On Sep 12, 4:42 am, Joe Croft <[email protected]> wrote: > Alas, yet another person who misunderstands open source and it's authors. > First, let me say, there is a lot of crap in the open source world, almost as > much as in the shareware world. Just check out sourceforge.net to see a > sample. For reference, I write my share of open source code. I just have > enough pride not to publish my crappier code. > > With that said, a vast majority of apps people have written is because THEY > have a need and THEY write their own solution. They know what;'s needed. Two > areas where they fall down, first is that most applications like a CAD program > is way more than a single individual can conquer. The second is that not every > programmer is the best User Interface expert.
Doesn't sound like any misunderstanding. My perspective is that most open source is written by developers for developers. There is nothing wrong with that. The resulting user interfaces are "developer- centric" meaning that the interaction paradigms are typical of how software developers operate, ie, command line interfaces, makefiles, config. files/scripts, compilers, etc. But for a user who is not a developer, or is just an occasional developer (like myself), to operate efficiently with such a paradigm involves too much of a learning curve. If an individual decides that $1000 for a commercial program with an "easy to use" UI is worth more than the lost opportunity cost to deal with said learning curve, then they will most likely decide to purchase a commercial program. This is all well and good, and how the world should operate. What I don't buy into is hype that open-source is somehow "better." What is better for me is what product allows me to produce the results I need now and over the long term, at a cost that is agreeable to me. The use of open-source software often has a cost, just paid through lost opportunity cost due to increased learning curve rather than cash up front. This is also Ok. Likewise, sometimes use of commercial software has additional costs beyond the purchase price, such as lock- in and the socially deleterious effects of subsidizing the operations of an anti-competitive monopoly. All of these factors should be considered by an educated software market participant. Ultimately, it should be no surprise to open-source developers why many users continue to shell out money for non-free software. After all as you stated, open-source developers have usually written their software to serve a need, usually that being a need of the developer, and to solve it in a manner that the developer chooses for their preference. Hence, since the software was not written to serve the needs of "users" it shouldn't be expected that users will generally perceive open-source as "better." Likewise, users who want software that serves their needs in the way they want the software to work, should not expect open-source developers to expend their time tailoring open-source software to the needs of users who think they are entitled to free software just because of some silly ideal that actually amounts to little more than "programs should be free, well, because I don't want to have to pay for them!" Which is nothing more than the perspective of a child. That is why I have no problem paying for good software, and actually want to see developers of software aimed at general users to be able to make a decent buck doing so. Tangentially, I also support the dissolution of the patent system... But copyright I am not so sure about. I think it is just a form of contract, which I support as a critical element of a liberty based society. End of my Sunday essay! ;-) [edit] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/neonixie-l?hl=en-GB.
