Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the Desktop: More Balls Through Windows
doom writes "There's a story up in the free area of The Economist site about 'Linux on Desktop PCs' called:
More balls through Windows. Pretty much the same old stuff, but if you wanted something new you wouldn't be reading slashdot, eh?" Cynic.
Oooh! Oooh! It's the year that Linux is finally going to take over the desktop... again. Just like 1997 was. And 1998. Oh, and 1999. 2000? 2001? 2002? 2003? Sensing a trend?
/. (or even Linux-friendly journalists) assume.
:)
As Bill Gates himself says, we often over-estimate the impact of a given technology will have in 5 years time, but we tend to UNDER-estimate its impact over 10 years. I think that the Linux on the desktop is similar: it will gain marketshare, but MUCH more slowly than people on
Let's stop measuring progress in years, and start measuring it in decades-- only then will we see the impact that Free software is having. Revolutions take time.
Oh... and balls through windows? Could you have come up with a weaker punn?
--- JRJ
jrjBlog
At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, I'm hoping that once Microsoft starts losing some of its dominance, it will strike back with its patent portfolio, which will draw increasing public attention to the problems with patents. When a two-bit, one-man operation like PanIP slings lawsuits around at mom-and-pop operations nationwide, that scarcely draws a whisper, but a behemoth like Microsoft using the patent system to unfairly crush competitors and keep alternatives away from the computing public? That, I'm hoping, will draw enough complaints from everyday people that Congress might actually do something at some point. If Linux on the desktop can start to carry the cachet that the Mac does, an attempt by Microsoft to stem the tide by using ill-gotten patent will, I hope, mobilize the general public to fight back and call for broader patent office reform.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Is it just me, or does it seem that there is increasingly more talk about Linux being widely adopted on the desktop? The more sources that report that Linux is comming, the more likely businesses will choose to use it, so even if all of what we've seen lately is hype, it still serves to advance Linux.
--Mike Boos
Is not so much the article itself (Linux: good, Microsoft: bad, yadda yadda yadda) rather than the fact that it is published in The Economist, probably one of the most influential news magazines for PHBs.
Some of the most important managers, CEOs, CFOs, etc all read The Economist. Therefore, this article may be an important introduction to Linux for many of these people.
On the other hand, this is not the first Linux-positive article in The Economist, so everyone should know by know that Linux = good, Microsoft = bad, etc.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
"There is no real market for a consumer-grade Linux desktop," says Martin Fink, HP's Linux boss.
I'm surprised people in charge of any reasonably sized company can still say this classic idiocy:
Yes, there's not real market for consumer-grade Linux desktop, for the good reason that the market doesn't exist yet, and someone needs to create it, and whoever will take the plunge stands a fair chance to reap huge benefits from it.
Remember, investors said the same thing to Jobs when he tried to get backing to produce the Apple.
Mr. Fink, if I was your boss and I really wanted to push Linux, you'd be fired...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Who made these announcements? The 1998 article on a Linux "e-zine" is not quite the same thing as an article in The Economist. One audience consists of geeky hobbyists; the other includes the intelligent, wealthy, and powerful. The message might not have changed in all these years, but it is reaching increasingly important people every day.
===--===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Call me back when GNUcash can:
Oh, but GNUcash is free -- and it has a web browser built right in. Nice.
For more information, click here.
In many respects, Linux is already much, much, much better than Windows. The polish, look and feel, stability, functionality all far surpass Windows. You could say that applications will follow, and I hope they do, but most great applications still come out for Windows even if they started out as Linux only apps.
Right now what is needed is a number of great applications that have no equivalents on Windows. This does not refer to Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc. Most of those can come. Imagine if a Napster and Netscape both came out at the same time, and the ONLY place you could get it was on Linux. I don't know how long that could last before MS created a copy on Windows, but even then it would be in the reverse position that Linux is in now.
In my estimation Linux may need several rounds of applications like that. Then, Windows application developers will start writing to WINE as a compatibility layer and will actually improve WINE themselves to be able to have their Windows legacy apps supported, and MS is absolutely sunk at that point. Still, it's not just parity with Windows applications. It's the perception that the best and greatest new applications are only available on Linux, even if they eventually show up on Windows.
...at least according to some posters here. Let's face it, whatever Linux does, it will never be good enough for some people. They'll always find the stupidest things to complain about (look! the windows are a different shade of grey on Linux, the users are confuuuused!) The rest of us will simply enjoy all the things we have and realise that Linux might never be everything to all people, but it is a damn fine desktop for some people right now.
I got into Linux late (1999), because I was scared by the voodoo magic and demon sacrifices I was assured were necessary for such a step. What I found out after a (somewhat tedious) installation, is a KDE 1.1.2 desktop which looked much like Windows, much software that did the basic things, and a completely usable system which replaced windows on my computer from that point on. I had a browser (NS 4.7), a word processor (WP 8), and MP3 player, I was go. Much of the criticism aimed at it was correct, but it was a usable system nonetheless.
Fast forward a few years. We have two killer browser engines, each one kicking the crap out of MS's offering. We have an amazing (let's face it) office suit in Open Office 1.1, which is an excellent solution even for business use. In 1999 you could forget multimedia, now we have the two BEST video players out there, period (MPlayer and XineLib). Burning DVDs? Graphical frontends. Watching DVDs? Check. It's amazing how far we've come, but the same people keep repeating the same silly arguments (the button has the wrong shape! The users will be confused!) based on 4-year old Linux experience.
Linux might never be the ultimate desktop for all users. Hell, I don't think it should be. But it's ready for many users right now. I don't buy the 'average joe' arguments, here's a real example. I have a guest user set up for people who use my computer when I'm gone. I showed my girlfriend where the important programs were and left for work. While I was gone, she browsed the web, wrote emails, played some games, watched DVDs, listented to some of my MP3s. Then she (wait for this!) downloaded the images from her digital camera and transferred them to her portable hard disk and organised them in separate directories, based on the date they were taken. She had never used Linux before. Too difficult my ass.
Linux is ready for many users right now. It might never be ready for the 'typical' users some self-proclaimed experts always bring up in their condescending tone, but maybe it shouldn't be. It's ready for me, thank you very much.
Ah.. the Linux desktop again. Isn't it weird that these discussions always seem to focus on the question wether Linux has a good desktop, whilst this is not really the issue? Linux _has_ a good desktop. In fact, it has two excellent desktops. The thing is lacks is top quality applications.
I'd go as far as to say that Linux is about 95% there in terms of 'ordinary' desktop things like browsing, e-mailing and chatting, typing a letter, clipping a photo, playing an mp3, etc. The problems start when you are a professional that needs the last 5%:
- Open Office is great for plain text and layout, but it messes up horribly if you have a document with fields or tables. This is not something you use everyday, but people that use it for their work need to be able to fill out a form without having to deal with an address field that runs off the window for some reason.
- The Gimp is phenomenal, but how about those fonts? Sure, you can do lots and lots of cool things with just images, but graphics pros _need_ those slick fonts.
- Pro audio: sure, Ardour looks like a nice digital audio workstation on paper, but in practice you have to deal with a segfault every ten minutes and quite a few usability issues. Same thing for Muse (great sequencer, sloppy timing), Glame (nice, impractical GUI), Jack (fantastic idea, too bad it still locks up systems), etc.
- Your profession here.
Point being: I think and hope that Linux will be all that on our desktops someday, but 'good' is not good enough when it comes to application software. For Linux to take off on the desktop, it needs to have 'excellent' apps. Apps that, at the very least, should be as good as their commercial counterparts, preferably better. For some reason, we see a lot of this quality in server type apps, we see this quality in the actual desktops (KDE and Gnome are prettier than windows XP if you ask me), but the applications are still lacking.
Gnucash does not have anything wrapped up. It still cannot hold a candle to MS Money or Quicken. People always spout off Gnucash as what you should use when migrating to Linux. WHen it does what I need and what I've become accustomed then maybe. Not to mention that Gnucash is STILL an accounting program when most people (like myself) are looking for a personal finance management package. I just went and looked at the Gnucash webpage. They still want you to learn basic accounting principles to use the darn this. So they want me to manage my home expenses line I manage my business. I am not going to debate whether or not it is the right way for me to account for my money. My point is it is a change from the way I am doing things now. Can it connect to Bank One every 12 hours and update/reconcile account for me? As soon as it can then I will look at it again. Otherwise I am not going to take steps backwards just to use Linux.
And your photography comment - you mention three different products in Linux to get doone what I can get done in one with Windows/Photoshop. I can use Photoshop to preview, edit, and see thumbnails of the pictures on my digital camera.
Believe it or not I am a Linux advocate. It is just not 'there' yet.
"Action is the thing that escapes most people. Great ideas are a dime a dozen. Great actions are few and far in between.
Everytime we see a new article about Linux desktops, they always tout how it has all of these features that Windows or Mac OS X has now. This is fine, but for someone who has Windows already, what is the incentive to move, I am using a system that has all of the features of Windows already.
Everytime I have made an excursion into the Linux desktop, I have found it to be missing one or two things I really need, then boot back into Windows and find it. If Linux is always following Windows in features, they there is no incentive to swtich.
I think Linux could have a chance at the desktop market, it just needs to innovate instead of imitate.
See, this is exactly the kind of squibble people use to put Linux down. "Yes, Linux can organise digital photos, AND touch them up AND interface with your digital camera, but instead of having one program do it, you have THREE! Linux is not ready for the desktop!". I mean, seriously, if that's the last thing holding Linux back, I say we've arrived already.
Since the dawn of time, ctrl+C has been copy in each and every app. ctrl+x has been cut. ctrl+v has been paste. Windows have three icons in the upper right hand corner for minimizing, restoring/maximizing, and closing. There's a "File", "Edit", "Tools", and "Help" menu in almost every app. I don't know how you get more consistent than that.
- A 401(k) plan, whatever that is, is in use in one of the countries where the GNUCash developers live.
- There is a common tax system in use around the world, or when governments start approving free tax software implementations for filing.
- Your bank switches to HBCI, the Home Banking Computer Information protocol, in use in Germany, where many of the GNUCash developers live.
- Quicken exports to an open, or at least non-obfuscated file format.
- More Americans start contributing to the development of new features for GNUCash.
GNUCash is free, and it does what many of its users want. It just happens that many of those users live in Europe, and for now, they seem to call the shots.Linux's true competition is Apple, who is fighting for second place and languishes in the 3% market share as well.
Microsoft's desktop dominance is not even remotely threatened until these two combined equals 10% of the market, which it doesn't yet. Will it ever? Who knows, but's it's not yet.
It's about as hard as trying to explain what twain32 twunk16 twunk32 system system32 shcache srchast all are. And it's a lot easier (well less painful) to explain /bin /usr/bin etc are all about than trying to explain why the last 2-3 hours of work they have been doing is unrecoverable because windows has crashed. A computer retard is going to have as much trouble understanding how windows works as Linux they only need to know how to use them and that's something a Vegetable could learn. this is just one example of the types of things "geeks" ignore that really really really are stumbling blocks for a desktop.
The biggest stumbling block is people being aware of Linux's existence once it becomes more common on the desktop at work people will start to take it home and use it, Which is the important thing. You, me and other /.ers like to know how the OS works, Users just want to use something reliable.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
From what I understand, those files, .DS_Store and ._filename, hold metadata. Why OSX insists on creating these files on network shares is mind boggling. That's like walking in mud and not wiping your feet before entering someone else's house.
Anyway, for some reason, OSX creates these files, obtains a lock, and for some reason over samba NEVER RELEASES those locks. So often when one user edits a file, then closes it, other OSX clients can't access the file because they can't obtain a lock on the goddam metadata files. Yay!
$ smbstatus -L | wc -l
1679
All ._ and .DS_Store files.
I have googled up no solution so far, just thousands of other people who have the same problem.
That is just the most irksome of the numerous riduculous problems OSX has at the moment.
If anyone has a solution, please let me know. Is it something obvious? Am I just stupid? I don't fucking care, I just want this shit to work goddammit! I have spent hours googling, and if somehow I have just missed the blindingly obvious solution, then I'm sorry, but please let me know :)
Note, I don't _really_ hate OSX, it's more of a love/hate thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm surprised that the article makes no mention of Longhorn and the "trusted computing" initative as a barrier to Linux migration. One of the primary goals of Longhorn, with its Palladium technology, is MS lock-in. With Longhorn, vendor lock-in will be easier to enforce. It will be much more difficult and expensive to move away from MS products. If today you want to move away from MS Office suite to OpenOffice, it's really not too difficult, the primary costs are training, installation, conversion etc. With Longhorn, this may require getting digital certs for converting all your client docs to the new format. Or maybe it won't be possible to read Word docs at all with non-MS software. (E.g. Word docs could be encrypted with keys that only MS software can access.) The cost and the unknowns of moving off of MS will be too much to bear for many.
> Most home users just want to click on the little :-)
> "E" and go on the interent. They can't be bothered
> with config files, man pages etc. If,and when
> Linux gets to that level of ease of use, maybe
> we'll see a Penguin in every pot
Agree that most home users just want to "get on the Internet", but why is Linux a bad choice for those users today? I've set up Mepis for users with this experience level in the past, and they work with it just fine; I'm sure there's other distributions that work just about as well.
There are several Linux desktop distributions now that make "getting on the Internet" as easy as it is on Windows. In functionality terms, one browser is pretty much like another these days; Mozilla or Konqueror are perfectly worthy substitutes for IE for both "power users" and novices.
Ditto for email clients. Evolution looks and acts almost identical to Outlook, and Thunderbird (my personal choice) is extremely capable as well. If you put Outlook on a pedestal as THE email client for the home user, then I'd claim Evolution is its equal in every way.
OpenOffice is a perfectly good substitute for MS Office; remember that we're talking specifically about home users here, so the lack of compatibility with Excel macros doesn't really enter into it.
An experienced user (i.e. the family techo, or even a worldly Linux desktop distributor/vendor) can lock down the Linux desktop to the point that your typical dumb user problems can't occur. It's far easier to lock down a Linux desktop than a Windows desktop. That's a big deal when it comes to supporting home users - stop them from being able to hurt themselves.
And that's before I play my 2 anti-Windows trump cards - viruses/security and cost of software purchase.
In all seriousness, I can't see why Grandma and Grandpa couldn't use Linux to get on the Internet just as easily as they use Windows. My parents, both in their mid-60s, use Mepis just fine; they can deal with Firebird/fox and Thunderbird, and it took almost no effort for them to switch from Windows. They don't get virus infections, despite opening every email they receive, and simply use their computers as tools in much the same way they use the phone and car - they don't know how it works, but don't care and have no reason to care. There's no reason for them to use man pages and config files, any more than they would use the Windows equivalents; a well-structured desktop pretty much eliminates the need for those mechanisms for the average home user. Yep, you could build a case that maybe they couldn't run a 100-user business entirely on Linux desktops, but a home user Linux desktop is perfectly viable and has been for a couple of years at least.
Will Linux* destroy Microsoft's business model?
No! It already did.
Microsoft is finally facing real competition and what happens? Windows gets cheaper and they finally start paying attention to security and stability. $40 Windows XP lite, a huge new focus on stamping out viruses worms and gigantic security holes in their products. If there were no competition, Microsoft wouldn't care about these things. Microsoft is already being pushed around by Linux*.
Free software is already forcing Microsoft to work harder for it's money. Everyone who uses computers, whether they use free software or not, benefits from the competition it introduces into the market.
(* note: by Linux I mean the kernel and all the free software that runs on it most often including some GNU software and lots of non-GNU software)
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
The article complains that there's nothing for playing with digital photos on Linux. (1) I'm not sure I agree; I think they just haven't found it yet. Contrary to what many business types would tell you, some of the best things in life are not advertised. (2) All it takes is one person who wants some program badly enough to code it up and give it away, and the "missing" software becomes available, worldwide. That's how we got Linux, and all the userspace that runs on top of it, in the first place.
A lot of the trouble I have with MS Windows falls into two categories.
Many programs were designed and built by people who took "personal computer" to heart and never bothered to learn to think in terms of a computer that might be used by several different people, perhaps even concurrently. These ignore security, don't handle separation of user and system storage or configuration gracefully, etc. Let's do better this time.
Other products suffer from the fallacy that computer==desktop. They assume that they're always run by someone who can just barely find the power button, and that they're always guided manually by someone sitting right there ready to respond to trouble. It ain't so; some of us actually care enough to spend time thinking about how best to use computers, and some of us want to script regular processes and get away from all that manual drudgery (which is what we made computers for in the first place).
If "the rise of Linux on the desktop" means I don't have to fight so hard for a non-MS solution in the server room or the laboratory, hooray. If it means I'm stuck with a choice between MS Windows and something that's just like MS Windows only not from MS, then in my view there's been no improvement -- in fact, an improvement we had for a while will have been taken from us.
We have a chance to do it right this time. Let's seize that chance and run with it. All computers should not be alike, because all computerists are not alike.
I have just recently installed Linux and had a good experience but it is not ready to be used except by the hardcore user that enjoys fixing problems. I want to be able to download a program, click it and it be on my menu and ready to use. This is not the case with Linux, I spend all night trying to find all the dependancies and then the program still doesn't work right. With Windows I just go to download.com and find a program I need, install and I'm done. I don't have to search for drivers with Windows, I can run Windows update to find newer ones. I have setup Wine and am able to install some games but they don't perform well. I still want to use Linux and learn about it but not for a primary OS. Linux might work for the business enviorment but it is far from ready for home use, FAR.
Because Solaris doesn't have any pretentions about trying to be a desktop OS?
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
To each his own. The last time I noticed a toolkit was the last time I ran an OpenLook app. Buttons, fields, canvases -- what's the difference -- I look right through 'em. There must be different ways of thinking about applications, or something. I couldn't describe the difference between a GTK app. and a Motif app. unless I had them both open in front of me, and contrasting either one with an Athena Widgets app. would be difficult because the differences are so trivial (to me).
When I'm on task I process information visually but I don't really *see*. I couldn't tell you what the app. looks like without going off-task. Thinking is what happens when I'm not distracted by my senses. I guess some people don't work that way.
For me it's all about [Tim Taylor voice] MORE POWER! I've had enough of app.s and OSes with training wheels, and having found something without them I feel no further needs. Again, I guess some people don't work that way.
So, your solution to fixing the drawbacks of GNUCash over a commercial system is to:
Fix it yourself
Right. This is so typical of open-source philosiphy. Believe it or not, you typical user *does not* want to hear rants about *why* GNUCash doesn't do what they want.
That's why commercial software remains more popular. Intuit doesn't tell its users that the features they want are trivial. They don't tell their users to "do it themselves". Their product has to *sell*, so they can't tell their users to bug off.
Sorry, but Linux is not ready for primetime if this is what the software situation is like. Someone was stating that the accounting software was severely lacking in Linux. Someone else stated that GNUCash might be a solution. Evidently, it isn't a very good one. Particularly not if the developers have an attitude anything like the parent.
The Open Source movement would rather change the world than their software.
I actually thought this distinction was the shining point in the article, in that it actually contributed something new to the discussions about desktop linux that have been going on for ages. It's not about locking down the box so much as needs of users. When you hear the debates, you hear the two sides saying "Linux now has a good office suite, email client, etc" while the other side says "yeah, but advanced Office users need their Excel macros and their Outlook calendars".
To me, this difference was basically given terminology by this article. The people who need their Excel Macros and aren't ready to switch over are the Information Workers while the ones who just need to type a few emails and memos are the Transaction Workers. It basically clarifies the fact that some people will do just fine with a Linux desktop while others aren't ready. We all know this, but no one's given names to define this distinction before.
To me, it's incredible to see this distinction finally being raised because 5 years ago you couldn't really say that Linux was ready for either. Progress is happening.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Why can't these people just explain what it does and maybe show a few screenshots of KDE or Gnome in action?
Linux is not, repeat NOT, competing with Windows. Microsoft consider Linux as a threat to their penetration and revenue but that is a purely Microsoft facet, not a Linux one.
Linux is an alternative way of doing things, a free way of doing things, and does some things better and other things worse that Windows does. It does what it does despite Microsoft and will continue to do it whether or not MS exists in the future.
The media should take a responsibility to make the general populace aware of the Linux alternative rather than using Linux as a weapon to make MS do what they want them to do.
I'd love to reach the day when I can ditch all my MS products because I personally do not like to support companies that have bad business practices - in the same way I don't eat Macdonalds (or Burger King) burgers or wear Nike sports shoes - and I guess today I'm about 75% there with Linux.
But I'm certainly not going to "cut my nose off to spite my face" and do without certain apps and games purely because I consider myself in a (non-existent) Windows v Linux war.
Just give people the facts and let them use their own intelligence to decide what they like.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
GNUCash does work for lots of people, even in the US. But not everyone. But guess what - Quicken doesn't work for everyone, nor MS Money. So keep on using what you're using, if it works for you.
It's just plain silly to have a carefully set up box, have a user do some carefully controlled things (whether with or without you) and conclude "Yep, we're there".
...) are minor compared to the ones I mentioned (my post, my opinion ;-)
What's needed for UserLinux...
As far as the desktop and general experience goes...
I think you're about halfway there, or three quarters.
- Now find a way to "hide" some stuff like directories,
- have a nice user/not root routine like the OS X way of asking your password to install stuff,
- a good point and click install mechanism that does away with dependency hell and
- a stupid simple updater/security patcher.
This to ensure that the desktop is a moderately secure place where people on the one hand can't do too many things wrong and on the other hand experiment and expand - why shouldn't a user install programs? Why shouldn't he/she install the latest virus definitions or security patches? After all, who else is going to do it...
All of that could be borrowed from OS X. Most of it is as far as I know already in discussion or development. Thing is, it should start to appear in the most popular distributions and be adopted as standard.
I'm not saying "go the mac way", not at all. These are basic things. There are an incredible amount of opportunities to go above and beyond. But Linux and OS X share the same set of challenges, since they share common ancestry and philosophy if you will. And OS X does solve these problems very elegantly. You would overcomplicate by going the windows way on these issues.
That takes care of the desktop (or the general user experience if you will). All other issues (consistency, naming of apps,
Another thing: killer apps. You need just a few. You may already have them, but they still need a fair amount of polish - not only nice looks, but good, consistent results.
OTOH, there's a shitheap of proprietary apps looking into Linux. Be nice, invite them over. These are the apps 95% of the people use today.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Like it really matters. I don't really care what happens to my computer at work. I didn't buy it. My company did. I'm smart enough to figure out how to use what they give me to use. I know this thought process will disturb a lot of folks, but that is just the way I feel. At home I will never use M$ junk. And let's face it- at the very least it is overpriced. It doesn't always work like it should for what they charge. It is just a treadmill/moneypit/sick joke. As long as Linux has little support for games that run natively(I'm not talking Wine support) then very few people will try to run it at home. No killer app=Small home user base. This article was only good in that it re-emphasized to IT staff everywhere that Linux desktops are getting better. It could be on the desktop now but I don't think it will. And do you really care?
The first application almost anyone goes to on a Linux desktop is Mozilla... after all, web standards mean I can use my Linux box as my primary browser, and only pull up IE in the unlikely case I *wanted* to see that stupid shockwave content. Mozilla runs pretty well on my system, but I think it kills the impression of Linux...
*WHY*THE*HECK* do they overwrite the primary clipboard *EVERY*TIME* I accidently drag a bit of text. It makes it impossible to copy a link somewhere and simply overwrite the URL line. Combine that with no clear option on the URL line, I find myself relexively selecting the current URL and then pasting. Oh, but Mozilla thinks I must have wanted to take that URL I just nuked *TO*THE*FREAKING*MAIN*CLIPBOARD*. Bah and double bah! Anyone used to windows conventions is going to think this is a useless clipboard, and anyone used to any *other* gnome/kde application will realize it is broken, and be forced to use a clipboard manager.
This is absurd, and contributes is one of the few major annoyances left on my Linux desktop. Hey Mozilla guys: you are *NOT* the only application on my desktop, so stop nuking my primary clip, mkay?
Gah... venting complete.
Sig under construction since 1998.
meaning I can:
a) pay $50 for commercial software package
b) recruit and hire a programmer who is also a licensed CPA specializing in retirement planning
c) go back to school for parallel degrees in both computer science and accounting to do the job myself
choices not grounded in reality are not choices at all
I don't develop for GNUCash, but I do spend much of my own spare time developing other Open Source applications.
I'll tell you want is wrong with Open Source, and it isn't the "fix it yourself" attitude. It is the attitude of people like you who expect something for nothing, and then bitch and moan when they don't get what they want. Most Open Source projects are developed as a hobby, started to "scratch an itch" of the developers. Odds are that the project meets the needs of the developers at least, plus some other group of people that use it. If the software doesn't do what you want, you have three options:
In case you weren't paying attention, that is two more options than closed source software.
Big-name Open Source projects like the Linux kernel, Gnome, KDE, Apache, etc. all have commercial backing. When you buy from RedHat or Novell/SuSE or IBM or Sun for example, you are helping for them to pay the developers that work on these projects - in effect "pay someone else to fix it". RedHat or IBM doesn't tell it's users that the features they want are trivial or to "do it themselves" either.
But most projects aren't Gnome or KDE, so stop treating the people that run them on their spare time like they are RedHat or Novell (or Intuit). You can be thankful that you have the option to acquire the software for no charge and "fix it yourself" via coding, documentation, packaging etc. or you can pay your money to Intuit and get what they have to offer. The choice is yours to make, but don't go confusing one for the other.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
While everything you said is true its not a good answer for normal (non-developer) users. As you point out with proprietary software or open source you can ask the developers to add a new feature. But for most users fixing it yourself and paying someone to fix it aren't options. The former for obvious reasons, the latter because the cost to implement your feature is probably more than the cost of a comparable proprietary product.
So really users are left with the situation of asking the developer to add the feature. And here proprietary software wins because they hire developers to implement your feature with the money they get from upgrade fees. They'll get the upgrade fees from thousands or millions of customers. So effectively these people are pooling their money for the creation of these features. But there isn't really an equivalent money pool for the open source world.
As you mention most projects aren't Gnome or KDE. And most software is not GUI toolkits. Most software is applications. Its the reason users use computers: to apply them to the accomplish tasks. Applications are deal breakers, and in particular applications which support certain features. If the developers won't add the feature then the users won't use the application. They'll just pay thier $50 and get on with life.