Todd Walton wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:50 AM, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
o Fix it yourself
o Send your suggestions to the developers
o File bug reports
o Hire someone to fix it
o Inspire someone to fix it.
This *still* doesn't answer the question.
It wasn't a reply to the OP, it was a reply to your post, which was a
reply to someone else's sarcastic question asking /you/ why, if you
think all it takes is a few thousands of small fixes a day, you didn't
offer a day of /your/ time as proof.
OP asked, "How is it
possible that open source developers have been working on KDE for a
decade now and they still can't come up with something remotely
polished as Win2k was years ago?"
It's pretty easy to polish a static code base. Especially code that
didn't see the light of day for a decade. There's never been anything
static about KDE, or Gnome, or many OSS projects. Linux development is
for the most part constantly moving. The majority of its user base is
always looking for change, for more, for different. It's a beater OS,
not an assembly line suburban grocery-getter. You want reclining seats
and a defroster?, you're driving the wrong wheels.
The FOSS philosophy is
"If you want something, do it yourself. I don't code for you, I code for
me. My stuff is free for you to use if you like, but if you don't like,
then either ask me to fix it (which I may or may not do depending on my
time and/or interest in the "problem"), or fix it yourself and
contribute those fixes back to the community", or don't use it.
Often times, once an itch is scratched, interest in the solution waxes.
The original developer is on to the next itch. Most OSS projects are
intended to solve the developers' problem, which may or may not also be
one you're interested in having solved. One of my possible solutions was
to hire someone (maybe the developer!) to fix your problem, to wax your
hoopdi. Otherwise, since the developer doesn't work for you, you don't
get to control the code.
With ongoing projects, priorities change, new bugs pop up, the world
interjects itself, bills need to be paid, etc. If it's got a larger
developer community, what's important, what's interesting, what gets
done all depend on the hive mind's interests, time, and talents.
Remember that the primary user of any given FOSS project is the
developer himself.
You imply that if one just took some simple action towards that end,
it would happen.
You implied that if Someone-not-you just took a day,
yours-not-necessarily-someone-else's complaint would be taken care of.
I think open source software development is more
complex than that. Even if you'd just said, "Because no one has
stepped up to fix those things, or no one has filed a bug report,
etc", it would be more of an answer to the question than what you're
saying. (Though still simplistic.)
-todd
I did say that. It was implied in my list. Besides, it should be
understood. The nature of OSS development is, at its most basic, "It's
code I wrote for my own use, I don't have to care if you don't like it".
Mine was a list of possible ways to answer that.
Now as for W2K: What is so great about that? It's polished, sure. For
what it does. It's not all that powerful. It's certainly not very
flexible. It's nowhere near as featurful as any other desktop, FOSS or
otherwise. It's stagnant as hell, which is probably why it's so
polished. If fact, it's the paint that holds it together. NT in W95
makeup. It assumes I'm stoopid, and so treats me so. Once I've learned
the fundamentals, and am ready for a little more sophistication and
power, then...well, tough noogies. It's kindergarten forever. If I don't
like it, I don't even have an opportunity to change it. I can't modify
it's behavior. I can't change it's code. I can't hire someone to change
it. I can't switch it out for something else. MS isn't interested in
helping either. I'm supposed pay for any real fixes in the form of a
whole new vehicle. Which is merely a different color. With rearranged
controls. Which still treats me like I'm a moron. I can go broke buying
third party add-ons which bring their own problems.
Sounds a lot like that FOSS software you've been complaining about? At
least on the FOSS side, I have options.
Also keep in mind that W2K was not new when it was released. It had at
least a decade of development time behind it which was hidden from the
critical eye of the public. KDE is developed in the open. We've gotten
to see practically every mistake and misstep the devs made. Like any
project they have, and will again, go down wrong paths. We're
ride-alongs. Sometimes that's dangerous. Mostly it's exciting and fun.
With W2K (or any closed-source, proprietary project) we only get to
experience the end result. And good, bad, or indifferent, we're stuck
with it. It's done. Neither MS nor for the most part Apple are
interested in any end-user feedback that doesn't come in the form of
hard currency. They're already working on the next ride. Which you might
get to see in another decade. And they don't allow any prying,
second-guessing, back-seat-driving ride-alongs.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
