Slashdot Mirror
Five Fundamental Problems with Open Source?
meriksen asks: "I found a very interesting paper which I am sure will stir up a hornets nest.
Despite the growing success of the Open Source movement, most of the general public continues to feel that Open Source software is inaccessible to them. This paper discusses five fundamental problems with the current Open Source software development trend, explores why these issues are holding the movement back, and offers solutions that might help overcome these problems." What do you think of the issues given in this paper, and how do you think the Open Source community should address these issues?
"The lack of focus on user interface design causes users to prefer proprietary software's more intuitive interface. Open Source software tends to lack the complete and accessible documentation that retains users. Developers focus on features in their software, rather than ensuring that they have a solid core. Open Source programmers also tend to program with themselves as an intended audience, rather than the general public. Lastly, there is a widely known stubbornness by Open Source programmers in refusing to learn from what lessons proprietary software has to offer. If Open Source software wishes to become widely used and embraced by the general public, all five of these issues will have to be overcome."
The solution is to provide motivation to write for someone else. There are a lot of companies out there making a lot of money off open-source, selling hardware or services. If they want open-source programmers to write code differently, they need to provide some motivation for that change. One possibility would be an annual award program which could include - for example - a "best documentation" category. The combination of a cash prize (it needn't be large) plus the bragging rights for having won could provide the necessary nudge to improving open-source code.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Open-source software does lack documentation geared towards the "common user". The documentation that is out there always seems to only understood by the geek.
One serious problem is the lack of a standardized, easy-to-use (=click-and-point) installation program and the fragmentation of package management (rpm. deb. tar, whatever).
The owls are not what they seem
Are hardly exclusive to Open Source development. Plenty of closed sourced projects suffer from the exact same things, and plenty of open source pojects do not.
Part of the problem, I believe, must also be the inadequacy of software download websites. In general Open Source distributions are tricky to obtain and install. The sites are difficult to navigate and provide too many download options that reqiure understanding beyond what most users posess. i.e., should I download the "source" or "binary" version? "Stand-alone" or "self-installing?" All of these are terms outside the average user's vocabulary. Worse, many simply link to those SourceForge sites where users are presented with myriad different versions of the same product--some not even stable.
Religious blindness
.Net good, use .Net, write everything in C#, Java bad, GPL evil, etc.
Doesn't seem to me to be specifically open sourcey (sp?) to be religious about technical issues. I mean just look at Microsoft, they are a frikkin' technical monopoly:
John.
Developers focus on features in their software, rather than ensuring that they have a solid core.
This motivation is even more present for commercial apps; developers are asked to add every feature that somebody suggests in a focus group, etc. for better advertising - e.g, We have this feature and $COMPETITOR doesn't! Many of the Windows security scares have been due to poorly thought out features becoming bugs; for example, using ActiveX or VBScript to "spice up" web pages or Outlook's tendency to "enhance" emails by displaying HTML
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
One thread I've noticed emerging in the comments here is that of "but non open source stuff has the same problems". Why should it matter if the non open source stuff has the same problems? If it's a problem at all, should it not be addressed?
After all, addressing a problem that other guys haven't is a good way to improve the chances of getting ahead.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Open Source companies have tons of money. Look at all the kernel hackers they hire to work on stuff.
Red Hat spent $700,000,000 on buying out compiler companies and dot-coms, and then the reason their programmers give me for why their software has usability problems is "we can't afford an HCI department."
Linux companies like Red Hat (and Suse, bought out for $200,000,000) have tons of money. It's just that they don't consider usability to be very high on their list of priorities. To these folks, its only the technical stuff and server stuff that matters. Screw having a properly trained user interaction dept that makes their software easier to use.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
1) User interface design
Good UI design is hard. A good UI designer might not even be able to code and hardcore coders generally don't make very good UI designers. It's simply not what they're interested in and so it gets only as much time and effort as is absolutely necessary. We, as a community have built some wonderful code, but not many in the community are actually UI designers. We need to find and motivate more of these people.
2) Documentation
Documentation is time consuming and not very rewarding for coders. As with UI designers, we need a large group of people who get kicks out of writing documentation and there are just too few of those special people. We need more of these people too. Trusting these tasks to the coders isn't enough.
3) Feature-centric development
Features are rewarding for developers and guess where they put their time.. Project managers are meant to drive the scope and direction of a project. Most of time, the project manager is the lead coder by default. Got to entice a few of these management types over too..
4) Programming for the self
This has an almost identical effect to #1 and the solution is the same. People who are good at usability issues must be found and enticed to contribute. Unfortuantely, we don't have much to offer in reward. Recognition? Nope... The coders/project managers get the credit for the released program. Money? Nope.. We're not talking about commercial software. Beer and Pizza? That's probably our best shot, but I'm not convinced.
5) Religious blindness
Blatently wrong, at least for a significant population of the community. Quite of few recent articles soundly debunk this.
So, it's not going to "fix" itself and there is not much we can do to alter the situation. People are doing this for fun. If it's fun to work on features rather than write documentation, that's what they'll do. Commercial software will always have an advantage in this respect because people are paid to do the work they don't enjoy.
I knew I'd find a comment like this pretty early in this discussion.
It's a perfect example of a techy who may be more intelligent than Einstein, but is still dumb when it comes to understanding people.
People don't want to have to be educated about software. It's a tool, like a hammer. You don't have to take classes to use a hammer (or most carpentry tools -- unless you want to be a master craftsman).
When I started my business, I hadn't programmed in 10 years. At first I was extremely frustrated because programmers are so self-centric that they don't get the fact that, to most people, a computer and the software is just a tool. They want to buy a computer, plug it in, turn it on, AND DO THEIR WORK -- not read manuals or books -- just DO THEIR WORK. Then I spent several years building up the software my business is based on. Without wanting to, I had to become a programmer and think of nothing else for over 2 years. Then I understood the programmer mindset -- GUIs are a pain to write, using tools that think logically to provide a intuitive interface is hard (and other similar attitudes).
That's when I realized the problem with open source software is that many of the programmers are simply incapable of listen to thers or understanding there are other points of views regarding computer use that are just as legitimate as theirs.
If you want to rant about GUI design, go ahead. If you want to complain about the "shitload of people" who need "a bit of eduction," please do. But, after you do that, don't sit back and wonder why people are paying hundreds of dollars for programs that do what FOSS programs do, but do it in a way that is easier for users to grasp.
Until programmers learn to look at things from the point of view of a user who JUST WANTS TO DO THEIR WORK, the FOSS will always be relegated to the back room where geeks who can't understand human interaction work and live.
If you don't like it, extend it, fix it, or hire someone to do so. Don't dump your personal application requirements on community members who are just trying to share what they have.
So what you're really saying is "hey, you didn't have to pay for it, so just sit there and shut up about how bad it is. We don't care about your problems with it and we're not going to fix it. If you think you know so much, why don't you go fix it?"
And people wonder why average users consider OSS proponents to be arrogant and egocentric?
Nothing pisses me off more than someone who demands the world for free, then bitches and whines because they can't have it without putting in an effort.
And some people, instead of putting in that effort, will choose to simply buy proprietary software right off the shelf that does what they want, how they want it, and without them needing to learn how to program in Perl, Python, C++, and learn the intricacies of vi. And Linux will remain within the reach of only those who have the technical wherewithall to use it or the stubborn patience to learn it (about 5% of the world) while everyone else goes and buys Windows. Linux users feel all smug, superior and happy while Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank.
But hey! Linux users can feel all smug, superior, and happy knowing that they "put in an effort." And that's what's really important at the end of the day, right?
To paraphrase you, nothing pisses me off more than someone so damned unbending and stubborn that they're willing to take a platform I believe in (Linux) and refuse to allow it to mature into something that could displace Microsoft. Instead, you'd prefer we return to the Bad Old Days when users had to conform to the software instead of the other way around, and everyone needed a Computer Science degree in order to work a PC. I'd prefer we move forward instead of backwards, embracing new users and accomodating them. You'd rather we just slap them around and chastise them for not picking up a C++ and learning how to program. Elitist, indeed. And ultimately self destructive.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I'm pretty sure even Linus isn't that religious about this. I don't think your goal for Linux can be imposed on volunteers who might have other goals.
In the past, I'd make a concession at this point and say "it's a good goal anyway." Lots of people have that goal. But nowadays, I can't even concede that. I'm really thinking that Linux needs to extend its reach to power users and stop there. I don't think Linux should try to displace Microsoft. Instead, I think it should get comfortable being used by the 25% of the population that is fairly tech-savvy. Leave the other 75% alone. They come with too much baggage.
Well now this I agree with. I think the rudeness and discourtesy some developers show others is a big problem. I just don't think the solution is to be doormats. For better or worse, the Open Source model puts developers on par with end-users. This becomes collaborative, and both sides must cooperate. If one side is rude or demanding, the other has every right to walk away. If that means a project run by assholes ends up stuck in a niche of a niche and never gains market share, so be it. If that means a project gains huge market share but deliberately draws the line at 50% of the population and says "we're fine with the smart half, but we're not going to be able to accomodate the other half" then so be it.
As usual, I think there are courteous ways to say no (such as "I'm sorry, but that's a lot of development time and we have no one to spare") and there are rude ways (such as "build it yourself noob").
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &