Well said. -todd
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
