Slashdot Mirror
Abiword: Support Expectations
bockman
writes "Abiword developers have put up a
letter,
explaining what they expect from their user community and what the
community should (and should not) expect from a volunteer-based open
source software project like theirs. A much needed reality-check in
these times when a large number of non-developers have joined the
Linux users world." This is a must read for anyone who uses any
open source software.
If I were Microsoft, I'd link to this letter without comment. As a business user, I'd be sore pressed to consider anything but Commercial software after reading this.
Please oh please update the webpage and test rpm builds.
If a person were to want to get abiword and downloaded their redhat 7.1 rpm, they'd be instantly ranting on the mailing list as it does not work for any possible install of redhat 7.1.
In fact they need to remove all rpms except for the gtk version as that is the only rpm that actually works.
also, add a list of all libs that are needed in order to use the product.
I am glad they make abiword, but having rpm's or packages that dont work for anyone except the deveopler that made it causes most of the grief I see on the mailing list. 90% of all pissed users are users that cant get it to work because of the bad rpm's and packages.
hey, if you guys dont have time for keeping the website up-to date, I volunteer to do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Part of the reason many professional groups are unwilling to use open-source programs is because they just don't know what they're getting. If I, as a business owner am told that the product will be supported by a group of volunteers, I may be willing to go spend $100 for a product that will be supported. But, *ahem*, many pay software companies expire out their old versions so you're stuck with the product at some point anyway.
This is document was very well laid out, and might help to increase the popularity of open source stuff. Sure most of us just know how it all works, but unless Joe Public does, he won't see any reason to consider OSS. Probably the best line of this notice would be "We believe, however, that it's only because most newcomers do not realize what to expect - hopefully this text will set that right." Amen to that. Even if I had never used OSS before, I might be willing to give it a shot after all this has been laid out.
The text also does a very nice job dispelling the common myth held by regular software users that OSS requires you to be actively involved in the programming to use it. A very welcoming sense of "everybody can join, if you can, please help out in one of several ways."
If nothing else, this type of text should cut down on the number of bitch-outs directed towards OSS due to false expectations.
don't go flaming the programmers, FIX IT! the source is all there ready to be tweaked. You got what you paid for, and that's nothing.. The good part is with a MINOR amount of tweaking, fiddling, etc. (compared to writing something like AmiWord yourself) you can have a FANTASTIC word processor for FREE! Behold the wonders of open-source.
Then you can post your fixed version and get flamed too..
joy
Still, it's also easy to see why users have expectations. After all, they've been told by journalists that Linux is Ready For The Desktop. They've read spewing by zealots about how fantastically superior Linux applications are and how there's limitless free, quick support available from The Community. They've read the stuff on the Red Hat or Mandrake box and spent money for it. They've invested time in installing Linux and in creating work on it. I can understand why they're annoyed to be told, "It's free and it's my spare-time hobby so deal with it."
I accept that dealing with a desktop Linux installation is a hobby in its own right and that you have to spend time to make it work and deal with some things that justa aren't there. But it's easy to see why a lot of users don't realize that.
Then there are the free software whackos who think that they're owed the world on a silver platter. But that's a whole other issue...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
In my experience, there is a significant number of users that expect open source software developers to provide free product support. Product support is something from the commerical world. You paid for the software, so you are entitled to get help making it work for you. But open source software does not work that way. The users are expected to make an effort to read the documentation, to try to solve their own problems, and whenever possible, provide patches to fix bugs. You are not paying for the software with your money, so you, as a user, are not entitled to free support, or even software that works right. But when the software is good, and you make an effort to read documentation and solve your own problems, you will be rewarded with the knowledge and experience to solve your own problems again in the future.
I can't say I got that from the letter, but it is nice to see developers standing up from themselves. Especially in this day of "Free Software can compete with Pay software" it's great seeing someone telling it like it is. My favourite sentement:
The problem here is expecting too much all the time. Many of the more visible free software projects have made huge leaps in the past, and to many users that then makes them expect that sort of delivery to be the norm. If you deliver the best most of the time, it's expected all of the time. And as a developer, I'm flattered that users belive in a product and like it so much that the want to be able use it better. But as much as we love code, we also love just relaxing after work sometimes. The Abiword dev's want the software to get as good as it can be, but they also need to have time to work at their day jobs, cut the grass and walk the dog.
Perhaps in the future people will start paying for "free" software. That day, my friends, will be a glorious day.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
These guys make a great product, and put it out for free (beer and speech). They work hard for no money, and this letter is right on the money. If I don't pay for something, I'm not gonna expect tech support, or changes on my schedule. No one else should, either. It's like someone cooking up a meal for you, and serving it for free, and you picking it apart. This ain't Burger King, baby. If you want to have it your way, you need to help out and be patient. Hurray for Abisource making sure that people know where they stand
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
....you get what you pay for.
Guess what, the general public doesn't want excuses. Corporate IT folks dont want excuses.
They just want to get their work done.
The general public simply does not care that a small group of developers spends an amazing amount of time developing Abiword.
They just want it to work, and they want to call someone when it breaks. They want some hope that someone will fix it or can tell them how to fix it, or more likely, how to do the same thing in a slightly different way.
If Linux wants to be on alot of desktops then this type of memo isn't going to get it too far.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
For some reason they have concerns about reliability. They'd rather pay $30K per CPU for BEA WebLogic then download JBoss for nothing, even if they only plan on supporting 100 users. I don't claim to understand it myself, but in corporate circles open source software has this stigma attached to it.
I wish more Open Source projects would do this.
I mean it is great that Open Source projects exist, and they really help out a lot of people but it is important that those who are benefited reciprocate.
It is really a tragedy of the commons.
With successful Open Source projects like Linux, you have TONS of companies which base billions of dollars of business on these products.
Yet at the same time the Engineers have NO way of making money just by writing code.
The only way they can pay the bills is by joining a larger company like IBM that can act as a patron so that they can continue their work.
There are many examples of this:
- Linus works for Transmeta
- Alan Cox works for RedHat
... etc
What we really need to see happen is the users directly supporting the developers of these products.
Instead of downloading AbiWord for free. Why not donate $2-$5 through PayPal.
This would provide the ability for a few developers to work FULL TIME on AbiWord (or whatever) without having to worry about corporate bias.
They would be directly working for the client instead of for an intermediary (like IBM or Transmeta).
Freenet is doing this
I just wish it would catch on...
Which commercial products? It certainly surpasses Notepad. Is that a commercial product? When I checked several months ago it didn't measure up to WordPad, but that was several months ago.
... that may not be what they are TRYING to do. (Small, quick, efficient, portable, ...)
And in their list of intended goals it is made quite clear that they don't intend to produce the successor to Word.
Whether it meets your needs depends on what your needs are (and whether or not you can get it up). If you read their list of goals, then you have something valid to compare it against. It you compare it against your hopes
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's not that you get what you pay for. That's a lie told us by those selling the more expensive products. It isn't (necessarily) true in general, and more often not in free software.
It's that if you -do- get what you pay for, you can't complain.
AbiWord is much more useful than it's cost, but some people take that to mean they can just then start making demands. And people also don't know how to ask for the support that _is_ readily available.
And seriously, who the hell are these people calling when their software breaks? I've never even heard of someone having Word break and then picking up the phone to dial Microsoft. And if they did and started being beligerent to the person on the line, how much help do you think they'd get?
Reading this memo as an excuse of any kind is just wrong, because you don't need an "excuse" to not be able to hand the world to people who are irrationaly demanding it of you.
The enemies of Democracy are
I use Abiword the way I used to use Wordpad in Windows. The feature set is somewhere between Wordpad and Word and it loads up about as fast as Wordpad did. It works well enough for viewing most docs and knocking out quick little letters and so forth. I have Star and OpenOffice laying around if I have to work with something a little more complex but I don't bother with them that much. There is room for a solid lightweight wordprocessor like Abiword.
How is it "doomed"? Is the mighty fist of corporate America going to come smashing down on them and say, "hahah! you're so far behind us! you can no longer make your hobby word processor!" at which the developers will turn their tails and leave? So what if StarOffice is further along; big deal. Not as many people use the product. Big deal. They're not generating revenue. A large user base, outside of debugging and commentry, is NOT an integral part of the development process.
when salmon are outlawed, only outlaws will have salmon
Perhaps the Open Source community needs to impliment some sort of support system to better sort out issues.
When you call tech support for most commercial products, you get a dingbat on the other end who knows little more than a person who has already read the manual. If this person has no clue about what your problem is, they can escalate your issue to someone more educated in the matter. Has there ever been an email based support system set up to handle something like this? I.E.- an email sent to support@yourproject.org posts a message to a password protected board subscribed to by x number of support volunteers who provide basic support. These volunteers could escalate said issue to a higher authority, yet another board subscribed to by people who have fielded x number of previous questions, or whatever method you would use to define an advanced support person, or answer the issue on thier own. The advanced board could have subsets, say a group who can deal with RPM issues or something. For example, I don't know dick about solving RPM problems, but if someone was having dependency issues or whatever on a RedHat system, I could forward it to the RedHat users board.
It seems to me that almost any answer regarding most problems with large scale Open Source software can be found if you know where to look. Therein lies the problem. Most newbies / regular users have no clue where to look. Is this whole idea a pipe dream?
If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
Everything they say in the memo seems reasonable enough, but they could have focussed a bit more on how much support you can get from the user community if you ask nicely. In most cases, I've found that the "community" provides support comparable to, and sometimes superior to, the support that I get for commercial products.
When I first began installing and using open-source software, for the first time, I was shocked by the high quality of the support that I received from both developers and other users.
The first "real work" I ever did using Linux was replacing an old MS Exchange 5.0 server with QMail. (yes, I know about the debates about Qmail's license or lack thereof, but that's not the point here) Not really understanding what I was doing, I posted some (in retrospect) truly silly questions to some of the qmail mailing lists. I remember one particular email that abused me for being ignorant and asking a question in the wrong mailing list (I didn't realize it at the time, but it was more of a general Linux question than a qmail question), and then continued to very clearly and concisely explain my error and point me in the right direction. Compare that to a similar situation with a commercial vendor, where the response would likely have been something along the lines of "the problem you are describing is caused by some other piece of software and we cannot help you."
In truth, I don't find the support process to be that different for Microsoft and Linux. If I have a problem with a Microsoft product, I search the Microsoft knowledge base, do a google search (including Usenet), and maybe post a question to the appropriate newsgroup. If I have a problem with a Linux or open source program, I search the LDP, do a google search (including Usenet) and maybe post a question to the appropriate newsgroup. The process is almost identical, and the results are pretty darn similar. If I want more hands on support, I have to pay a vendor (MS, Redhat, VA, etc.)
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
I will start out by saying that I do not use Abi Word, nor do I plan on using it anytime soon. Being a developer myself, I actually agree with the Abi development team, but by hyping up the project, users get the wrong idea.
The first thing that caught my eye when I went to the site was the phrase "Word processing for everyone". With a catch-phrase like that, you had better be able to deliver on your promise. "Everyone" includes those rushed business execs who are too busy to become computer literate and need support *now*.
Maybe Abi should either drop the slogan, or deliver on it, before they give too many people the worng idea.
To each their own. At work, we run several key services on Linux boxes, due in part to the lack of security we've experienced in MS products in the past. However, our IT guys seem to have far more problems with keeping the Linux boxes up and running on a day to day basis. In terms of time spent supporting a product -- which is far more of the cost than the initial purchase -- Linux is lagging waaaaay behind Windows-based systems at our place. We use it for the security, not the cost.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Huh?
Ok, I'm the author/maintainer of wvWare - another MSWord parsing thing (www.wvware.com) and lead developer/maintainer of AbiWord. What are you talking about?
AbiWord isn't trying to build a word processor around any particular format. We have an extremely generic import/export mechanism that I co-authored, so that input and output can be trivially done to/from any format. We actually support more unique formats on the market than most common commercial word processors...
But import/export is a very boring and uniteresting part of a Word Processor. All of the interesting stuff goes on down in our formatting and rendering classes. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand. If you are indeed serious about this, come help out Werner and myself on wv or wv2 instead of re-duplicating our efforts.
Please mod this troll down.
Dom Lachowicz
cinamod@hotmail.com
AbiWord and wvWare Maintainer/Lead Developer
A lot of people don't have a clue what goes into a commercial software project. For example, Red Hat has only about 600 people. That is spread out through management, sales, marketing and support, as well as development. Now, Red Hat developers may be more productive than volunteers, since they are able to work on projects full time, but the vast majority of the work that goes into a new release of Red Hat Linux is in software written by the community.
.com era. They are not missed, either by OSS or Free software developers, or by profitable companies.
Microsoft's practices are harder to determine for an outsider, but they don't put in the huge amount of effort that the Abiword people think. For example, the Internet Explorer team is much smaller than the number of people working on Mozilla (in fact, it is smaller than the team working on Mozilla/ Netscape full time). The MS Word team is probably larger than the Abiword team, and support comes from a different group of people. However, if you email them and say, "Get this feature by tomorrow or I'm switching to something else!" they will have the exact same response as Abiword.
The days of 200 people working on a shell script to change directories using a web page went away with the end of the
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
at 3 AM at Perkins or Dennys... I'd be rich.
This is THE major problem with Open Source software. Since you can't make money with it, you can't commit yourself to it full time. Therefore you get a whole bunch of people who sorta work on it rather than a real programming team.
What does this get you? Products like Abiword that, while nice, admit publically that they can't compete.
What you linux kids need is a micropayment system or SOME kind of way to support your "Forget capitalism, I must give away the product of hours and hour of my work" attitude. If you could make $40K/year while working on your open project, you could do it full time! THEN we'd see some nice word processors, web browsers, etc. for Linux and *BSD. Please don't moderate this down to troll or flaimbait as it raises very real points.
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
> Sure. Much of the so-called "functionality" of modren commerical word processors is, for most users, nothing but bloat.
Like what? The equation editor - I know engineering students who find that very useful for school work. Full Unicode functionality - aka support for 1/5 of the world's population's native languages? Multilingual spellchecking? What?
>And if you need more, you don't want a word processor, you want a document preparation system
Most people want a simple, WYSWIG, omnipurpose tool, so that's what they use, regardless of what computer geeks think is right.
This rant is totally reasonable. My question is--who can I pay for supporting Abiword? Let's say I'm a business, and want a Free word processor, and Abiword fits the bill perfectly. But, I know that my secretaries will need some questions answered. And occasionally, I might need a feature implemented (e.g., I'll need some document conversion done for my old dos-based word processor WinWord) Let's say I'm willing to pay for this. Who will take my money, and enter into this contract? Dom? Ximian? Who?
- Linux kernel version 2.4.mumble has problems and people ask "how can this be releasable". It's not stable!
- gcc 3.0 is unstable for the first few releases and folks start whining about how this isn't a production-quality compiler
- AbiWord says that they're not providing commercial-grade support services and everyone gets honked off and claims that open source software can't work
Can you all just take a step back, breathe deeply and remind yourselves that in any software organization with more than 10 developers there are two versions of the software (at least):- The development snapshot (or mainline, depending one your local terminology). This is a stable release from the developers to inernal customers such as Q/A, release engineering and perhaps alpha testers for integration testing and embeded product testing.
- The release. This is the ready-for-prime-time code that will be supported and maintained by the company.
Are you seeing the parallel here? When Linus releases kernel 2.4.57, he's releaseing a snapshot that lets Q/A (made up of Q/A groups in numerous companies that sell Linux-based products) release engineering (the distribution vendors) and alpha integration testers (embedded systems customers) begin their test and release cycle. Same for AbiWord. Ximian, Red Hat and many others release AbiWord, but I doubt that they ever release it absolutely as shipped. Their Q/A process only begins when AbiSource creates a new version.So, here's the question of the day: why are people shocked when the developers start acting like developers and say "we're not going to hand-hold you"? Well, there's a few reasons. Obviously there are the folks who just wait for an opportunity to slam OSS. Then there are the people who have become confused and don't realize that the Mozilla developers or the AbiWord developers are just that: developers. Then there are the folks who get their priorities confused. They say that they don't want to deal with "big business software", so they go it alone. This is all well and good, but when you do this, you have to expect the other shoe to drop.
If you're downloading gcc 3.0 the day it comes out because you want the new features fast, great! But, don't be shocked when your code fails to work correctly because you have a hardware combination that was not well tested. If you'd waited for Red Hat 7.2, you would have found the optional gcc 3.0.x binaries with a big old wad of patches. Why? Because they tested it, patched it, and released it.
Get over it. Software support is hard, and there are people in the OSS world that do it well. But, to expect every project to come out the gate with good Q/A and support is just silly.
I think that the underlying point is that it's difficult for them to keep up with high expectations when they are such a small group of developers. It seems to me that this is an example of a project that is, unfortunately, not benefitting from the strengths of open source development.
Ideally, when you have a project whose source is open, all users are free to contribute. The entire user body joins in the development effort and the project almost evolves by itself. That's how I understand the "bazaar" model of development.
OTOH, from the sound of this letter, AbiWord is not getting the benefit from a large user base. They still only have a small group of their users who contribute to the code or even report bugs through the proper channels. It sounds like they have fallen into the "cathedral" model, even as they are trying to be a bazaar.
So what's an open source project to do? I think they are on the right track. They need to mobilize their user base to report bugs and encourage more developers to contribute. Again, I don't mean this as criticism at all, but as encouragement. Open source is strong because everybody helps.
What should have happenned is that the distro shouldn't have been sent out with a broken RPM.
But given that it was, what Abiword should have done was put a big bold link on their web page saying that "Red Hat 7.1 shipped with a completely broken RPM. Click here to fix it." That link would take you to a page with two instructions.
1) download _this_ ( with a link )
2) rpm -i
Instead users poke around wonderring what the problem is and how to fix it. The version of Abiword online is much more recent but it talks about all these depends and stuff and so people aren't sure if it will work for Red Hat 7.1 or if they will have to mess around to fix it. Users don't want to screw around with that and so they just decide to save often and hope that it doesn't crash.
Also, it could be that Red Hat packaged that software themselves, I don't know.
And Red Hat's bug tracking site is not as easy to navigate as debian's.
And Red Hat doesn't do enough to educate users about how to update their packages automatically. With Debian it is the first thing that users learn how to do.
I respect Red Hat a lot. They hire many great programmers. They have done a lot for the Linux community. But they really need to work on user interface issues better.