about an implementation, but that’s not as easy as it seems at first sight – at least, it’s not when you think of currency exchange, taxes, responsibilities, clear descriptions, how to make sure patches get upstream, etc.
However, the discussion here and several others in the recent past make me believe this is to only way to go when Open Source should reach more users. It won’t have an immediate impact but it might be a nice addition to the current model.
Thanks for the perspective.
Roberto Alsina, well said.
It is one thing to encourage and support, it is quite another to complain. It is disheartening to see people use the term “user” in a way that seems to distant themselves from “developer” and other contributors. It makes it sound like users are not in the community of OSS or perhaps are in a different community. Nothing could be further from the truth because despite one’s technical capabilities, OSS is about inclusion. A user need not be a developer to make a significant contribution to the software and the community. From answering user queries, donating money, creating awareness drives, writing documentation, hosting mirrors, writing research papers… there are plenty of meaningful ways to help. The point is that the state of the software is really an expression on the state of the evolution of the community.
In the example given, Gnome is still not fully mature. No problem because the community is getting stronger as this is evidenced in the fact that Gnome *is* maturing; it’s just “not there” yet. Relying on just the developers to fix all the woes is a mistake. Go out there and make some positive contributions in any way you can. As the community expands, so will the developer base.
Perhaps the price of free software is a little bit of patience?
Come on, this is not a Gnome or even OSS-specific thing. Try asking Microsoft to put tabs in IE. Many users want that. Do they do it? Nope.
Gnome is not a simple application. Asking for features usually works great with “simple” applications (that’s why you see developers on GnomeFiles very receptive – they aren’t writting big stuff like Gnome). It’s just different.
Victor.
Not really much point posting the 112th comment, but anyway:
There is a valid point hidden in the article, but it would have been much more effective if it wasn’t phrased in such an inflammatory manner. All that’s going to do is piss off the people you’re trying to convince.
I’m an OSS developer: I run a small but reasonably popular project for PalmOS. I get feature requests all the time, and I like to try to fulfill them. The problem, however, is motivation. If I’m motivated to add a feature, I work 10 times as fast as if I’m not. If I’m not motivated, I get distracted, I find other things to do; Slashdot and OSnews, for example.
The sources of motivation for implementing a feature are generally, in order of motivatability:
1) I need the feature myself
2) It’s a cool feature that’s interesting to develop
3) Loads of people request it
For example, I get requests for HiRes+ (320×480 pixel) support all the time, and I’m slowly working on it. As I don’t own a 320×480 pixel Palm device, my motivation for it is very low and I keep getting distracted by other more interesting things. It’s not that I hate users or am deaf, it’s just that it takes forever to get something done when you’re not being paid for it and have no real other motivation.
It’s just basic human nature. What the author of the article is asking is for FOSS projects to ‘professionalise’: to override their own motivations and wants with those of their users for the good of the project. While the developers may, deep down, want this, it’s very hard to do.
I work on my project because I enjoy it and I enjoy providing something useful to other people. I’ve worked on it so much at times I’ve become so tired I did’t even notice CVS check-in errors or compilation failures. If somebody kept writing to my mailing list saying “implement this feature *now*!”, I would have every right to tell them to get lost.
That said, if you set up a project to achieve a certain aim, it is best to do in as professional a way as possible, which means sometimes giving your users’ views more importance than your own.
Anyway, I have to go work on HiRes+ support.
The Gnome devs made it quite clear that they don’t care about their users.
Where did they make this clear? I’m really curious.
1. Feedback is one thing, development is another. The feedback gets to Gnome, and perhaps they hear it. But developing the requested stuff is another matter altogether.
and
2. The most important drive behind the hobby is personal pleasure of development. Which stems from fulfilling a personal need or implementing an attractive idea. Forcing devs to implement something, even if the users scream for it, will simply not work. It kills all the joy and in the hobby-centered development model this would be fatal, stopping development dead in its tracks. I’d rather have some Gnome than no Gnome.
You forget something. While I do see your point in your statement you should know this. We can easily live without OSNews.com. But it’s hard living without a usable Desktop on the Open Source architecture (be it Linux, BSD, whatever). While there are alternative such as KDE and even Window Managers, GNOME on the otherhand is quite dominant with self marketing and thus has a big influence in the overall development process of even non GNOME related things. 3rd party developers adopting GNOME components for their Tools and so on.
This whole thing reminds me of the quarrel between Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd. Neil made a song (name slipped my mind) critizising the south. Then, Lynyrd Skynyrd retalliated with “Sweet Home Alabama” (“well I heard mr. Young sing about her/well i heard ol’ Neil put her down/but I hope Neil Young will remember/A southern man don’t need him around anyhow”), a song about how good the south was, totally ignoring the drawbacks.
Eugenia: Neil Young wrote about the drawbacks of the south, but didn’t pay enough attention to the good parts;
Gnome/OSS community: Lynyrd Skynyrd did the opposite.
Both sides should learn to accept that the world isn’t perfect. Deal with it, folks.
Eugenia,
You mentioned Apple’s feedback page. Well, I went there a while ago and even promised them to go buy an iPod if only it bothered to play more music formats, in particular Ogg Vorbis. So did I get a response? Or did Apple run off and integrate Ogg Vorbis in their more recent players? Well, no, and no. A complete black hole. I have no idea whether anyone ever cared to look at what comes in there. I really don’t think that Apple designs its feature sets or user interfaces based on random people’s input! (Possibly they sift through it, throw away everything they don’t like, and pick out some fresh ideas that might exist once in a while, but it’s certainly no voting system!)
At least with open source stuff it’s pretty likely that a developer who insn’t interesting in what you propose will tell you so. (Although I do agree that bugzilla reports just left dangling are a problem, and I don’t really know how to fix it nicely.)
> I’d rather have some Gnome than no Gnome.
Your statement is correct but is lacking behind if you view it from a different point. GNOME spent a lot of time into marketing and telling everyone and everything how great they are, that they have a lot of corporate backing, that they are the only true corporate desktop and stuff like that.
Eugenia is right, if she complains. GNOME has taken a big burdon on their back with all this marketing and corporate talk and till now only delivered broken stuff or behave ignorant towards their users and other developers (Eugenia’s comment is totally valid and I can confirm that this happened towards myself as well).
Now if they want to be a hobbiest product and the code because of fun, the entertainment, the joy, then please act as such and mark GNOME as a hobbiest project. Making it a corporate desktop, or even talking about corporate backup as well as making things sound more commercial than it really is will get us, the desktop movement, them and others no where.
The named keywords suggest that GNOME is a professional organisation, a professional desktop, driven by professionals – which is not the case. Therefore it would be just fair if GNOME will step back from all this corporate talk and continue focusing on important stuff, the joy, the fun, the hacking and leave all the corporate stuff towards those who have the balls to handle all this.
A user to FLOSS:
“Ok… We’ve accepted your freedom now. We were slaves to proprietary companies, but now we are owners of freedom… so where are our slaves?”
The song was “Southern Man”, and all Skynyrd said about ignorant yankees is that we don’t need’em….oh, and quit whining about OSS – it is FREE, what the f&%$ do you expect.
Excellent article. Your points are all 100% correct and on-the-mark.
I’ve given up on almost all large-scale F/OSS software. When you’ve got that many people working on the same software, it seems that only a well-run business structure is capable of enforcing organization and consistency in the ways that are required to deliver good results at that scale.
In my experience, only very small “volunteer” development teams (5 people max) produce good results, and even then they are only sometimes concerned or aligned well with the desires of their users. The few success stories like this I can actually name are FileZilla, Ogg Vorbis, and a great little Windows media player called VUPlayer.
The *best* example of a software development team listening to its userbase that I’ve seen is SkyOS. The SkyOS project has proven that a small development team with the right work ethic and priorities can indeed deliver a quite complex and massive chunk of software. They have been making all the right moves and working on all the right stuff in the right priority order since day 1, and it’s all because they actually bother to listen to user desires and ask the right questions. They even keep a poll on their web site’s front page where visitors can vote for which ideas are good or not or which chunk of work should be prioritized next.
The SkyOS team has got it right. The only unfortunate thing is that SkyOS will be a closed-source commercial endeavor rather than free software. If only all the major F/OSS projects would run themselves the way the SkyOS team does, making “normal user” satisfaction the number one goal, the entire computing world would be better off.
The essence of FOSS is that developers have the freedom to write what they want, when they want and how they want. The proper approach shouldn’t be to try to coerce developers in the FOSS to do what you want. Notice the keyword above is “want”. People have to make these developers want to code something. To motivate them to do it.
And people already have a step forward in that direction. Most people who engage in FOSS do so out of a sincere desire to help others. It becomes merely a process of making these people notice that need.
The difference between a software dev company and FOSS community is that there is abundantly more developers in the FOSS world.
Perhaps what people should do is create an online petition (similar to bounties) where people can simply ask that a feature be implemented in a clear and easy to navigate form.
I like developing elegant solutions to problems, mostly my own. But if I happen to come upon someone else’s problem that I can do something about, I usually do my best to try to help. If one can introduce a site with a list of problems that’s as easy to browse, I’d gladly spend some time looking there. If that system also happens to have a forum where potential developers can exchange ideas, you might just even form a small working group or task force. Throw in a couple of buzz emails once a week to people who subscribe to the thread and you’ve got yourself the start of a FOSS bazaar.
Ah yes, “it’s free”, the time honoured classical excuse to suck.
Free is not an excuse to suck.
is where Eugenia says that she has heard that Novel, Red Hat, Suse, and every other commercial Linux distribution on this planet will happily accept her feature requests and do their best to add this to the product, but she chooses not to pay any of these companies for their services and expects those services for free from the contributors to the GNOME project. So I really have to ask you Eugenia, why the hell should they?
“No, you ran in and said you wanted a to create a poll that would be _officially sanctioned/sponsored_ by GNOME that would be used to gather feature requests. Sorry, but no developer is going to develop according to a poll.”
That kind of poll would be a great idea. Where did you take that no developers would be interested? At least three types of developers could be interested:
1.Those who happen to find something they would just like to work on in the poll results.
2.Those who code for the “glory” of it, it would in fact be a good idea to have some sort of spotlight for these developers.
3.Those who have ethical interest in pushing OSS forward, as a duty.
Developers who don’t find anything to their liking in the poll result can just ignore it. It doesn’t hurt anyone. And if we find out that way that there really are no developers that fall into either category, that nothing gets done, then at least we can go look elsewhere and support something else instead and not foster false hopes.
@QuantumG
Maybe you gonna read her article again. It’s not about services which you need to pay for from companies. It’s about the piss poor community that GNOME is. Lack of support, lack of understanding, lack of help, lack of being part of it as a whole, lack of the needs for your help and your support. Eugenia was quite a valuable ‘Friend’ towards the GNOME people. She helped with nice feedbacks, regulary GNOME promotion for free on OSNews.com as well as trying to help GNOME with her best she had.
She doesn’t complain about the companies, she complain how ignorant GNOME people are, that they care less for users wishes. What she raised here was not the regular complain about missing stuff. She complains about the core developers COMMINITY issue itself.
How can a person add wishes, describe their demands, their needs, their feelings and or become a valuable member of the GNOME community if the help is being kicked with feet ?
Please, leave alone discussions about how “hobby development” or “oss development” is. Because this issue has nothing to do with either.
There’s no development that works the way Eugenia wants – except when you’re doing on-demand software. That is: you have a client, he wants you make software ABC, and you have to do exactly the way he wants. This is one thing. But Gnome is not that kind of software. Neither is Windows, MacOSX, etc, you name it.
Yes, there are OSS projects that work that way. Those are the small projects. Gnome is a desktop platform, it’s not just some text editor or any other application. Gnome is not an application.
So to sum it up: what you want does not exist – be it in OSS or proprietary development, it doesn’t exist.
Victor.
For those just joining the discussion, you MUST read the whole thread, “roadmap status update/update request”, Luis Villa, http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-March/thread…
>How can a person add wishes, describe their demands, their needs, their feelings and or become a valuable member of the GNOME community if the help is being kicked with feet ?
They didn’t tell her to STFU or to F off & die. They gave her reasons why her idea for an official poll would not work. They gave her reasonable suggestions on how & why feature requests may go unfulfilled. She rallied & reiterated her points but they did not fall on dead ears. Read through the mailing list and see it for yourself. She is just one person and is guaranteed to have her own opinion.
See also a coincidental GNOME dev blog, March 10 Jakub Steiner’s blog on how to request features: http://jimmac.musichall.cz/weblog.php
Decentralize. Promote smaller projects, help develop them. That’s what OSS is all about.
A valuable member of the communuty ought not demand that volounteers be bound and subjected to an arbitrary poll where anyone can suggest anything. A lot of users have bad ideas just the same as developers. More exhange is probably needed so users would benefit in finding a leader who can organize them and coordinate their efforts. Someone who can understand their needs and present them in ways that are palatable to developers. Eugenia has poured cold water over the proceedings. Why? Are there not more constructive ways to achieve those aims? We need change on both sides. Obviously, having a productive and free desktop environment is not enough to satisfy users but they should at least become aware of the true nature of OSS development before they consider ill advised demands. Developers must realize that users aren’t just stupid people who don’t do anything to contribute. Rants like these don’t foster that type of gap bridging in the least. Being critical is okay, but you have to posit reasonable and workable alternatives if you are going to be critical.
@JohnJacobJingleheimerSchmitdt
> They didn’t tell her to STFU or to F off & die.
Actually they did. They only described and explained it differently. The same way they did with many others in the community.
> They gave her reasons why her idea for an official poll would not work.
Yeah the same ‘talk it to death’ conversation as usually as it’s common within the past years within GNOME. Of course saying someone to shut the fuck up would be the straight way but instead doing so it’s modern to talk someone to death with pointless and meaningless counterarguments. That’s GNOME.
> They gave her reasonable suggestions on how & why feature requests may go unfulfilled.
You can certainly tell this to your MOM and put this kind of comments where the sun never shines. Really I’ve been too long involved into the GNOME politics to exactly know what’s going on and how things are being said to get rid of ‘unwanted’ people.
> She rallied & reiterated her points but they did not fall on dead ears.
The usual way, if users comments are unwanted they fall on dead ears. The GNOME task force joins in and the person’s valuable comments and feedback are being talked to death. Not enough about this furthermore jokes about that person is being made inside IRC channels only to entertain people and demonstrating how l33t they are.
> Read through the mailing list and see it for yourself.
> She is just one person and is guaranteed to have her
> own opinion.
You are wrong, she is NOT just one person, she is one person amongst dozens, hundrets if not more people who have been pulled away the same way like it happened to her. She was not the first and most likely won’t be the last person who got treatened with disrespect.
+1
Right on the money. Wait until the developers have implemented their goals and then offer feedback but critising them during development is stupid. Many people here are citing the lack of menu editing as an example of Gnome developers doing something for the worse. Yet as I understand it, the Gnome Menu system has gone through overhauls of which the previous menu editing program was no longer viable and a replacement one is in development of which will not be included until it is release ready. Are we so impatient that we want a f-ed up development release or can we wait for 2.12 to be released with the menu editor back in place fully functioning?
User feedback in the development process can be a double edged sword. Take the example of Il2, WW2 simulation software produced by Maddox Games. They had a very good community communication process going but the community ended turning a great in a limited way ground pounding flight simulator into a very mediocre jack of all trades simulator covering all of WW2. The community constantly bitched and whined about flight modelling and physics etc to the point that the base engine of the simulator could not take the changes being requested. Every time a new patch became available it drastically changed elements of all aircraft handeling and performance that turned the simulation into a joke.
Oleg and co at Maddox are creating a new simulation which will address the shortcommings of the original but it required a completely new simulation engine to do it and the community was to impatient for the new simulation. This has bogged down development of the new in preference of borked old.
Just and example of what can happen if you let the hord have too much influence on software development. I really like the KISS approach of Gnome and I see it developing very well. I think the editorial was wishful thinking at best and if you are really pissed with the way things are then contribute alternative code to the project. Something that is great about the FOSS development model. You can make a difference if you really want.
The essence of FOSS is that developers have the freedom to write what they want, when they want and how they want. The proper approach shouldn’t be to try to coerce developers in the FOSS to do what you want.
I have to completely agree with this view.
There is a difference between benefits for the person as a consumer as opposed to a producer. There is a potential embodied in the free software movement, to make possible an increased freedom as producer.
No amount of increase in the quality and quantity of consumption can increase the freedom of the producer who works for someone else’s needs.
Of course, the current development of free-software is tightly bound with business as-usual. But I feel that free software (and the practically infite duplication of software made possible by the internet–which implies that price per unit should go to zero as quanitity increases, i.e. the supply curve downward sloping, and therefore equilibrium price for software should be very cheap. TV and radio are the same, but only commercial content is enjoyed…) presents interesting theoretical possibilities that are worth thinking about.
Very well said
If you want me or any other OSS developer to *care* about your wishes and desires for the software we hack on, feel free to offer us some money, otherwise STFU. Really, you get something for nothing and you’re not happy, go and *pay* someone to *care* cause I don’t.
It’s really a fineline when you deal with user feedback. There’s alwasy going to be some things that some users want that just can’t be done. However, once a piece of software that anyone writes is used by anyone other then themselves the developer has an obligation to listen to their users feedback. OC, the developers have the right to ignore the users requests but they need to explain why they aren’t going to do XYZ in their project. If they don’t want to listen to the uses then they shouldn’t have released the program at all (under any license).
Look at slackware. Patrick took the pain to make sure all the slackware packages work with the distro. It is stable and solid. Have you hear users complain about slackware.
I think(I could be wrong) the author of the article likes to see OSS like gnome to spread and have a wider user group to include non-programmers. Most people can click buttons and navigate through menu but not be able to customize it by doing custom coding.
How would you like to use a word processor DAILY that can spell check British English and not US English?
Is it too much to ask for an all rounded solid release of an OSS e.g. slackware?
first off, the whole not listening if a user wants something you know will have bad effects thing wasnt the driving point of what i was saying, and we’ve already talked about this at great length like, two articles down, so pretty much anything i would have to say would be rehashing stuff ive already said.
anyways, user feedback is real important, but i think you missed my point. their primary target audience will alwas be themselves. consider this a fundamental weakness (or strength if you happen to be a developer) of opensource software. things dont work the same, by its very nature the developer has to have a personal desire to see something done for it to get done in the opensource world. that desire could be movtivated by pride, interest, need, the desire to see the product flourish, etc. theres alot of them, but the fact that its not money (for the most part) gives a far less then optimal situation from a design standpoint. it gives a spectacular situation from a technology point of view (developers alwas work best when we are having fun), but good design is going to take a back seat to things like features, and needless complexity will abound.
im of the opinion that for linux to become a truley usable system from the ground up, we would lose the things that make it great.
what i am saying is that it is a matter of respect. as a user, its not like you are doing the developers a favor by using their software. they are doing you a favor by giving their hard work to the common good. thats not to say they have a right to be arrogant pricks, but they definately have a right to say what they do with their free time. you can make any suggestions you like, but they do not have an obligation to you in any way.
You go Eugenia! You’re one of the few around here to stand above the tepid writing of the FLOSS newsnalists and care about the software AS IT STANDS, not just argue its potential pitfalls and greatness.
Listening to your user is an issue that reaches outside of the mere FLOSS world, but it is something that not even the hobbyist should avoid. As an amateur, one must either take the fully committed stance to one’s software, or simply acknowledge humbly the lack of resources and avoid making bold claims as to the necessity of the software. For Christ’s sake, the GNOME people are trying to make people swallow the superiority of a GUI coded in plain C…
That kind of editorial is the reason why I keep watching OSNews: I think you might have here a bone to gnaw to compensate for what you called the “Boring State” of today’s OS. The challenge is maturity, and it is the one that many of our childish developpers fear to tackle.
> but i think you missed my point. their primary target
> audience will alwas be themselves.
So why is it (GNOME) announced and sold as ‘Corporate Desktop’ then ? And why all this ‘Marketing’ crap around it ? If it’s something for their own then the best thing for them would be to behave like the XFCE or KDE people by simply shutting the fuck up and doing their work without telling the world that they are the only ones, the best ones and the greatest ones. You know if you shout out too loud then people hear you and expect you to deliver what you promise or deliver what you made people expecting you to deliver.
actually, she was going for more of a “with great power, comes great responsability” type of thing.
wah wah wah! grow up and come back when you’re ready to code or pay my living expenses.
GNOME’s GUI is not developed in plain C. Educate yourself rather than look silly.
“KDE The Desktop Environment
…It is our hope that the combination UNIX/KDE will finally bring the same open, reliable, stable and monopoly free computing to the average computer user that scientist and computing professionals world-wide have enjoyed for years. ”
(http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/)
big projects like to brag.
Someone who devotes time and energy for free should have the choice on how to use THEIR time and energy, right? Good point a couple of posts back saying that it was a good thing they listened in the first place.
Don’t like the response? Well, IT IS the truth, is it not? What response, I wonder, would be acceptable? It is simply the way it is for hobbyist developers who don’t really owe anyone anything.
Let’s put it this way … I leave peanuts on my porch one day and the birds came and ate it. I do it again for a few more occasions and the birds come as expected. So what if I suddenly decided to stop? What if I decided to lessen the amount of peanuts? What if I change it to walnuts instead? Do the birds have a say?
Thing is, I don’t owe anything to the birds so nothing really compels me to stop or keep on putting peanuts on the porch.
A leader would not just criticise, they would come up with a plan or proposal, and they would have business training and experience or else some specialized knowedge. Linus Torvalds did not have business experience, but he got down and dirty and became heavily involved as a leader.
There are possibilities in FOSS development methodology, where a leader who understood the culture, who understood software development, could lead a successful project and have a loyal following of dedicated and hard working people writing software together as a team. In the long term this could mean money, but I think that FOSS development has to start at the grass roots with the possiblility of success on the horizon. You have to earn success by being the best.
We open-source programmers are coding out the goodness of our hearts, for the love of it. So we should drop what we’re doing and listen to whiners who hate us so we can fulfill their needs? NO WAY! You are not entitled to any of my labor, we program for other programmers, not for the public. Any use you get from our software is incidental.
There’s lots of corporate whining that if linux wants to play in the big leagues, it’s going to have to accept commercialization. Over my dead body. If linux became part proprietary, I would stop coding for it today, this very instant, and so would most of my peers. If linux never got any corporate support that would be just fine with me, in fact I would prefer it that way. If companies want to play, they’ll have to follow IBM’s lead and offer something of value to the programmer community. This way EVERYONE BENEFITS. The alternative is no one benefits because everybody quits programming and some corporate monopoly expolits us all.
Users who whine and contribute nothing are just parasites who should shut up. We owe you nothing, and it doesn’t matter what you want, and if you don’t like it then don’t use our software.
However if you have contructive suggestions, not demands, and want to be part of the community, then welcome, the more the merrier.
The whining “editorial” here reminds me of the microsoft FUD that is omnipresent. If fact it reminds me _exactly_ of it.
Wal-Mart has some incredible bargains. Yet most of us do not do all of our shopping there, even if one of their stores is nearby. One reason is that Wal-Mart cherry picks its inventory, rather than providing comprehensive selection. And their merchandise is rather casually arranged, compared to most department stores. But when you do shop there, you realize it doesn’t make sense to complain… the spotty selection and awful decor is part of the deal. If you’re in a hurry and don’t mind paying more for stuff, chances are you’ll head to the mall instead.
This is analogous to the situation with FOSS. Sure, there are differences. No matter what software category you name, there’s likely to be an open source project around somewhere. But if you’re talking about projects that have been field-tested and approved by a critical mass of diverse customers, the FOSS inventory starts getting more sparse. The best FOSS projects seem to be those that scratched the itch(es) of talented developers; often they are system-level software and/or have a strong computer science or mathematical component and/or have resonance with the lifestyles of people in their twenties (games, audio, IM). Pieces that involve extensive end-user testing or copious amounts of painstaking grunt work, start looking like… well, Wal-Mart’s clothing department.
That’s one reason I think the proprietary software business will continue to thrive alongside FOSS.
Linus et al. worked “just for fun”, as well as the developers that said to Eugenia “that feature will be implemented only if a developer needs it”.
Stallman has insisted that, having a complete “operating systems” as objective, work must be sometimes done in areas not interesting (he uses a “tar” example, even if there are several tar (e.g. star) besides the GNU tar).
So, if Eugenia wants a Free and excellent desktop environment, maybe she has to reconsider her “affiliation” with practical-oriented movements (Open Source) 😉
The last post on that thread on the gnome dev list –> pretty nice, pretty fine, good for him to tell others to reread again because of preassumed not understanding. Inpolite, immature lad this is.
I care shit, you read, shit, about what they *want* to implement and what *they* consider useful or useless. If I ever treat my own user community this way, I get kicked and lost of the project. *They* is members of the gnome dev list.
Some sentences about: this discussion doesn’t belong to here – put it to the proper list and you can have a nice discussion. Oh Fine, and what, if I want to tlk to them? then they are pretty blind nerds only seeing their own way.
Oh, and by the way, a little more politeness instead of “You not start useless threads, you have a nasty behaviour” and sorta which I consider inappropriate and immature is demanded for. Even from the but so untouchable High Priests from the Gnome Dev List.
I am the user – I am the customer. Period. Whether someone does some program in his free time or not is beyond my interrest. If I politely ask the developer “Hi, isn’t it possible to do xx in way yy?” or “Hi, couldn’t you put a checkbox there for us?”, I expect either a “Ok, I’ll have a look at it.” or a “Yes, why not” or a “No, because …” instead of gruffy generalized bash off replies a la “the user knows nothing we care only about what we think”
See the point: it is the tone which makes the music. Some OSS developer clearly have to mature on that. The world doesn’t consist of bits and bytes. It consists of people, trees, air and light and much more. Grow up, lads, and treat other people with RESPECT.
Thanks so very much!
ps @Eugenia: I fully understand you being so upset by this marcher en place and the disrespectfulness they show in that list.
I’m a Free Software / Open Source developer. I’ve been in this community only a short time, relatively speaking, but I’ve made one very important observation during that time. Our communities (for there are many overlapping communities here) are based on the fundamental principle of volunteerism.
F.O.S.S. is a Free Market of software. The landscape is one of meritocratic anarchy. There is no government here. There is no state telling us what software we must use. There is no king telling developers what they must write. There are no policemen. No armies or navies. No customs inspectors or immigration agents. No tax collectors or regulators. All we have are volunteers.
If we want something then we must either do it ourselves or get someone else to do it for us. There are no other options, so stop looking for them. It may be harsh, but it is the reality we must live with.
Eugenia is barking up the wrong tree, and the developers are correct, they do not owe her anything. This does not mean that she can’t get what she wants to be implemented, but since when has getting anything that you want been easy. You need to have a strategy in order to get what you want and you have to form alliance with the right people. FOSS is not the type of organization that you can control by force, instead you have to have people help you, because they respect you.
…proprietary companies pay developers to think about other developers. Since open source relies on free donation, however, developers tend to be motivated by what interests THEMSELVES. That’s what makes them interested in providing free work, or as Roberto Alsina says, “betting hundreds or thousands of hours of work, a strain in their personal life, and probably lots of money (lost income)” on donated product.
A waiter is likely to accomodate customers who want to customize everything they order because he’s paid to be accomodating. Try doing the same thing to him in his home, though, and he’s liable to boot you out the door.
I talk about that at length in this article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-5209078.html
…and I should add that the respect that individuals have in the open source community is mostly given to people with technical knowledge, because this has translated to a form of power within the power core of this teams based organizational design. Now after saying that, everything is open and on the table, this is just my observation of the current model.
Since no link was shown to throw some context, I give you this:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-March/msg001…
I think Eugenia completely forgot that developers usually work as a team and the decision belong to the team, not an invidual. While she may have some points, she cannot impose a request to developers she didn’t pay which will be very bad for herself. I have to agree that this editorial is a rant that reflects her frustration.
what i am saying is that it is a matter of respect. as a user, its not like you are doing the developers a favor by using their software.
Actually, user-advocates do a heck of a lot for developers. It’s user-advocates that burn the cds and introduce people to OpenOffice, Firefox, Mozilla and Linux. It’s user-advocates who are the backbone of the peer-to-peer technical support networks that FOSS advocates point to as an alternative to the help desk or call center. It’s user-advocates who press for FOSS adoption in their workplaces and schools. It’s user-advocates who set up LUGs, conferences and seminars.
If it were not for user-advocates doing the marketing, training, advocacy and end-user support (sometimes paid, sometimes not). FOSS software would be an isolated private in-joke among among a tiny group.
they are doing you a favor by giving their hard work to the common good. thats not to say they have a right to be arrogant pricks, but they definately have a right to say what they do with their free time. you can make any suggestions you like, but they do not have an obligation to you in any way.
Well, let me be blunt about this.
If you want your design to be useful to someone other than yourself…
If you want your design to be meaningful to someone other than your self…
If you want to reduce the odds of spending years of your time producing something that is just plain crap…
…you have an obligation to actually sit down with your users frequently, and understand how they see your design.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim to be writing software for anyone to use, and have a policy of just scratching your own itch. These two goals are mutually incompatible. Pick one or the other because you can’t have both.
The other side of the equation is that user-advocates are not obligated to support or encourage the adoption of software that fails to meet their needs, or the needs of their peers. For example, in my own department, I can’t recommend the adoption of OpenOffice.org because its bibliographic database has a number of issues that make it extremely difficult to use for preparing documents for publication. I’ve put in a fair amount of my own time and work on the bibliographic project, but until the recommendations of the bibliographic project turns into working software, I have to recommend either LaTeX or Word + Endnote.
Don’t worry, the GNOME developers do take user need into consideration. Corporations like IBM and SUNW, assist the development of GNOME so that it meets users needs. They can not be expected to recieve the call if it is not handled through the right channels.
Althought I used to be a huge GNOME fan, I tend to agree with you Eugenia. Last year I switched back to KDE because the open development community that attracted me in the GNOME 1.x days is no longer there.
It almost seems that it is now KDE that is more open to developers/users than GNOME. :
But going back to the point. I’ve been in the computer industry since the speccy days and I also don’t care much about religion in computing. At the end of the day what matter s is the tool that gets the job done, wherever does it come from.
But I do embrace open source and favour it regarding other solutions.
But the point that you raise is true. No “normal” user will use the code, neither he/she will do anything that might require a bit more of computer knowledge.
Most people only use their PCs as if they were appliances,
so don’t ask them to know that much about computing.
GNOME is a commercial application.
I agree, and I also think that all other hobbyists need to start thinking about MY concerns. I mean really, I’m all that matters, right?
@bxb…: Someone who devotes time and energy for free should have the choice on how to use THEIR time and energy, right? Good point a couple of posts back saying that it was a good thing they listened in the first place.
Is this a good thing when it means that important tasks never get done? Every volunteer organization that does something worth doing for the community has jobs that are less than fun and less than glamorous. Everybody wants to be the tour guide at the animal sanctuary but someone has to clean out the pens. Everybody wants to use the nifty power tools at a Habitat for Humanity site but there are quite a lot of less glamorous jobs that need to be done to complete the house. Everybody wants to code but TFM is usually saved to last.
Let’s put it this way … I leave peanuts on my porch one day and the birds came and ate it. I do it again for a few more occasions and the birds come as expected. So what if I suddenly decided to stop? What if I decided to lessen the amount of peanuts? What if I change it to walnuts instead? Do the birds have a say?
Let me put it this way. You volunteer to work at an animal shelter, and then suddenly decide to stop because while you really like playing fetch with the dogs, you can’t stand to clean out the cages. Of course, since you volunteered your time you really don’t have an obligation to the shelter. At the same time, nobody else has an obligation to think highly of your character.
@Brandybuck: I’m a Free Software / Open Source developer. I’ve been in this community only a short time, relatively speaking, but I’ve made one very important observation during that time. Our communities (for there are many overlapping communities here) are based on the fundamental principle of volunteerism.
Well actually what I’m seeing expressed here is not volunteerism. Volunteers work to fill a need in their community. Sometimes, that means volunteering for routine, booring, messy, stinky, manual and trivial work that wouldn’t get done any other way.
I just read the article. Okay, go through the proper channel, and SUNW or RH, or SUSE, should all have some sort of customer feedback loop, where the information gets back to the developers of GNOME when they hold their meeting. Maybe you can rally several other people to voice the problem as well, but do a better article, one that focuses specifically on the user problem that you want to be fixed.
I don’t think that you are respecting the complexity of an open market. FOSS is a commercial venture, but it has a more decentralized OD. It is here for a reason. It is a successful business model.
Now get a damn spell checker for this web site or else all news web sites are stupid and I quit! I quit I tell you because you are not listening to my needs!
Can we shut up about this already. If you don’t like OSS then use something else. If you really want support and you really want something to change then open your wallet. I’m sick of so many people complaining that they can’t get the perfect solution for themself because of some arrogant developers who won’t code the features the users want on their own free time. It’s been this way since the beginning. If you don’t like it then change it yourself or pay someone to do it. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Right! – it’s too time consuming to write a bug report!
Why not facilitate us users with a simple desktop application, that collect everything needed for a bug report like logs, dumps etc.?
I think such application would help common users to submit a bug report or write a feature request.
One time I tried to call SUNW and all I got was some answering machine, and I yelled so bloody loud into the telephone that it must have scared the hell out of the person who had to listen to that blasphemy!
We all have our frustrations. I suggest that Eugenia write an article explaining her specific problem and well see if we can get the GNOME people to expedite the priority of this problem, if it really need a solution. I wouldn’t mind yelling at some poor bastard at Rhat, but first, give me a reason.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim to be writing software for anyone to use, and have a policy of just scratching your own itch. These two goals are mutually incompatible. Pick one or the other because you can’t have both.
Totally wrong. A developer will scratch an itch and hope that others find the itch that he scratched useful, but a developer is obviously not going to implement a feature that a user wants if he does not that find that feature useful – especially when this stuff is being done for free.
-1 Flamebait
You got your file selector Eugenia, or did you forget that? So whatever the hell this menu editor thing is, go ahead and use the power of the press.
Of course people are only going to write stuff they’re interested in. Boring stuff is for day jobs.
What did you expect?
Maybe you should try whinging louder and see if that helps.
It’s been talked about here lately. Someone could set up a bounty system where people can vote with their wallets. The money goes into an escrow until the feature is satisfactorially completed.
On another note, I’m not surprised that some people are “stunned” that there isn’t an overwhelming level of altruism in the open source community. Hilarious
Bounties do work in the sense that you can target certain features that you want to be implemented. I’m not sure how long something like that could be sustained, especially if the developers were not paid their reward.
The main issue here is clearly motivation. A volunteer developer’s work will directly depend on his/her motivation to do it. This means several things:
1) If the developer has no personal interest in a feature, then the motivation will be very low, this is just a fact. Usually this is not a problem, because someone else will have the motivation to help out. Collaboration, you know. But when it comes to issues very few people care about (or few developers), then volunteer development will be rather slow. Not bad, just slow. This can’t be changed. If you don’t know how hard it is to work productively on something in your freetime which you have no interest in, just try it yourself! It’s always easier to talk about it.
2) Volunteer developers who code for the public do it for exactly one reason: Positive feedback. They don’t do it to kill Microsoft, they do it to make people happy. If you provide crap feedback to the developer (and this involves non-constructive criticism), then you are doing your very best to hurt the project. Because the developer is more likely to say “fuck it, it’s not worth it” than to bow down and become your personal work-slave.
De-motivating crap feedback is very common among OSS user communities, and I sincerely believe, that this is hurting open source development a lot more than developer attitude. Unfortunately, the dorks are outnumbering developers, and they will not stop to congratulate themselves, trying to put the blame on the latter.
And finally, before someone thinks I’m arguing against any kind of negative feedback: It’s not that hard to provide motivating, constructive criticism. The unfortunate fact that most people suck at it is not an excuse for not even trying.
To all those people dismissing the article because they think Eugenia held the opinion that OS developers somehow have the obligation to fullfill her every wish, read again, this is simply not the case, no matter how often you repeat it.
Now after reading the relevant mailing list thread I would readily agree that she overreacted, but I still think she points out a very interesting problem here.
Gnome is a big project and it has lots of users and like probably every project of this size the question is how to deal with user input, user wishes. No matter how often you insult Eugenia, this problem won’t go away.
Now that of course doesn’t mean that the devs have an obligation to fullfill every wish of every user, or that every wish makes sense, but still I think that trying to figure out a good way to let users interact with developers certainly should be worth the effort, especially in an open source project.
From following the Gnome development as a normal user and from reading various comments on the subject here I get the impression that Gnome at least hasn’t figured out the best way to deal with it, but than again, I might of course be wrong about this. Anyway, I really can’t see what should be wrong about discussing this issue and seek for a better solution.
Look at what’s happening to evolution. It’s hanging just out of disrepair because it’s a monster written in straight C. Look at FireFox and how they’re having trouble getting developers.
It’s hard to wrap your head around these mammoth code bases (no developer docs), and when you do the last thing you want (in your free time) is some “luser” to start griping about how things are “broken” because nifty feature X isn’t implemented.
Too many people think it’s a free lunch in the open source world.
Maybe there is a problem with “the user feedback loop” but I’m not convinced yet. Let’s see if we can get this one problem solved using the power of the press. Eugenia has to write a new article than.
…but don’t fall for the idea that FOSS is not a business model, because that’s how some vendors choose to discredit Linux, and distance themselves from it. We have to recognize FOSS as a business model and a modern organic teams based organization.
I’m not sure how long something like that could be sustained, especially if the developers were not paid their reward.
People pay up front, it gets put in an escrow account, if it gets done by certain date and is objectively judged to have fullfilled the feature request the developer gets the money. If not, then everybody gets their money back.
Don’t ask me what it would take to set up said system.
Eugenia,
I read your article and the d-d-l mailing list archives which gave rise to your article.
I wish to repsond to what you wrote, to the responses you recieved in the mailing list and to the core critique which you presented to them.
I will structure my response to these accordingly:
1) Your side- what you say is often not as important as how you say it
2) Their side- community and ‘execpetional users’.
3) Shortcommings of existing feedback meachnaims
4) Methods of integrating user feedback
Firstly, although I agree with much of what you wrote in your aticle and what you posted to the mailing lists, I must take issue with how you wrote what you wrote and how you conveyed the issue you are confronting.
It pains me greatly to see real issues not being taken seriously *as* issues and ideas not being weighed due to the way they are presented. I would personally love to see something constructive come out of what you wrote. But let me point out the following:
1) You resorted to one of the worst rhetorical techniques that exist in order to achieve something you want.
You engaged the use of a double standard as regards ‘Open Source’ and ‘propietary’ software. At once you appealed to the ‘virtues’ of ‘Open Source’, which you enumerated, and at the same time you compared this negatively to propietary development practices. The result of this kind of rhetoric is a feeling of disingenuity-not being honest. Although many, many folks engage in this kind of rhetoric many FLOSS developers will simply dismiss such because they are being held to a standard which does not recognize or honor what they are doing. If one praises the virtue of something and at the same time compares these virtues negatively against something else the praise sounds hollow-ie. not meant genuinely.
The virtues and vices of FLOSS are relative to one another exclusively, the virtues/vices of FLOSS stand in no direct relation to the virtues/vices of propietary software. If what you are praising of FLOSS as a virtue becomes a vice in a comparison with propietary software what excactly are you criticizing? BTW. The same applies in reverse. This rhetorical issue becomes far more significant when it treads on the identity question of FLOSS-and by confounding the two you are invariably treading on the issue of identity.
This will be taken by some as a direct attack against what they are doing,ie. who they are. Others will simply dismiss such as being irrelevant-because it’s not really clear to whom you are responding- ie. who is that ‘person’ for whom a virtue of FLOSS is a vice in the context of propietary software development.
Their may be some developers who are at once pround of their participation in FLOSS development and are totally supportive of propietary software development-but I expect there are very few who actually feel this way. Such persons would be that ‘person’ to whom you wrote in your article and in your postings-the responses you recieved, your feeling of ‘deaf ears’, is mostly due to the fact that none of the participants of that dialogue felt spoken to, ie. ‘are you takling to me?’.
Secondly, stating that ‘you feel pity’ for those who wish to ‘politicize bits and bytes’ is itself a very political statement. If you don’t recognize the *difference*, which is *the* difference for someone you are disrespecting the person you are dealing with. That does not mean you must concur on that issue-but dismissing the issue means dismissing the person you are talking to. By engaging in the rhetorical double standard which you engaged in you are being very dismissive to those who you wish would listen to you. In essence what you are saying comes across like this:
‘The raison d’etre of your enthusiastic participation in FLOSS development is irrelevant to me, why can’t you be more like Microsoft or Apple developers’.
This is a proverbial slap in the face. And you will not get very far if you insist on repeatedly doing so.
In stating that politics is not an issue for you you are engaging in politics. You may believe that software would be better off if it was entirely apolitical-but most of those working on FLOSS software would not be working on FLOSS software if that was the case. In the absence of direct monetary motivation such identity issues become crucial-if one cannot pay the monthly mortgage from their work in FLOSS one must find a way of coping with the stress involved in software development-one way of coping with that stress is subsuming the stress involved as part of some grander scheme, ie. values.
If one feels good about the values of their work they are less likely to be defeated by the inevitable stress which accompanies software development. But it is not simply a ‘feel good’ measure-if you strip away such issues you are in fact stripping away the enthusiasm and willingness to deal with such situations. One may criticze FLOSS developers for such ‘feel good’ identity issues-but in doing so you are placing persons in a double bind, ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’-and this generally evokes a very standoffish attitutde.
I am not asking you to endorse the politics of FLOSS. But if you fail to recognize the *difference*, which is *the* difference, for many of the developers you are addressing, you are actively engaging in dismissive and disreprective behavior.
When one FLOSS developer (Havoc Pennington) talks to another FLOSS developer (Hubert Figuiere) about the advantages of some propietary software (Apple’s Pages) in regards to some FLOSS software (OpenOffice/Abiword)-there is a mutual undertsanding and repsect at work, ie. both are fully cognizant of what FLOSS software entails-such discussions often serve the prupose of motivating each other to tackle difficult issues. But when you engage in the same kind of discussion, or anyone else who engages in the rhetorical double standard, the discussion turns out to be anything but motivational-because there is a percieved lack of respect, becuase that double standard is percieved as disingenous.
And don’t get off on a ‘percieved’ vs. ‘actual’ tangent- neither you nor I nor anyone else can ever fully seperate and disentangle ‘actual’ and ‘percieved’ issues. In fact the only thing that can bridge this divide (the dichotomy of actual and percieved) is trust. I have focused here on what you wrote-not on the responses to what you wrote-so of course this is somewhat one sided- but this ‘side’ is your side-it is within the realm of things you are accountable for.
to be continued….
ralph, I don’t think there is any big fundamental problem. GNOME has been one of the first OSS projects to totally focus on usability for everage people, instead of trying to please the wish of every single user. It should be obvious that this was a stunning success, not just because I personally enjoy using it
but also because GNOME has become a lot more popular lately. User requirements always have been the primary motivation for GNOME development, at least since around 2.0. The fact that developers don’t regard web polls as representative of casual user needs doesn’t change a thing about this. They DO listen to feedback. But sometimes the feedback of one average user can be more informative and valuable than the feedback of 100 geeks on a tech-oriented news site. That’s all they are saying.
I think the only big mistake was, that this was communicated rather badly (maybe too honest) and many people thought that GNOME wouldn’t care about them anymore. That’s why it got such a huge backlash from the community, but it’s really getting better lately. Maybe because people start to see that the result is actually good and usability favors everyone, not just novices. It still seems to be a problem for some people if their wishes aren’t high priority, especially for people with large egos.
Why doesn’t OSnews improve it’s professionalism and thereby create a stronger voice. The power of the press is significant but only if the reporting is thorough and complete. You should never publish an article making claims that are this wide in thesis and without enough evidence. Narrow your thesis, collect evidence and use it to support your argument. Do that on a regular bases, and you might be able to use OSnews as a platform.
Make sure you read moderated down posts. There is a really good one in there from Mark.
Eugenia, continued…
Now to the other ‘side’. Some of the dev’s on the mailing list out’ed themselves as real assholes. I can understand some of the reasoning behind their reactions but that does not mean that I agree with these reactions. Generally people make an ass of themselves when they feel particularly insecure. If there was no substance to what you wrote the reaction you recieved would have been unthinkable. It is abundanbtly obvious that some of the dev’s are very insecure about the issues that you raised-they could not respond substantially to what you said and resorted to ‘STFU go away’ tactics. Such reactions are understandable and stupid at the same time. Stupid in the sense that such repsonses are totally and absolutely contraproductive.
Some of the dev’s responded that the appropriate way to deal with feedback is already accounted for. Some simply pointed again to bugzilla-failing to recognize what you were criticizing. One even pointed to bug-buddy pointing out a feature which I had never encounted during the entire time which GNOME 2.x has existed-and I am certainly not alone in this. Some insisted that this was off-topic and not a proper subject for the d-d-l-but without pointing to the appropriate place, aside from one who mentioned the marketing list-which is utterly absurd.
Only a handful of those who responded to your posts responded in such a way which could be held conducive for a constructive discussion. I don’t always succeed but I aim to not respond to things if I have nothing constructive to add-I don’t like generating more heat than light. At the end of this whole debacle there was no progress at all made regarding some kind of remedia action-ie. establishing a new mailing list, wiki or something to facilitate the legitimate concerns which you, Eugenia, raised. It is unlikely in such situations that one quickly can find an easy solution-but the failure to respond constructively to your suggestion-at least agreeing to a possible place to hold such a discussion-is the minimum that needed to happen for you to feel that you are being paid attention to. And Eugenia you are not alone in your criticism of GNOME in this regard.
As in all cases it takes two to tango. In this case the dev’s failed miserably-they failed to recognize the issue you raised *as* an issue, and they responded to your appeal against ‘deaf ears’ with ears stuffed with cotton or ‘solutions are already in place’. In fact the only dev who generated more light than heat was Alan Cox-appropriately as he is not a ‘core’ GNOME developer. I do believe that some action should be taken on this issue and once that actoion is taken the dev’s should be invited to participate. They may state that only will focus on personal things if it’s not mandated by the company they work for- but if enough people express their interest in getting certain changes made they will not be able to ignore it- they will succumb to pressure to be the ‘hero’ of the dev community- rescuing the poor users
But only if they feel free in choosing to place themsevles under this pressure. I for one am convinced that there are sufficent dev’s in GNOME that will respond to such positively as a positive challenge- and that is what this is all about…
Eugenia, you are in the inenviable position of having a ‘loud mouth’. Firstly you have probably done more to draw people to an GNOME than any of the developers you have talked to. You are widely known thoughout the hobbiest computer scene. Your timely articles about ongoings in GNOME, your reviews of GNOME, your posting of articles about GNOME, have probably done more in raising awareness about GNOME than anything else in the internet today.
Undoubtedly many people who frequent OSNEWS were first
introduced to GNOME by things OSNEWS has posted about GNOME.
And nothing in the internet compares to gnomefiles-you have drawn more attention to more obscure projects than anything else around. The *problem* is you chose GNOME- they, the developers, did not choose you
. The mailing list archives illustrated a typical reaction- ‘who is that Eugenia person anyway’, ‘where does she get off thinking she can just get her way’. He/She who speaks most loudly about something is usually the first person to get shot down by a hailstorm of arrows.
I would argue that they, the GNOME dev’s, should listen to you, even when they don’t want to. But I would also argue that you must learn to refrain from engaging in such rheotrical double standards. You are not ‘merely’ a GNOME user- and being treated that way is outright unjust. Actually, if you were willing to quit polemicizing stuff for the purpose of pure polemics, I would wish to see you attain the title of honorary GNOME developer. There is a fine line between polemics and sensationalism-and you walk a very narrow tightrope between the two. To a degree this tightrope walk is the success story of OSNEWS.
I know english is not your mother tongue-but I also know that you are more than sufficiently capable of reading between the lines-start paying more attention to what you are writing between the lines. In much the same way way that GNOME dev’s have an increased accountability due to the widespread adoption of their software- you youself are subject to the same due to effects of your, via your internet presence, disproportionately large voice in raising awareness about GNOME. Just as it behooves the GNOME dev’s to gracefully deal with your input and address the issues you raise- it behooves you to respect the *difference* which is *the* difference for many of these dev’s and to refrain from rhetorical double standards.
I hope you are right. As I said, I’m in no real position to really confirm or disconfirm it, I do however get the impression that quite a lot of people wouldn’t agree with you, which of course doesn’t mean that you are wrong.
Anyway, I just found this nice little gem and I think this is a great idea by the gnome devs on tackling the very issue discussed here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/keyword-search.cgi?keyword=gnome-…
Sure, things can always be improved and everyone is welcomed to discuss about it of course (on the appropriate lists, not desktop-devel
). The gnome-love bug query is indeed very nice, although I don’t really see the connection to this discussion.
Lumbergh your suggestion regarding the bounties is a good one in the sense that you can use it to target specific features and that ordinary users could communicate their needs in this mannor.
I was kidding around when I made my previous comment regarding this issue.
Let’s get back to the article though for a second. OSnews has to shape up and have higher standards of professionalism in their reporting. Eugenia, you need to focus on raising the quality of the presentation of your argument in articles like this one. Narrow your focus and support your thesis with multiple clear examples. Rely on pathos, ethos and logos forms of rhetoric to appeal to the audience. Be objective, do not make inflamitory statements.
I suggest very urgently that you read this !!!
http://jimmac.musichall.cz/weblog.php/Design/Speccing
I found this much more constructive than you so called “editorial”. It was offensive, badly written (f.e >> I personally find it “deteriorating” for any user to use Open Source software made from such ‘lone’ developers and not by a company which specifically asks for feature requests or does market research.<< What does this mean, hello ???) and more like the rant of a little child that does not get her way … very much like my three year old daughter at time, who has to learn that she doesn’t get what she wants every time she demands something.
>> To me, software is a tool, nothing more. I am as practical as it goes when it comes to computers. I don’t idolize them and I don’t have a political ideology about software or hardware (and in fact, I personally take pity to anyone who does — there’s more important things in this world than to be political over bits and bytes). <<
Well … seeing that computers and information are such an integral part of everyday life and of the very fabric of our society, political and ethical consideration when it comes to the use of them should be part of the equation. Comments like this make me wonder …
Hello all you wonderful entitled people. Please read comment #13 from “d” until you understand it.
the end.
Eugenia, continued…
I, personally, am not a fan of the ‘tipping-point’ metaphor. But in this case I think it can, perhaps must, be argued that beyond a certain threshold of usage that developers become entagled in certain obligations which they did not wish upon themselves. That ‘point’ has already occured with GNOME.
This sense of ‘obligation’ has nothing to do with the oligations which companies hold to their customers. If we fail to distinguish these different senses of ‘obligation’ we will invariably engage in the rhetorical double standard I was talking about.
At this point there is probably a 70-30 split in terms of hobbiest-enthusiasts and the corporate users of GNOME software. I cannot state that I know this to be a fact-but I assume that it’s not too far off.
Corporate users don’t know what a GNOME is. The desktop is a window and everything they see is mysteriously all the same. Their problems are not specific to GNOME for they have no clue as to where the lines are between the OS, the desktop and applications are. They cannot constructively critique GNOME for they can’t even identify it. Their feedback is crucial but difficult to apply-‘why does the internet not open that file?’ Repeated attempts to explain the differences is mostly futile- these people use GNOME for many hours per day and are depenedant in so many way on things which they cannot help but take for granted. The way they work will be dictated by the software they use in ways they simply cannot grasp- and even if they did grasp these things, such things should not be the focus of their attention- a good tool completely vanishes in the context of the work one is doing-a ‘bug’ is actually the point at which one is forced to focus on how the software works which invariably means a loss in productivity.
Three years ago the percentage of non-computer types using GNOME was utterly negligable-but at this point at least 500,000 people use GNOME daily in Spain alone. There is no mechanism in place for these people to provide meaningful feedback. Where Bugzilla is a nightmare for power-users it is completely beyond the comprehension of the corporate users. Personally I hate bugzilla-but I can and have used it before-but corporate users will never even hear or see the name except when bug-buddy pops up on their screen.
The only people, aside from the developers themselves, who can constructively critique GNOME are the hobbiest/ enthusiasts. And they encompasses much more than it did three or four years ago. The willingness and ability to use bugzilla is no longer even a measure of hobbiest-enthusiasts as it perhaps once was.
This sense of obligation has nothing to do with ‘you must do this or else’ -which was so apparent in your rheotrical double standard Eugenia. We in the FLOSS community have never been in the either-or situation where we had readily available propietary solutions to problems which we have with FLOSS software- the fact is that there is extremely little propietary software available for FLOSS platforms-and actually there is less available today than there was 5 years ago.
And even in situation where there is a propietary app. available there is no redressing the app. interaction problems which appropriately belong in the context of the desktop environment or even further down into questions of system constraints. As I read your article yesterday the phrase ‘bait and switch’ kept going through my mind- I doubt that is the right phrase to capture it-but I couldn’t stop thinking about that phrase.
The correlate to this kind of obligation is the desire to be seen as a ‘hero’ in the eyes of the community. If all the dev’s were ego-less we would have no way of convincing them to make changes-as normal human beings they are suscpetible to group pressure-and as normal human beings they are resentful when confronted with what they percieve as ‘too much’ or inappropriate pressure.
All of what happened in this context has been outrageously public and there is a fine line between publicly espousing desires for change and ‘outing’ people in the context of public ‘face’ interactions(saving face etc.). In much the same way as many of the dev’s are condescending to users certain users will be condescending in dealing with dev’s. Everything cut’s both ways-there is no escaping it. And no the dev’s don’t have the absolute final word- *that* they are developing for GNOME has less to do with the qualities of GNOME’s development than the fact that GNOME is widely used and popular(sexy). But one cannot constantly simply invoke this card, the proverbial trump, and expect willingness and constructive progress.
Linus Torvalds recently talked about the ‘sucker kernel’. The brilliance in his insight was so comical that it was almost painful-one must almost blush. I really, really wish that the GNOME dev’s could take the next step and recognize what Linus was talking about.
Dev’s who insist that they are not under any obligations at all have their heads stuck in the sand. But users who claim a unilateral priviledge to the obligations of the developers are equally blind and arrogant. One of things which makes owning this sense of obligation so difficult is how powerless many of dev’s feel- they cannot account for that which they do not write but are accountable for things beyond their control. I think any dev who is honest would have to admit how often they run up against really stupid things that they cannot effectively control. Even propietary dev’s encounter this and the situation is magnified in FLOSS where there is a constant re-delegation of responsiblity, ie. an even more pronounced lack of control.
One does not have to be a control freak to get defeated by such situations- and the real claim of usability is the disappearance as such of the application in the context of it’s usage- a practically insurmountable claim-each and everytime a dev runs up against something they cannot change that goal recedes into the horizon of unattainability.
I suspect that the reason that so many bugs in bugzilla are not resolved or marked ‘won’t fix’ is due to the growing misuse of bugzilla. Bugzilla is being used more and more inappropriately-due to a lack of other mechanisms. Simply stating that one must use bugzilla in order to further ideas or changes leads to an inevitable misuse of bugzilla which further degrades it’s value.
95% of the problems I have had with various software are simply not ammendable to bugzilla-because most of the problems I have, and I assume most are not unlike me, are not so specifically tied to one application or another but tied to the interaction of those applications within a desktop context. Filling in bugzilla bug means filing a bug in the half-dozen different bugzillas(gnome bugzilla, openoffice-ximian-bugzilla, mozilla-bugzilla) assuming that such exists whereas no such things exists for much of the software we use (mplayer, acroread, flash etc.) The likelihood that any given bug will attract the attention of those people whose input is necessary is akin to the likelihood of being struck by lightening-it does happen but excruciatingly rarely.
I undertsand that dev’s want *a* place to which they need to go to get information about what’s not working correctly. I also undertsand that the nightmare of bugzilla is acutally designed to faciliate re-producability of the bugs and is pivotal in providing the contextual information needed to resolve many of the issues. I also appreciate the ironic bug *as* feature humour abundant in the mailing lists and planet.gnome.org. But alternatives must be found for this issue if one does not wish to see further misuse and degradation of bugzilla- bugzilla is a tool which has certain uses for which it is the best thing available-it isnot a panacea to all problems which exist and all desires for change.
I do not know the answer as to how to best facilitate user feedback into the GNOME project.
it is however clear that:
1) the existing bugzilla facitilies are ill-suited to address these issues long term.
2) neither polling nor bounties are a panacea to this issue-both have their places and may be valuable in certain contexts
3) bombarding the d-d-l mailing lists with user requests will only result in dev’s moving elsewhere
4) there is nomailin list in existence which is the proper place for such
5) planet.gnome.org and the mailing list help the dev’s to reach out to the public in the course of communicating with themselves-but that does not a community make.
6) bugzilla does have a feature for feature requests-but if only 10 people know of it’s existence what good does it do?
7) even assuming a working solution for GNOME proper how do address the application interaction problems which span multiple projects and of course propietary software.
8) how many of these problems are due to the fact that software development may function well in an internet context but dealing with massive amounts of feedback and coordinating communication is more dependent upon physical presence and involvement of non-programmers in the core development.
9) the intangible obligation I spoke of is not going to decrease-it will only grow larger-and along with it the sense of frustration on the side of developers. Finding ways of dealing with this issue is critical to the success of the whole- the motivational needs of the developers are absolutely critical.
10) tying user feedback into the loop of motivational needs of the developers seems to be the best bet- but how should this work ?
I am not a fan of polls. Polls are more responsible for more BS we have to deal with in politics everyday-“there are lies and damned lies, statistics are damned lies”(Smauel Clemens, aka. Mark Twain) but there situations where such can be done appropriately- but it is a kind of social pressure trump card- how one applies such, how often, is crucial in not underming any potentital positive effects.
I am not a fan of bounties. Bounties can quickly pervert the entire atmostphere of FLOSS if we are not careful. Sometimes they make sense, and in some cases they are ideal. But bounties are not a panacea for user feedback- if FLOSS is utterly dependent upon Bounties FLOSS will fail.
Mailing lists are also of dubious utility. We cannot afford to ruin the publicly available mailing lists which have given us the gift of so much more transparency.
What to me is obvious is that there must be a multi-pronged approach. And each of the things mentioned here has a role-but only within a specific, as yet, undefined scope.
Now I just wish that some GNOME dev’s would contribute something usefull to these issues.
This editorial and the huge reponse show how difficult OSS developement is to pull off.
I say the developers which give me so much should first please themselves. If it takes me a few more years to get every bell and whistle I’ll wait.
Kudos to the developers of OSS.
The source is available. One can implement the feature by herself/himself or pay someone to do it for her/him.
DG
Totally wrong. A developer will scratch an itch and hope that others find the itch that he scratched useful, but a developer is obviously not going to implement a feature that a user wants if he does not that find that feature useful – especially when this stuff is being done for free.
Which is why there is so much software out there with no documentation, little documentation, the only documentation embedded in the config file, incomplete documentation or documentation written in jargon that is opaque to the user! After all, the developer knows how and why the software works!
Why are we pretending that closed source apps/OSes never freeze up, crash, kick you out of apps, etc? It seems to be a constant in this forum to complain about OSS (which is free)and not to complain about the issues of closed source app (which are not only not free, but generally overpriced)despite the fact that they have many of the same issues as OSS. And I’m not talking posted comments here, I’m talking a string of articles one after another, at least once a week…”Linux isn’t ready for the desktop”, “The flawed nature of OSS”, etc. Meanwhile where are the articles criticizing and seriously evalutating closed source apps/methods. There are none. Instead of seriously evaluating the Windows security model, we get articles like “How to secure your windows desktop”. Note the lack of a negative connotation here.
You say you want to see Open Source succeed, Eugenia? Bullshit. Maybe for a start you could try being non-biased for a change.
Look here http://gnomedesktop.org/node/2180
Drazen Gemic wrote: The source is available. One can implement the feature by herself/himself or pay someone to do it for her/him.
Both ways don’t work: An additional feature might be worth a few dollars for a single user or enthusiast. Implementing it takes usually years to learn programming. Paying someone usually needs several hundred dollars.
OSS either needs a way for users to find a volonteer developer more easily (or the other way round) or a platform for users to aggregate their requests and their money.
through money is the only way to plain users to force a change on OSS?
someone knows about a user-funded OSS project? i know ther some exaples (Kon Colivas, Larry Wall…) but they’re hobbyst programmers and their projects are not so related to their jobs…
i think there are many developers that are willing to make a project but they don’t know what to do (they may want to make a cientific program but they don’t know the formulas and methods…) and they end make Yet Another Clone of Existing Program.
excuse my english.