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.
One advantage of Free Software is clearly that if you need something implemented, you could hire and pay someone (usually the main devs of the app) to get what you want implemented.
When you then have the software you need, you have someone responsible to turn to if it doesn’t work, and you could buy more features, either you alone or together with someone else. You also OWN the program yourself, you’re not renting it, as it sort of works with proprietary software. If you want to fix it more you can fix it more.
This is some of the niceness of Free/Libre software as I see it. If no one pays you I guess you have no responsability to anyone, except if you want to be popular and get your software noticed.
foljs,
I never read the “Cathedral and the Bazaar” thanks for the suggestion. I have heard of ESR, but who the hell are you to discredit him? How many books have you written and how many open source projects have you maintained?
Get a life!
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.
The irony of stating that everyone should be free to “scratch their own itch,” while complaining about the lack of developer docs is quite interesting. Documentation is almost always about scratching someone else’s itch rather than your own.
If you put your software up as an “alternative” to commercial software, then people are going to look at your software, compare the features, do a cost-benefit analysis and make a decision. Users have no obligation to adopt, support, or advertise software that does not meet their needs.
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!
Yes, that’s exactly why, and that’s the way they like it.
You have a problem? Go write the documentation yourself.
It was a favor that they even let you even DOWNLOAD the code
and use it for free PLUS they gave you the freedom to change it,
and now you are asking for documentation (or other features) too?
It’s not something you deserve.
It’s not something that obliges us open source developers.
It’s just that we do what we like to do, and then we let our
code out there for others to use. UNDER NO f****n OBLIGATIONS.
Provided *AS f****n IS*.
You don’t like it? It’s YOUR problem.
I don’t care. Don’t use it. Don’t promote it. Do whatever you please.
Go hang yourself.
There is no PLATFORM. If I say on my website that my project
is “Great for end users” that is just my opinion. I have no obligation
by neither moral nor law to listen to any of said end users, or
implement anything for them.
If I accept donations, I accept them for what is PROVIDED (remember:
AS IS). A Donation is very different from work comission, so don’t
f*****n confuse the two.
Why the h*ll don’t you fix your sorry excuse for a website then? I mean PEOPLE want it to work.. Like if you report a abuse you are sent back to page 1, not to the page where you were…. All the time someone ask you to fix something you either moderate them down or tell them to shut up… And you have the stomach to tell ppl how they should work? Omg, pathetic, so pathetic. Grow up….
At the Free GNOME restaurant:
Eugenia: Hey Chef GNOME! I like your food and I appreciate you letting me eat here for free. I think my free lunch would be better if the salad had truffle shavings on top.
Chef GNOME: I don’t care for truffles on my salad and besides they are too expensive.
Eugenia: They grow for free under trees in the forest 20 miles away.
Chef GNOME: Why don’t you go get them yourself and add them to the salad.
Eugenia: No – I don’t know how to drive.
Chef GNOME: Draw me a detailed map of how to get there, and perhaps if I am interested I will drive there and get the truffles.
Eugenia: No – it’s too difficult to draw a detailed map. If you won’t go there on my description of the forest then you are arrogant and don’t care about me.
Chef GNOME: ?????
The feeling I get from responses in this thread are that the OSS develops owe nothing to its users, and will develop as they see fit. Fair enough.
If this is true, STOP TRYING TO MIGRATE EVERYONE OVER TO FOSS SOFTWARE. It’s quite clear that most FOSS software simply isn’t ready for (and may never be?) your average user. So why keep promoting it? Why do people keep hoping that MS will ultimately fail and Linux be the major OS? Why do people keep saying “This is the year of the Linux Desktop”?
It’s not ready. FOSS is designed for geeks, by geeks. Some people need to stop pretending it’s a viable solution for all. It’s a viable ALTERNATIVE for SOME.
It was a favor that they even let you even DOWNLOAD the code and use it for free PLUS they gave you the freedom to change it, and now you are asking for documentation (or other features) too?
If you are going to do a half-assed job, you should do yourself a favor instead and keep it to yourself.
There is no PLATFORM. If I say on my website that my project is “Great for end users” that is just my opinion. I have no obligation by neither moral nor law to listen to any of said end users, or implement anything for them.
And nobody is under any obligation either to sing your hosanas and praises because you have a heart big enough to inflict your work on the rest of the world.
I agree with those who suggested bounties as the best possible way out of this empasse. If there’s a bunch of users that require a new feature, just get together, put 1$ each and offer a bounty. I’m quite confident that some developer will do it, because of the money and also because people who put their money where their mouth is are usually very appreciated.
Dude, we are talking about volunteer developers and what they do with their time, not “the Linux Desktop”. Stop hyperventilating.
If you are going to do a half-assed job, you should do yourself a favor instead and keep it to yourself.
Please think for a second. Consider what all the happy users would think about your suggestion. This is exactly the kind of attitude which kills developer motivation and productivity. Why don’t you do us a favor and keep it to yourself.
Documentation was a priority of both GNOME and KDE projects and FOSS has been trying to find a solution for a long time because documentation is very important to both users and serious developers.
At any rate, this conversation is over. Eugenia did a poor job of aruing her position and she needs to raise the quality of her articles in oder for them to be effective and of any use what so ever to anyone. Everything else is off of the table, it’s off topic. Write a clear article and support your thesis and be objective about it, or else STFU. That’s the moral of the story.
Dude, we are talking about volunteer developers and what they do with their time, not “the Linux Desktop”. Stop hyperventilating.
Oh, sorry. I forgot everytime I use caps to emphasize something, I start hyperventilating.
I understand that the developers do this work in their free time, and for that I commend them. HOWEVER… some people (I’m not even saying it’s the same people, because it usually isn’t) need to stop trying to push FOSS software so much. Recommend it for what it is, not for what it could be in the future, or what people wish it was.
Recommend it to those people who wish to try something else, and can understand what you get with FOSS software. Recommend it to those who may simply not have the money for commercial products.
I think a point Euginia is trying to make (along with others), is that some FOSS software is being pushed a lot lately, yet no one wants to take any responsibility for anything. All credit, no responsibility. I’m not saying they should have to, since afterall, they are doing it in their free time. But don’t try to sell a product unless it’s ready to take on the responsibility.
Please think for a second. Consider what all the happy users would think about your suggestion. This is exactly the kind of attitude which kills developer motivation and productivity. Why don’t you do us a favor and keep it to yourself.
Are you saying there are a lot of users happy with a half-assed job?
No, he is not saying that anyone is happy with a half assed job. Only an arse hole is happy under those circumstances. That’s what he is saying.
I don’t think that you can really try to define the boundaries that FOSS advocates are allowed to use when they voice their opinions. The market is far to complex of an entity to constrain in any way what so ever. Linux is the result of not just one thing, and nobody will ever know when and where it all really started. It simply is what it is, and that must be constantly redefined in order to make progress.
<quote>@CBrachyrhynchos. . . 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.</quote>
Don’t get lost in the analogy here. Who designates what’s “important”, hmmm? You? What do you mean to me? — and that ladies and gents is the point. If I were selling you stuff, sure, but since the relationship here is that of commensalism, I determine what’s important for me. Period.
<quote>@CBrachyrhynchos. . . 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.</quote>
Huh? Your point? And how does it counter mine again? When you volunteer yourself to something then you, of course, make a commitment. Now, think of the actual context in which I applied my original response. Who is the hobbyist developer commited to? You? Well, the developer that started all of this said otherwise didn’t he? So did many others.
Anyway, your point again?
I’ll agree with that.
But there needs to be an effort to promote Linux and FOSS software properly.
It’s important to keep in mind that the developers who you are complaining about don’t work for you. They don’t work for anyone with regard to GNOME. They are volunteers, involved because they are interested in some aspect of the development.
What they are doing is NOT a job. The difference between a job and a hobby is that in job, you’re willing to sacrifice your freedom to pick your projects for cash renumeration. Not so of a hobby.
I believe you got the response that is not only what you should have expected, but also the correct one. If someone cares enough, they have all the materials and can develop what they want on their own. If you want it bad enough, pay someone to do it for you. You certainly don’t have any reason to walk up to an artist painting a landscape, ask him to paint your living room, and then get angry when he says he’s not interested. That’s silly.
Sure, what you ask might be of benefit to GNOME and ultimately a benefit to Linux or Linux companies in general, but that’s not the concern of the people you chose to ask (and for those it might be, they will follow up with you). What I would have done is approached a vendor with very specific requests or rallied users to ask the vendors. The vendors WILL implement something nobody is interested in doing if they think it adds value that the can leverage.
At this point, I suspect the fact that the vendors are being asked for increasingly more KDE support is making them jaded about GNOME…
I must say, without a doubt, Chef GNOME Rocks!!!
And about Eric Raymond… the guy is a Libertarian trying to dismiss the liberal strengths of the gpl, by supporting more “business friendly, ie proprietary friendly” licenses like the mozilla public license and others under the guise of open source. They would basically like to drag the gpl towards the bsd since gpl is the most popular. I don’t agree with that philosophy, but it is just as politically motivated as any other, even though they try to hide that by not explicitly stating it, as the free software movement does.
@vcv
“It’s not ready. FOSS is designed for geeks, by geeks. Some people need to stop pretending it’s a viable solution for all. It’s a viable ALTERNATIVE for SOME.”
Right… freedom is only “a viable alternative for some”.
Why do I get the feeling that you’re one of those types that would give up your own freedom for the illusion of security?
And finally…. go go Chef Gnome!!!
But don’t try to sell a product unless it’s ready to take on the responsibility.
But GNOME isn’t the product that is sold. Red Hat, Novell Desktop, Java Desktop, etc are. They are ready to take on the responsibility, talk to them (of course you’ll have to be a paying customer). People are working on free software for countless different reasons (even inside a single large project like GNOME) and you can’t demand or even expect _anything_ from them. They are still doing a useful job, because the actual distributors can cherry pick the work that is well done, while leaving the “half assed jobs” alone. It is ridiculous to demand that developers should either become work slaves of the public or not do any work at all. Because then the vast majority would simply do nothing and nobody would benefit from this.
Are you saying there are a lot of users happy with a half-assed job?
If “half-assed” includes things like missing documentation, then yes, that’s what I’m saying. Almost every project out there has a couple of happy users and it’s ridiculous to argue, that anyone would benefit if it wouldn’t have been released in the first place.
Please think for a second. Consider what all the happy users would think about your suggestion. This is exactly the kind of attitude which kills developer motivation and productivity. Why don’t you do us a favor and keep it to yourself.
Let me put it another way.
There are a heck of a lot of really great FOSS developers out there. They put out quality work that is responsive to the needs of their users. They take the time to provide documentation. They’ve actually thought through the best design that meets the needs of a certain spectrum of users. This is the software that I push to get installed at my workplace, that I recommend and distribute to my friends, that I make acknowledgements for in my publications, that I promote at meeting and conference, that I provide support for whenever I can. I’m am extremely thankful for the FOSS software that makes my work possible, and I bend over backwards to acknowledge those people and projects.
Now, perhaps I should be all politic and lovey-dovey and give out silver stars and say “good effort.” On the other hand, as a designer, I’m feeling a bit reluctant to champion and defend mediocrity or incompetence. Instead, I’d rather champion and defend excellence.
<quote>If you are going to do a half-assed job, you should do yourself a favor instead and keep it to yourself. </quote>
Wait a sec, who was forced to use the software anyway? Did the developer force you to? Nah, he just laid it out there, free. So you grab the freebie, used it or consumed it, and now you have a say and that the developer should do as you wish?
Hmmm… everything alright up there? Screw fall off or something?
Your angry rant was everything I wanted to say, but didn’t. You would think that Novell’s interest in Gnome would make them change. They’ve been soo far behind the curve in usability, sooo slow. Now I understand why, it’s because they have no clue about how to achieve usability. Look how many usability studies they conducted: one, small. And what they really do is piggyback on Appple (long gone) GUI guidelines.
I mean, when will OSS developers realize there’s more to writing code than just hacking C? For instance, imagine that I have a feedback form. What do I do with it? Well, I could conduct a text analysis, and extract statistically relevant number of desired features. But they don’t even know what I am talking about. My guess is if one were to propose such stuff, they would reject it, because that’s not hacking. I am a FLOSS-only power user/developer (my projects, not community, academic), but I understand there’s a lot of stuff around developed by the industry that is way ahead of some FLOSS practices. FLOSS developers need to educate themselves more.
Gnome does not even have a system of syncing documentation with sources. I am sick to death of these OSS developers with *worst* software engineering practices.
The truth is, you need to set up a system that works. Linux kernel works, FreeBSD works, but take Debian: major flop in team engineering efforts, an eternal quagmire.
OTOH, I agree when somebody said userbase grew at fast speed, and we need more of them to be developers. But dream on…WHat we need is for OSS developers put their pride and prejudice aside and learn what are industry standards. People have been developing software for decades before Linux or Gnome, you know…serious software, stuff that runs airports, nuclear plants, etc…Think about that…
I have found that you need to build a bit of a relationship with OSS software developers before you can expect to be taken seriously.
If you use a piece of software a lot, understand it and submit bug reports,suggestions and help people out on the mailing lists, after a while people will value your input more.
If you just write a single post asking for stuff, then it will often be ignored, giving preference to the other 1000 people who also have needs, but participate in the community a little more.
Don’t get lost in the analogy here. Who designates what’s “important”, hmmm? You? What do you mean to me? — and that ladies and gents is the point. If I were selling you stuff, sure, but since the relationship here is that of commensalism, I determine what’s important for me. Period.
Well, it depends. If you are working on a project that is creating “an intuitive and attractive desktop for end-users,” an environment “that is easy for everyone to use” then what is “important” is defined by the needs of your target audience.
If you are writing software just for yourself, that is only going to be used by yourself. Then you are free to identify your own priorities. But you shouldn’t pretend that your software has any real political viability, or life outside of your own needs and desires.
Huh? Your point? And how does it counter mine again? When you volunteer yourself to something then you, of course, make a commitment. Now, think of the actual context in which I applied my original response. Who is the hobbyist developer commited to? You? Well, the developer that started all of this said otherwise didn’t he? So did many others.
The point is that you are free to design however you wish. If you design software that is by you and for you and only understandable by you. That is your wish.
On the other hand, the people who use your software also owe you nothing, neither gratitude nor respect if your software does not meet their needs.
I’ve been reading this thread with both interest and a bit of exasperation.
First, I have no problem with those arguing against Eugenia’s points if those arguments are thought through to some degree. I think those who respond simply to insult aren’t really saying much for themselves. As for the person who actually wished violence against Eugenia, that person needs some serious therapy to deal with their misogynistic tendencies. And, if you are going to make such vile comments, have the guts to sign your name.
Second, I wish people would stop comparing OSS projects with Apple and Microsoft. Just because those two companies don’t listen to their users (if that is, in fact, the case) doesn’t mean OSS developers (at least on larger projects) shouldn’t or can’t. For as long as I’ve been using Linux I’ve heard that it isn’t Microsoft or Apple. Yet in this important respect people seem to be saying it is. Personally, I see this as yet another area/opportunity where OSS can and should distinguish itself.
Before I am flamed, I am not saying that developers can or even should implement every user request for change. But I do think that larger projects (GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, etc.) should try to implement an easier way for users to provide feedback. If nothing else, that might give them some additional insight to the features that the majority of users would like to see or the problems they might be having. Then, rather than responding to individual users, a more generalized response could be made on the project’s website. This would at least let users know that they are being heard, even if nothing is or can be done at that point. STFU is simply not an acceptable response, not if you actually want other people to use your software.
I think a large number of OSS users want OSS to be taken seriously. The only way for that to happen is for more people to use it. One way to encourage that is to convince users that, unlike Microsoft and Apple, they will be and are being listened to. Just because the developers aren’t professionals (in the sense of being paid for their work) doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t act professionally (something I think most do, although epsiodes like this can serve to lump all developers together and give the whole OSS movement a black eye).
Personally, I have no vested interest in this particular discussion. I don’t use GNOME and don’t plan to in the near future. However, if you are going to have a Contact link on your home page (as GNOME does) and that page is full of various links for support, it seems to me you would have some obligation to actually listen to what is said.
These are only the thoughts of a user who does not program or have time for that (having an eight-year old autistic son does tend to eat up a bit of your spare time).
>>The point is that you are free to design however you wish. If you design software that is by you and for you and only understandable by you. That is your wish. <<
The point is that you are free to design however you wish – period. I am not obliged to design in any specific way if i give away my software for free. If you don’t want to use it fine … if you do fine. Even if i say and claim i want to create user friendly software and then in your eyes miss the mark and don’t live up to my claims. I am not obliged to listen to any requests if i don’t want to or if i can’t because of my own resources. I might have missed the mark and you are free to tell me so, it does give you however not the right in any way to demand anything from me. To even suggest that as a user i have any ‘right’ that the software should have feature x, y, or z, in the light that the softwar is free is utterly ridiculous.
>> On the other hand, the people who use your software also owe you nothing, neither gratitude nor respect if your software does not meet their needs. <<
If the software does not meet their needs … well why are they using it then. I have to weigh up why i use a certain software, what things are more valuable to me, i.e do i value my freedom, the fact that i do not have to pay for it, more than the fact that it might miss a certain feature. If i get sth. for free, i am also free to decide what i do with it, i.e either use it and then don’t bitch about it (yes, make requests, or point things out) but at the end of the day the developers are not obliged to anything … anyway it is not all that bad … developers do actually listen and want to listen. In my mind Euginia has dumped on the whole Foss crowd just because she got a bad response on an e-mail list that was not designed for discussions like the one she started – big deal grow up and get over it.
Right… freedom is only “a viable alternative for some”.
Why do I get the feeling that you’re one of those types that would give up your own freedom for the illusion of security?
Wow, you missed my point really bad. My point is that it’s NOT for everyone. It’s an ALTERNATIVE that is suited towards certain people. I did not say FREEDOM is a viable alternative for some, and I cannot fathom how you assumed that.
As far as the security thing, you could not be more wrong. I don’t want to turn this into a political thing, but I am a person who is against the PATRIOT Act, some of the things this administration is doing, and the war on Iraq. I’ve been called a hippy, commie, pinko, you name it. Please, never accuse me of willing to give up freedom for security.
> 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.
How do you go from “me” to “their users” (not one, all), “anyone”, etc. ? If it’s not fine for you, if you know features you asked will not be implemented, and it’s not acceptable for you, just use another software. There are still lots of users who enjoy Gnome and who consider the problem you’re talking about to be really minor.
In free software, upstream work mainly for themselves, and they’re right. What you request is more your distro’s responsibility.
Wait a sec, who was forced to use the software anyway? Did the developer force you to? Nah, he just laid it out there, free. So you grab the freebie, used it or consumed it, and now you have a say and that the developer should do as you wish?
Well. That depends on the developer’s goals.
If the goal is to produce software that says “look at me, I’m l33t!”, then it might be in the designer’s best interest to blow everybody off.
If the goal is to produce good software that is only used by a small group of people, then I think the developer can benefit from listening to respectful and constuctive feedback from users. (And I’ve actually had good luck getting my itches scratched by providing constructive feedback to projects.)
But if the goal is to produce a viable alternative to proprietary software that will compete in certain markets (Gnome, KDE, mozilla, firefox, linux) then I think developers should pay attention to feedback about features, bugs and usability problems that may hinder adoption.
Does this mean “do as I wish?” Not really. I’m only requesting that if I bother to take my time making a sincere and constructive suggestion on how to make a given piece of software better, that I see some indication that the suggestion was considered.
231 comments later, and we completely agree
this is all i have been saying. i agree with you that to make good software for the majority of the users, a good feedback system is pretty vital. i have never had a problem with that, and think it would be a fantastic idea.
but when it comes to the reality of the situation, we are talking about the work of developers in their free time. if they do not agree that it is a good idea, thats their perogative, and noone has the right to say otherwise.
not only that, but her wording of her idea is enough to get any developers back up.
“Anyways, I have an idea. What about if I write a php engine that lists the 50 or 100 more wanted feature requests as found in bugzilla (should take me 1-2 days to go through most of them), and then have people vote for them up to three options? This way we would have a poll that’s more detailed than current poll engines could handle, and it would draw its options from bugzilla so they are not just irrelevant random stuff. The poll would be open for 1-2 weeks, and then devs could take a look. I could host the poll on osnews (on a special page, like gnome.osnews.com or something) or on gnome.org if the webmaster could give me access or takes care of the mysql admin part for me.
So, would this work for you? Would the gnome devs take under consideration the poll and implement the most-wanted features, or would I waste my time?”
that is design-by-focus group, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. heres a good jef raskin quote (just guess who my favorite designer is? 😉 )
“But what if you say to me, “So what, I like it better my way even if it doesn’t work as well.” Then, if I give you preferences, I am abdicating my role as a responsible designer.
We don’t have GOTOs in modern programming languages (should I put one back in so that you can write spaghetti code if you prefer it?). We design systems to not have security holes (well, we try), and we put in other limitations to keep the system working as the expert designers think it should. Interface design is no different.”
(http://osopinion.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&…)
just because a user wants something doesnt mean its a good idea.
there is also this fantastic essay by paul graham about how that single fact is responsable for the low quality in north american products
“I think most Japanese executives would be horrified at the idea of making a bad car. Whereas American executives, in their hearts, still believe the most important thing about a car is the image it projects. Make a good car? What’s “good?” It’s so subjective. If you want to know how to design a car, ask a focus group.
Instead of relying on their own internal design compass (like Henry Ford did), American car companies try to make what marketing people think consumers want. But it isn’t working. American cars continue to lose market share. And the reason is that the customer doesn’t want what he thinks he wants.”
(http://www.paulgraham.com/usa.html)
there are very compelling arguments why the customer isnt alwas right. being bound by an osnews poll on what they need to do next wouldnt be anywhere near the right way to do things.
what would be FAR better would be a means to facilitate dialgue between users and designers. a poll wouldnt do that, a poll would just give users the impression that they are now in control of the gnome project, and would piss them off more after they realise this isnt the case. what we need is the gnome-usability guys explaining why they made certain descisions in laymans terms. (there will alwas be those who reject the scientific method if it doesnt fit their perceptions, but they will never be happy anyways.) we need the planning comitees saying why feature x is more important then y. this stuff is non-existant in big projects, if it were there is no way the keramik theme could have made it to be the kde default, or the huge misconceptions about why nautilus is now spatial. the basic attitude ive seen on gnome-usability is “we hold these truths to be self-evident. if you cant understand thats your problem, not ours”. considering how much power these guys have in the project, more discussion and education would go a LONG way to preventing tirades by pissed off users or developers (like this editorial).
my final point is that regardless of anything else, how in the world did this article help anything or anyone, other then give eugenia a chance to let off some steam? if this is what the “generic” gnome user does when they dont agree with her about something, then maybe it would be best to continue catering to the needs of themselves, contributers, and the corporations that fund them.
Eugenia, when will you stop calling “Free Software” Open Source ? Especially for projects like Gnome (where the G stands for GNU).
As for your “problem”, I strongly disagree with you. If I was a develeper coding in my spare time, for sure I would code what *I* want. Free software is also about fun and love of programming, without having to care about market shares etc..
If you don’t like the way the Gnome project is driven, do not use it ! There are plenty others desktop environements that may suit your needs better.
As for the bugzilla, are you aware that the Gnome desktop includes an excellent bug reporting tool called Bug Buddy ?
Hey —
Here’s to all GNOME enthusiasts who think the project is handling matters just fine, and especially to those who like to say to others to stop complaining and file patches through Bugzilla:
19% (!!!) of patches *don’t even get reviewed!*
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/patch-diligence-report.cgi
Is that serious or what ?!?!
Because GNU/Linux is a free (as in freedom) system, that gives people freedom, and the responsibilities of freedom. You are arguing that non free (as in freedom) systems have their place, because this free system hasn’t found a way to keep people from being responsible for the freedom they are receiving.
Eugenia doesn’t want to be resposible for proactively trying to change this herself, she wants others to be responsible for it while she dictates from the sidelines, but that isn’t freedom, it is slavery. With freeedom, you take a proactive role for yourself.
Linux is ready for those who are ready not just to accept their freedom, but also be resposible for it.
And no offense about the politics, just that if you think that people can’t be responsible for and to their freedom, then that is very similar to the position of a nefarious administration we all know very well. Maybe that’s not how you feel, but I think that was how it was expressed.
Even if i say and claim i want to create user friendly software and then in your eyes miss the mark and don’t live up to my claims. I am not obliged to listen to any requests if i don’t want to or if i can’t because of my own resources. I might have missed the mark and you are free to tell me so, it does give you however not the right in any way to demand anything from me. To even suggest that as a user i have any ‘right’ that the software should have feature x, y, or z, in the light that the softwar is free is utterly ridiculous.
Well, you have missed the mark, in a big way.
There is talking the talk and walking the walk. If you want to talk the talk of user friendly software, you should walk the walk of a design process that makes friends with users and listens to what they have to say.
Note that key word, listen. We can’t do everything users want. In my own designs I don’t do everything that every user wants. Faced with competing needs and limited resources, everybody has to prioritize. And I certianly agree with tossing feedback that is antagonistic and not constructive into the rubbish bin. There is nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t have the resources” or “That would be incompatible with the goals of the project” or “That is a low priority right now” or “We can’t do that for political or administrative reasons.”
It just occurs to me that what I’m talking about here is basic customer service. Good customer service is not about giving the user what they want, but about negotiating the interaction in such a way that when you don’t give the user what they want, they at least feel like they were not talking to a brick wall.
In some cases, we are stuck using less than satisfactory software because there are no alternatives, because its the best of a bad bunch, or due to administrative problems. The fact that something is free does not mean that we should not help it get better.
I agree with everything you say. I guess what gets me, particular in this editorial, is the audacity in the way things are demanded by the developers, as if they owe anything to me, well when it comes down to it they don’t, i do not have any ‘right’ that sth. i want gets implemented nor does a user base who use the system but do not contribute themselves.
And as you said the keyword is to ‘listent’. i was trying to say that actually i think developers on the whole within the gnome project are trying their best to do that (if you look over at the gnomedesktop site they are thinking of ways to make the whole process smoother, also read the mail of Seth Nickel in the moderated section, which kind of talks about the problem a bit). I mean what did Euginia trying to achieve with this editorial … sorry but all she will do is piss off some developers, loose credibility herself (well she has certainly for me). Pointing out some shortcomings is one thing … being dismissive of the work of others in a very arrogant manner is another.
>>audacity in the way things are demanded by the developers,<<
meant to say … “audacity in the way things are demanded from the developers, …” – Sorry
Well hrm. My brief dip into reading about Japanese management and design would suggest that Graham is really exaggerating the differences between Japanese and American design methodologies. The contrast between the enlightend craftsmen in a monistary vs. the American focus group is a bit too pat.
If what you say about gnome-usability is true, then I think there is a problem not just in that they don’t communicate their decisions well, but that I don’t think the state of HCI research supports a single cookie-cutter set of guidelines for all users, all contexts and all domains. The only true test of usability is empirical.
There is talking the talk and walking the walk. If you want to talk the talk of user friendly software, you should walk the walk of a design process that makes friends with users and listens to what they have to say.
Ideally, you probably should “walk the walk”, as not to be inconsistent.
But there is NOTHING, no binding contract, no paycheck, nothing
that FORCES an open source programmer to “walk the walk”.
He is inconsistent with his talks of “usabillity”? So be it. He doesn’t care.
Even more, the claims are made by OTHER people than the developers,
like marketing drones for RedHat and SuSE, naive OSS supporters, non-
developer contributors to projects etc.
So, not only nothing forces the developer to “walk the walk”, but
more often than not, they are not even those who “talked the talk”.
Keep in mind that exaclty this holds true also for commercial software.
You give money to a company to acquire a SPECIFIC piece of software,
AS IS. This gives you no right to be heard by their developers or anything,
especially feature requests. As a matter of facts, under most EULAs, you
cannot even compain about bugs and deficiences in the implementation
you already bought, since you agreed that you bought it “AS IS”.
Sure, some companies can listen to the requests their customers make, but
that is *not* because they have to, only because they believe they sell more
if they do. However, they could also not care, in some cases. For example,
they could not be motivated by money (even through they are a commercial
company) and prefer to deliver their product ideas uncompromised in any way, and if that means less sales, so be it.
Hence:
The only way to have a BINDING say on what is to be produced is to
contract the work yourself. Then the developers have a binding contract
to do the features that you made them sign to do.
“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)”
Well Apple is a company with lots of people to sort out the mess that unregistered people who can’t think a bit have submitted.
“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”
Do it then. Noone is trying to stop you. Most of gnomedevs write Gnome in their free time, for fun or because they need it. They are nice enough to share it with the rest of the world but that doesn’t mean they have an obligation to write features that they don’t care about.
By the way some people don’t care if everyone uses open source programs or not. I know i don’t and i couldn’t care less if someone thinks that some open source program/os is difficult to use or lacks features etc. If you don’t care to read some documentation or help a bit even with bugzilla the project use Windows or get a Mac.
“A feature will be implemented if and only if there is a developer who wants to implement it” (e.g. if the developer actually has such a need himself).
I would love to see anyone force volunteer developers to do anything. To even mention that seems arrogant. You are not more important than these developers. You are not more important than their time. If you were sponsoring them, then you would have something to complain about.
But you aren’t.
I’m involved in a collection of projects, some large, some small, and this article is a bit of a slap- not a good, “get off your ass” slap, a demoralizing slap by a user who expects people (specifically volunteers) to automatically do what the user demands/requests.
You state they respond to segfaults, yet are non-responsive to feature requests. Ever considered the possibility they’re more interested in making the *existing* code work, rather then duct taping more features on?
You touch upon novell/rh, thing I don’t get is why you aren’t complaining to them (assuming you’re a customer).
The devs are giving this stuff away, and you’re slapping at them for not spending their time implementing what you specifically require. That’s just wrong.
If you think they’ve gone and marketted themselves into a position where they must respond to user requests, fine, state it as such. Avoid the generalizations.
Most foss devs *do* implement feature requests, when it’s sane to do so. I’ve seen way too many crazed feature requests that would require massive duct taping/kludging to pull, and only to satisfy a minor subset of the users… focusing on keeping the source stable, maintainable, and extensible, and trying to slot user requests in is how most projects operate (or should, imo).
TeeHee. Eugenia, you really know how to start a debate.
Anyhoo, my 0.02 cents (canadian) , I’m very satisfied with opensource tools. I find developers very responsive in how they answer questions etc.
That being said, alot of your suggestions and reccomendations have made gnome what is. I can’t believe you’d be dissatisfied. In fact, GNOME developers have done alot to please the stuff you’ve posted here. It’s done with alot of the complaints you’ve done on the website.
Yes there’s a sudden co-orporate interest in GNOME, but we both know that they’ll get bored soon!
what a waste of an editorial. Mixing in some good advice about computer design and trying to elevate that into some kind of mandate to enslave people (yes, forcing people to work for free is still slavery)….is beyond absurdity.
If you want a new feature, go write it Eugenia.
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!
That’s orthogonal to the discussion of developers scratching an itch.
I should also add that your comments and editorials on UI have done much for the desktop experience that everyone has today. I find it hard to believe that this is the same person speaking. What more could you want?
MrBurns “excellleeeent point”
While paying attention to user feedback is obviously a good thing, I think this article ignores the fact that extracting useful information from user feedback is quite difficult. The signal-to-noise ratio of a Gnome feedback page would require multiple people whose sole job is to sift through the junk to find the occasional gem or it would become completely useless. Carefully read some of the posts to Slashdot and this site before assuming that a feedback page will be useful. While Havoc and Jimmac’s suggestion reduces the amount of feedback, it at least does a decent job making sure that suggestions are well though out and thoroughly described. I’m not saying that a new method for getting user feedback isn’t a good thing. I’m just saying that it is a lot harder than creating a feedback page.
“Designers are not users. Users are not designers.”
This is a paraphrasing of a quote I heard a long time ago that rings true every time I read a debate KDE and/or Gnome. Designers should not be working in a vacuum. User testing and feedback are key parts in a good design. Users are great at telling you whether or not something works. However, users are terrible at telling you how something should work.
Corporate developers (Redhat and Novell) will develop what they feel will sell software/support. Expecting RedHat developers to put effort behind home desktop projects is silly. Luckily there is a lot of overlap between a good corporate desktop and a good home desktop.
Unpaid OSS developers will develop according to their motivations. Some will code up features that they need because they are motivated as a user. Some will write the stuff that they consider “fun” because they enjoy it. Some will be motivated by the greater good, but there is nothing wrong with either of the above motivations either.
<quote>
The irony of stating that everyone should be free to “scratch their own itch,” while complaining about the lack of developer docs is quite interesting. Documentation is almost always about scratching someone else’s itch rather than your own.
</quote>
Here’s the thing:
Firefox and the Mozilla project have been having some terrible issues with developers…and making this public and being an OSS project, is asking for help. In my eyes, the FireFox team needs developers.
Here’s the hardpart. There is little to no documentation on how this works. There is scattered documentation on XUL, but not on xulrunner, no information on creating extensions, plugins, etc. If there is, I didn’t find it easily.
If you want help, don’t force your developers to search for the answers, publish them on your developer site. This is just as bad as Eugenia saying “you are a developer, i am your customer…do what i say” instead they are saying “i am a developer, you want to develop with me…find your own damned docs, specs and what not.”
It’s just as bad.
I would love to help the firefox project. I just don’t have the desire to track down all the information on numerous sites in order to just learn how this project is designed. Xulrunner is a fascinating project, but there is NO documentation on it. Just a couple screenshots and how to build it.
How useful is that?
You must live in some other world than me. I see stuff like this all the time:
http://strugglers.net/rants/Open%20Source:%20License%20…
We don’t have GOTOs in modern programming languages (should I put one back in so that you can write spaghetti code if you prefer it?).
We do have gotos in modern languages and don’t fall into an idiotic groupthink trap that gotos don’t have their uses.
Knuth talked about the proper way to use gotos and its used effectively in the linux kernel as well as a lot of other software.
Hobbiest developers usually write what interests them, your right. however if you want a specific feature there is nothing stopping you from emplementing it, if you can’t, pay someone to, there are a LOT of programmers out there in the news groups who will implement for you for a small fee. Remember it is free you don’t pay for it, contribute and then your needs will be resolved
But they are right, most wishes and tips from users on the boards get ignored, why are they rejecting to make their stuff more intuitive, is it that hard to code a GUI for X Configuration.
Why is it that hard to copy all the nice OSX features.
Most coders are to conservative, that way they never get the market.
There are a couple of things you need to be aware of, heh.
GNOME started out being written by hobbyists, for hobbyists, who wanted a windowing system built on x that was user friendly. To that end, the project was started and all the hobbyists that were interested in contributing, were given their chance to add what they thought should be in there.
Then (and now) they gave the result to the world. GNOME has and always will be developer driven, made by hobbyists, for hobbyists. The proper way to add a feature is to become a programmer and add it.
Usually, a developer has a great idea, works really hard on it when he can, or is willing to, commits it to cvs and ideally it gets added, in his spare time. No money is paid, and the developer asks for nothing more than for the feature to be included in the next release.
The notion that I or any other developer should care about the features that someone else wants, in software which I have added a feature to for free, is crazy.
Lets pretend for a moment, that we didn’t spend 10-200k in college, and take 10 years to develop our skills and have full time jobs and families that also require our time.
Lets say the magic computer science professor zapped all of this knowledge into our heads, we have a free place to live, and don’t do anything but write code when we feel like it.
Why should I care about what Joe Schmoe wants to add to GNOME if I don’t want or need the feature? Is Joe going to pay me? Is Joe my friend, best pal or otherwise someone I want to do a favor for? What’s in it for me? I have the copy of GNOME with my feature, I am satisfied. If I never got another version of GNOME, I’m tickled pink.
Does your mechanic add a turbo charger to your car, out of the kindness of his heart? I don’t think so.
While I understand your frustration with something like this in software you pay for, GNOME owes you nothing. If you paid for Redhat or Debian or any other linux, and you feel like they are doing you wrong by not adding features you want, take it up with them. One of their paid developers may just add it for you and contribute it to GNOME.
I think the users need to find developers who share their views on features to be added, and have the time to do it, or pay a developer to add it through a distribution. It won’t happen any other way.
The author of this article should know better. Can you add what I wrote to your article? Can ya please? It’s a feature that I would really like to see added to this web page. And I don’t want it in these comments, I want it in the body of the article. Can you please make that change?
How about a term paper, can you write one for me?
See how silly it is to expect a developer to expend creative energy on a feature he’s not even interested in?
-neil
Good point! “To hoist an engineer on their own pittard is a fine art.” I think that’s a mangled Shakespeare quote. Hamlet?
You must live in some other world than me. I see stuff like this all the time:
http://strugglers.net/rants/Open%20Source:%20License%20…..
Interesting read. I agree, that dude was an a**hole. This guy went to him for help and he gets abused and treated like that just for earnestly asking? That also isn’t the first time I have seen something like that. Even though it may seem like an isolated incident, it doesn’t look good.
Considering Euginia’s style is very self-important, then no one should be shocked by her article.
Criticism directed or in this case, thrown out in a self absorbing , me centric, only my interests matter type article is nothing more than an attempt to stir hot coals and create buzz for OSNews..
This stance certainly will not product any positive effect.
Are there any sane people who still are using GNOME? I thought all of them have moved to KDE long time ago…
Despite all the technical advantages of KDE – minus some disadvantages such as including having to bring in the kitchen sink just to use a KDE app, KDE has one major disadvantage that cannot be resolved – the QT liicense.
All the major players are Gnome shops now. KDE screwed up many moons ago when they chose the toolkit.
Why in the world do Gnome developers complain when Distro x does not include it?
> Why in the world do Gnome developers complain when Distro x does not include it?
GNOME developers don’t. Some GNOME users do. But that’s not a GNOME specific trait. KDE developers don’t generally complain if a distribution doesn’t include KDE, but some KDE users do.
> Are there any sane people who still are using GNOME?
> I thought all of them have moved to KDE long time ago…
Absolutely right!
We, the insane, absolutely love GNOME.;-)
Here’s a picture of the former GNOME release engineer:
http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/images/jdub-tv.png
You have to be at least this insane to be a part of the GNOME community.
Sanity’s overrated anyway….
From Slashdot (sql*kitten)
“The ideology that defines Free Software people in general is that you
make things easier for the developer, not the user. If the user doesn’t
like it, they should do their own development (that’s what the source is
for). If they don’t want to do that, they can pay someone to do it for
them (even RMS has no problems with that, so long as the source is
available). If they don’t want to code and they don’t want to pay,
they’re irrelevant and should shut up and be grateful for having any
software in the first place. Harsh, but that’s the way it works in
practice.”
GNOME started alienating all of its users when it adopted the one-size-fits-all mentality. This is hardly news. I loved using GNOME and was a huge advocate of it. Then I had to bite my tongue and realize that with the new direction, it had alienated me and I was forced to make The Switch.
Today GNOME is like looking at Mac OS X in a funhouse mirror.
In the cause of gnome, I’ve filed 2 (two) bug-reports or “feature requests” take it how you want.
number 1, “shift delete” in nautilus, should delete any file directly, like windows, not place it in the thrash. it got implemented in about 1 month.
2’nd. a lot of bookmarks on epiphany delayed opening new windows a whole lot. Implemented and fixed in about a week.
I’m totally put off how fast those humble requests got fixed. The key is to really file a bug report that is appealing to the developer, suggesting what may be the issue, and, most importanly, BE POLITE! programmers like this are people that is people like you and me, nobody wants to be shouted at. they want to know, as much as possible, about what may be the cause of the problem, so that they can fix it as fast as possible. I salute the great coders of gnome and other, they really care, if you really care to show them why it needs to be fixed/implemented.
Thanx for the great effort, all coders of gnome et al.! you rock!
If they are doing something only for themselves it will be better to keep it private, there will always be the responsability TO GIVE feedback if they publish they work to be used by the general audience.
So, if they don’t have the will or the time to listen to what others need they can only expect angry people to stop using they software, at the end it will be like keeping it private. So what’s the point to release it then when they won’t ever listen to their audiences?
No OSS software can be taken seriously as an alternative to commercial software if the project ignores its users.
If you want to put Linux on the desktop you’d better listen to Joe Average.
I recall dealing with you once, you demanded that I changed something for you by the very next day. I’m sorry, I don’t recall you ever getting close to my paypal site.
Deal with it or make the developer a real offer. I’m sorry we don’t work for YOU Eugenia, though you may think that we do.
It’s true that there are many people who want to use OSS and don’t care much else either way. These people don’t really get satisfied by the current ways the big projects are developed, to a certain extent. The problem is, they all evolved from a scratching of an itch. People who joined since then have learnt to treat the projects like that.
But OTOH, you can’t treat the current crop like they are projects that predominantly want to please users, because they just aren’t. Sure it’s a factor, but often the development is fuelled by different motivations.
Maybe OSS always will be.
IMHO the Author is:
a) completly free to implement whatever he thinks is important on _his_ time.
b) free to pay somebody to implement it for him if he is unable and/or unwilling to do it himself
c) is free to fork the project and manage it in a ?better? way
d) showing strange desires to tell other ppl. who devote _their_ time in programming a (IMHO) cool desktopenviroment what to do.
e) free to use another Desktopenviroment or OS
f) someone earning money by moaning around other ppls work, which is quite lame (IMO again)
btw. i like gnome the way it is so pls. keep up the good work!
The code has to be technically correct, as for usability – that is soooo teh l4m3! They have NO IDEA that in a professional product end user testing to make sure the end user is happy is just as important as any other step – the end user is what the software is for. Of course the argument goes “the developers are the end users, anyone else is just tagging along” – in that case how about we cut the crap of “this is the year of Linux on the desktop” as the only target of F/OSS is developers.
If a user submits change requests, that is their contribution – USABILITY TESTING IS CRITICAL! A point that gets lost on the zealots who seem to think that commercial software is evil but if you use F/OSS then you shouldnt complain unless you are willing to code something. If I want a feature, I submit a request and the developers ignore my request but it is offered i a commercial packge I will use the commercial package. I am not going to hire a full time developer as that would cost my department far more
Of course the zealots will never learn, in ten years we will still be hearing “this is the year of Linux on the desktop” and “Linux has reached the critical turning point” as they JUST DONT GET IT!
Sorry, that was last year.
1996 was the year for Linux on my desktop.
I agree that developers have to design their projects as they see fit, but Eugenia has a point: there’s not much point in developing software if you’re the only one who’s going to use it. For me, part of the fun of developing software is getting feedback, both good and bad. Feedback improves the product, both by pointing out bugs and also showing user assumptions that perhaps the developer hadn’t considered.
I got a lot of insight into this with a program I released recently: see http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/25773 for the feedback thread. One user provided lengthy, and continued feedback on each iteration/release of the program. He not only pointed out bugs, but also compared the design of the program unfavorably to his preferred application that did the same thing mine did.
I didn’t incorporate every one of his suggestions. I had my own reasons for designing my app the way I did (he wanted a multi-window, document-centric interface, while I put everything into a single paned window), and so I didn’t move the design in the direction he wanted. As a result, he probably won’t adopt my program. Fine. He has a FOSS tool he prefers, it’s a good tool, it works for him.
But though I didn’t change the *design* of my app to please him, I was grateful as hell for his bug reports and more specific interface gripes. I made a lot of small changes and improvements based on his input, stuff I never would have thought of on my own. If he hadn’t taken the time to do that, I’d still be playing with a buggy, difficult-to-use version 0.1. Now, at version 0.4.1, it’s a reasonably polished app that gets a consistent amount of downloads each time I release a point upgrade (>=250): that tells me that at least a few people find it useful. Without feedback, it would be less so.
I applaud Eugenia for having the guts to face down the FOSS zealots (and their creepy “FUD” rejection of any valid criticism of the Open Source model) on the issue of basic client service.
I don’t give a damn that open source is developed by volunteers — they offer it to the world as a replacement for commercial software and that has to entail some kind of agreement that they will offer what the world wants. If not, why should anyone care about what they do?
FOSS is truly the last gasp of Socialism in this world and, for good or ill, destined for the same fate.
Good points; I agree.
Sometimes users don’t know what’s good for them.
> Sometimes users don’t know what’s good for them.
Developers seem to not know this either.
Guess Eugenia should take a look at this page:
http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=1
How don’t care about visitors disliking your writing problems, definitely because you are doing it just for fun. I don’t see much difference between that and OSS problems you mention. And in both cases it’s something that can’t be changed overnight.
Sure everybody who volunteers their time is free to do whatever they please and not take orders – but now think of it from a point of joining the army – you volunteered to fight for the country (in this case FOSS) you better obey the rules or you’re court martialed. I’m in full agreement with Eugenia on this topic.
Soildiers get paid and receive housing. They become property of the government and have no freedom. They are dictated to by “higher ups”, including an elected freedom. And they sign up knowing all of this beforehand.
Free software has absolutely nothing to do with this, other than that you can go further through your personal actions to make it better based on the merit of your contributions.
Nobody signed theirself away to defend the interests of users.
I don’t think so. Made me laugh by the way, thanks.
Looking at the OS News thread and then seeing it’s genesis in the gnome developers thread, where X barged in and demanded to be heard, it’s hard not to believe that some have a little bit of Gnome envy.
X likes the community aspect of Gnome, but does not quite have the requisite skills to really be a part of the Gnome team. So, in lieu of that, and using a pulpit ( slashdot jr? ) ( which I enjoy a lot and is very informative in that it is visited by some very talented people who don’t mind imparting their views ), there proceeded a duking it out with some very “high up ” Gnome-ers, on Gnome’s own turf.
Now, they obviously are aware of X, but at the same time, they generally cannot afford to cater to “thread stalkers”!
I give the Gnome-rs credit for being fairly polite and actually answering most of the comments. Try that at MSFT or AAPL! Although the products may differ, MSFT and AAPL are corporate to the tee. THe Gnome team is very accessible by any fair standards and were quite considerate given what was going on.
In the end: to have products like GNOME for free, is something unheard of even 10-15 yrs ago, and you gotta appreciate it…heck, you cannot even get a pack of gum for free at WAL-MART, and GNOME costs the casual user not a red penny, if they dont want to pay.
I just today posted something on my site about the huge number of ways people can help with Gnome. They are actively encouraging people to solve bugs, and are even attempting to classify “easy” bugs to make it simpler for new developers to get involved. This editorial is nothing more than whining; nobody expects you to fix it yourself. You should also not expect busy people, many of whom are developing Gnome in their spare time, to put your personal pet peeve about the software on the top of their priority list just because you can go write an editorial about it.
You’re right! Developers should listen to it’s users.. but which developers? You think you’d pay US$ 30 / year for a desktop that’ll listen to you right? Go help launch a site or a company accepting US$ 30 from you and many others to HELP the actual developers do what users want. You say the current developers have control? Hey! this whole OSS is mostly a meritocracy and whoever has the best skills or the most time to de more for the project eventually gets to lead..
Nat is always requesting a general bounty site.. maybe it’s time to do it.. The point is clear: hobbyist want to have fun.. you’ll have to pay someone to implement things you want if they don’t care…
Many US$ 30 / year user could make a huge pot for a bounty site and quite possibly might help turn things the side you and possible many others want to…
The beauty of OSS is that you can easily change the code to make it work the way that you want. If you create a patch and a bug report on bugzilla then it’s very likely someone with more authority will take a look at it. If you just complain about it, then nothing will get done. You need to be very specific about what you would like and don’t be demanding or else people won’t listen to you.
What is bad is when developers actually don’t listen. Gaim used to be like that but I’ve heard that it got better. XFree86 got so disconnected from the user base and the majority of developers, that people forked it into X.org which has all but overthrown XFree86. With Muine, people have posted to the mailing list and bugzilla suggestions (with or without patches) and sometimes we apply them and sometimes we don’t. But we’ve always been good about it and discussed the issue even if we are left at a disagreement.
OSS is by hackers for hackers. Yeah, there are people who sideline and don’t hack but if you want to get stuff done then you will have to learn. If you have a patch, people are 10,000x more likely to notice. And if you don’t get it applied to the code base, you can at least apply it to your own system and use the changes you made.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
I’m so glad I haven’t seen a sexist comment about this (yet!). It’s hard to be a girl hacker. People aren’t usually openly sexist but I still get the comment in chatrooms/mailing lists of “Hey, wait. You’re a *girl*?”. It’s sad sometimes. There are so many good geek girls around but when women like this just look like they are nagging and not making relative comments, then it looks bad for all of us and doesn’t help the hacking community at all.
If some app is opensource, so the app’s developers should be listen to the users request.
I mean, what exactly gnome developer thinks? that the users are should be suffer?
Oh yeah, when a user reporting bug, gnome developer are very happy, they have free QA, but when the users request a feature they don’t listening to them?
So what’s the point?
*Do the users owe them anything?
If the community users, doing QA on gnome, finding bugs, and having hard time with that (using unstable app isn’t fun), so why should the developers return a favor? and implement some of the features they’ve requested?
Sound to me as a better symbiosis.
What choice do us users have? Use a totally over-commercial monopoly like Microsoft, who are totally unreachable and out of touch with users? Or use code that’s developed by some cool guys who are generous with their time and code, but don’t have the motivation to do the really hard stuff – i.e. that attention to detail and the users’ needs that hardly anyone does unless they’re paid to?
Each has its problems. Windows XP is easier to use and better than my KDE destkop (or Gnome, whenever I give that a try) but I don’t like the restrictions Microsoft places on users. This is IMHO of course and subject to another debate, but let’s just say I think the open source desktops could be better.
So it’s an imperfect world…
Still, maybe there is a way forward if users are unhappy with the open source offering, but not so unhappy as to go back to Microsoft.
How about having an Open Source Users Association? Each member pays a subscription, maybe something like $15-$100/year. All money (except maybe 5% admin if needed) goes to key open source projects based on merit and based on those projects agreeing to engage users more or implement this or that feature.
The users association members who pay most could vote more on what features to ask for.
Open source projects could obviously decline to accept the money and get involved, but chances are if the users association approaches this in a friendly and constructive way, then open source developers might finally be rewarded for doing all the grotty, hard jobs that are so essential to making a user-friendly application.
Because that’s how I see it – making software good for the user is harder for the developer. We need a way to reward developers for stopping the ‘cool’ features occassionally and doing the boring stuff.
its a first eugenia’s post i fully agree with!
actually, having monetary motivation for developers could do the trick, but to me it should be something more than that
I think you’ll find that small projects tend to be much more responsive to user needs then large projects. To some extent I think this is simply because its easier to be responsive when you’ve got 100 users then when you have 100,000 users.
Ultimately, of course the only stuff that’s going to get worked on is the stuff that developers decide to work on. That’s a tautology and not useful. Some developers would indeed be more likely to work on something if they saw that a lot of people wanted it, I think. Not all of course, but there’s no reason that everyone has to work that way.
I think it’s already been said in the comments but I can’t help but add my voice to the choir: Open Source does not work the way you want it to. FOSS “hobby developers” work mainly for their own satisfaction. If they cannot see a need for others’ suggestions there’s really not much you can do about it except not use the tool. If you don’t like Gnome, use KDE, XFCE or whatever. Or fix it yourself – you say you can’t do that and you can’t afford to pay someone to do it for you. Tough! Live with it!
I agree with you that there should be a dialogue and idea input to a project, but due to the nature of FOSS you cannot EXPECT anything. The point of FOSS is user involvement but users have to put something in, they must become more knowledgeable to add value.
If you want to fulfill your expectations, get ready to pay. If you don’t care about the free speech aspect of open source I don’t think you’re in the right place.
If you can’t spend $300 for getting a needed feature implemented, you certainly can’t spend more on getting a WinPC
full of software.
The point of OSS is that you _can_ add the feature yourself or ask someone to do it for you. If you can, good for you, if someone is kind enough to do it for you for free *be grateful*, otherwise pay someone.
Try getting your favorite feature into MS Visual Studio or any other closed source software package. Those companies will _truly_ ignore you. They might do market research to please to commonly asked features, but they certainly won’t satisfy you specific needs.
OSS is by enthousiasts *for* enthousiasts. It’s not a heap of programming slaves waiting to be commanded by demanding users.
The nice thing of OSS is that, if I write software to satisfy my needs, their might be other people who’ve got the same needs. And it will cost me little effort to just make it available. If they need different features, they can add them, and I can enjoy them as well.
Developers aren’t deaf – they just have to turn down your volume a little because there are so many clueless but loud opinions out there.
If you want your opinion to count you need to move beyond hot air and do something useful. If you can’t make the effort then don’t expect anyone else to take up your cause.
I like gnome because it resists lots of bells and whistles. Features come in when they fit. If you want a better chance of getting your tweaks and features in, look at KDE. I looked at KDE then chose Gnome.
-Cam
http://issaris.blogspot.com/2005/03/osnews-eugenia-on-gnome.html
well you seem to have some ideas about what a developer should be doing, so, as most of us see it, it is your responsibility to become that developer. You have an itch and the next step is to scratch it. That is how OSS works. Or if your pockets are deep, you can pay someone to scratch it for you. In the software libre world, you are free to modify the code, or not. You cannot expect a developer in this world to do it for you, you must do it yourself. So roll up your sleeves and fulfill your obligation for the free code you use. Or not. Your choice.
Hey Eugenia, you go girl. I am with you. GNOME is depended on by too many users and organizations for developers to openly admit ignorance of user requests. I just wanted to post an echo of an earlier comment. I followed the link and found it disconcerting.
You must live in some other world than me. I see stuff like this all the time:
http://strugglers.net/rants/Open%20Source:%20License%20…..
Make waves, make changes.
whoops! should’ve been: http://strugglers.net/rants/Open%20Source:%20License%20…
Instead of writing about and slamming the (we) hobbyists, try picking up a book on programming and adding to the source code! Open Source is Open Community. You want it to be better? The code is there in front of you, change it yourself or go back to Microsoft!
> I just today posted something on my site about the huge number of ways people can
> help with Gnome.
You can only help if the help is appreciated or wanted. If you as person are not wanted or your work is upsetting the maintainer then you are lost. You talk about help like it’s a natural thing inside OSS to simply sit on your computer’s keyboard and say ‘oh, what a nice day, let me help a bit’ and then once you sent your patch in you get a reply ‘sorry, i dont want this crap to show up inside my code’. So before you help someone you usually get in touch with these people first and ask whether your ideas are worth something for them. That’s exactly what Eugenia and many others did.
> It’s their project and they just release it to the general public under a free license.
Define ‘their’. Their as in the thousands of people who contribute to it ? So theirs as in it’s partially mine ? Who is ‘their’ ? Their as in ‘it must be a paid GNOME developer to be able to take decisions, the board, the release team, the foundation’ ?
I guess there are some hundreds of comments saying that you do not understand open source.
Ok, here is one more.
Just ask yourself this question. Who and why develops open source?
There are as many reasons as developers. I would say that the main three are: they are getting paid for it, they want the feature/bugfix, or they want to help the project succeed.
The point is, you need to convince developers to do what you want. There are many ways, including using any of the three reasons above. But if you cannot, though time. You do not check the teeth of a gift horse.
The sky is falling…
Media loves by crying wolf. “Is OSS dead?”, “Java: Is this the end?”, “What’s in your drinking water might be harming you!! Next at 11!” This isn’t any different.
There are many peices of software in the world that I don’t like. I dislike Quicken, QuickBooks, IE, GnomeToaster, GNUCash, that friggin wizard/cat/dog in MS Word! But I have choice. I choose to run Ubuntu. Hell last month I chose to run Gentoo. Three months ago I choose to run Fedora. Who knows – maybe next month I’ll chose Windows XP (err, probably not).
I think if I get tired of GNOME tomorrow I’ll run KDE. If KDE annoys me I’ll use XFCE for a while.
I choose the software I use on my computer. Sometimes I think software pleases me enough to pay money for it (MoneyDance) and sometimes it doesn’t (VMWare).
I hope you are as happy as I am with your choices.