Slashdot Mirror
Lessons Proprietary Software Can Teach Open Source
cdlu writes "Kris Shaffer at Newsforge argues that just because software is open source doesn't mean it should be unpopular. What lessons, he asks, can open source projects learn from popular proprietary software?" From the article: "In the absence of a monopoly, there are three traits that are likely to make an application popular: it is cool or attractive in some way, it provides easy entry, and it is addictive. Barring these things, most average users will stick with the status quo. In fact, many users never use a program on their computer that did not come pre-installed. However, by creating an attractive, easy to set up, addictive application, a developer can motivate the average user to break this barrier and try something new. And several such applications can generate strong popular interest in the open source movement in general."
In the absense of a monopoly, he says...
It sounds like they are describing the characteristics of a Killer App--addictive, easy-to-use, and cool. I can think of a few OS programs that fall into this catergory, relative to the user's perception of "easy-to-use." For me, CLI is easy-to-use, so apps like mplayer or emacs are killer apps, though I'm not sure the general public would agree. . .
42
People will use whichever application that gets the job done or in the case of a game, provides the most fun. That's it. Most don't care whether it's propreitary or open source. Does it get my e-mail? Does it write my term paper for me? Does it allow me to kill robots? Yes. That's all I care about.
All the rest is just FUDD that programmers worry about. Your common user doesn't much care. If both IE and Firefox were on every computer we'd see people use the one that got the job done.
-Teiresias
Hear me out.
It's a boot from CD Linux, set up with all the links, video codecs and the like to let you put it in, boot and wank.
No traces left behind on the hard drive, no audit trails. If it spoofs a MAC address (A required feature) you can even use it on many corporate networks and no one will be table to trace it to you without puring over router logs.
Even better, make it a two part ion CD. One "regular" partition with something like documentation or even a backup of the user's data. The other is the bootable partition. A Linux partition of course, EXT3 or the like, so it can't be read from stock Windows. Design it so it looks like an Apple partition if Windows tries to get at it.
Instant software popularity.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I don't know about anyone else but I'm never going back to a non-tabbed browser experience. My name is Shiznit4172 and I'm addicted to tabbed browsing.
And not the comic strip.
Most proprietary software is rigorously tested on the lamen to see how well he/she can negotiate around it. Where as all but the most popular open source projects, frankly, don't give a shit.
The complaint has been around since the beginning of time, but I still haven't seen much headway.
--
Fairfax Underground: Fairfax County forums and chat. Talk to your neighbors
Proprietary mass-market apps are polished, easy to install, and friendly because the developers make money when users choose their software.
Open source software tends to be powerful and arcane because the developers mainly benefit from having the software to use themselves and by attracting other deeply involved people to improve the software. It doesn't pay at all to make it friendly and attract useless users.
People mostly do things for their own benefit, as they should. I don't think it's good to encourage decent people to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of people who give nothing back. That just leeches the resources of decent, generous people and gives more power to the other sort.
If you want to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, go ahead, but don't sacrifice your living and weaken yourself to the point where you have to work at some job beneath your talents just to support your real work.
have is that they are a fairly small collection of tools provided by a default install. This is very different from most Linux distributions. Lets see... which web browser should I install? Which text editor? Which file manager?? Desktop environment??! Window Manager??!!!! The average new user has no idea what any of these things are, nor do they have any clue what the differences between any of the different options might be. Further, a complete installation with every possible option is cluttered and messy. Finally, since there is no basic known set of applications predefined and selected for the user, it is hardly possible to have everything set up to work together automagically - so that, for example, the email client knows what web browser is installed, the web browser knows what email client is installed as well as what audio and video players are installed, etc. etc. It is impossible to provided this level of seamless interaction out of the box and at the same time provide unlimited choice to the user.
its a little ironic that he chose ReWire as an example of a proprietary plugin format as an case of "good stuff from the proprietary world". ironic because
"What lessons, he asks, can open source projects learn from popular proprietary software?"
/., the sacred bastian of impartial news that it is. But that information doesn't readily filter down to John Q.
How about that marketing isn't free? Commercials, magazine ads, favorable "reviews" all cost money.
Word of mouth (keyboard) works for geeks because we know how to research products, read reviews, and of course read
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Is there a linux-side import wizard where I can import XP settings into Linux? Everything from desktop to window colors and such?
XP has an app that will package your computer up and transfer it to another. I think if there was a way that we could attach linux to the other side (Without XP knowing it was actually talkign to a linux box) that would go a long way to easing the transition.
I prefer KDE, but I would be interested in knowing if there is one for GNOME too.
Thanks.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
College kids are poor, so what did you expect?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
My grandfather uses Windows, MS Office and AOL because they were on the computer when he got it. The man knows how to take apart a tank, but has trouble learning how to use new programs and will stick with the first application he's presented with.
When I set my parents up with gaim, they kept asking "so I don't have AIM anymore? Most novice-moderate users mistake what a program does with the program itself. They think Windows=computer, Word=word proccessing, Excel=spreadsheet, AOL Instant Messenger = IM, Quicken= finance manager, etc.
Free MacMini
I play games a lot, but I've never lost sleep over not getting to play one. I've stayed up all night and not realized it on multiple occasions, though.
This is quite possibly the worst analogy I have ever seen in my life. You know absolutely nothing about Christianity or Buddhism and you're (ironically) a horrible missionary for open-source.
Fit and finish! Most open source projects lack the will to finish the small details to make a software product really shine. Bad installers, incomplete preferences UI, lack of visual style, and little to no documentation. All the little details take about as long to do as the major portion of the application and most projects lack the will or funding to go the final mile. It's also not very sexy to work on the final finish details. Most people would much rather fix bugs or implement new cool features than work on tiny UI details or *gasp* write some documentation.
In fact, many users never use a program on their computer that did not come pre-installed
What about Bonzi buddy and Gator? I've seen plenty of average users with those!
very good point. One key feature missing from almost all man pages is just this: examples. Pretend you don't know how to use find, but wanted to look for a file. Type "man find" and try to figure that out :)
Some examples of basic usage are always
helpful.
See, you ran into the problem most small app programmers just never seem to consider fully:
The users don't care about what you care about.
The users don't think the way you do.
The users don't act the way you expect them to.
Every individual user will have their own take on "how it should be done". If your app doesn't take that into consideration, it will be dropped as "too hard to use" no matter how hard you worked on it or what cool functionality it gives.
The interface design, GUI or CLI, needs to have the users' point of view firmly in mind or adoption will be low.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I suspect that its due to being able to hold someone liable in case something went wrong.. that and the perception of lower quality.
It's this way because in the FS world most applications are made because "Bob" wants it so "Bob" writes it. Commercial (proprietary) software is usually written for the masses. When several people in the FS world like what Bob's writing they all chip in and help. Most of the time the problem is that the skeleton of the application is already written with a hideous UI and/or configurating system. Bob was writing something to help himself. Not something easy to use for the masses.
Kris brings up iLife. iLife is more than just an application, it's a service. If "Bob" were to write an application like iLife, he would be required to offer services like iTunes. Well, "Bob" doesn't have financial backing to employ services like that.
My point is that when you write something like iLife, you must start from the beginning with the plan of these being used by thousands of people and you must already have the resources to develop something like this. iLife wasn't created from the Wits of one man. There was a large collaboration before any real work (and money for the matter) went into such an application.
Tell him what he doesn't like about certain software, and why.
Unfortunately, (some) Linux Gurus have forgotten the meaning of usability. Accustomed to the intrincated labyrinths of the command line, they just don't care to make something more user friendly (particularly the installations).
It's like moving from the city (with all comodities) to the jungle. Unfortunately, developers don't have a team of "joe user" testers. And sometimes they ABHOR them. It's not rare (at least for me) that you encounter a FOSS project whose author says: "Want this feature? Implement it yourself". However, the developer doesn't help AT ALL so you can incorporate those features.
I remember a FOSS GUI/language (whose name I shall not dare utter in public) where I wasn't given the least of support. The devs never bothered to make a simple class diagram, or documentation so I could help doing the development in windows. It's been 6 years, and only in the last months it got out of "pre-beta".
And it's worse when your requests get denied "by principle". i.e. (from another FOSS project)
"Why can't I just click on the form and add the control? Why do I have to select the stupid sizer from the object tree? Can't you make this process transparent?" Then expect a long philosophical discussion on why you can't do something that you're always used to (VB, Delphi, etc).
Sincerely, it's hard when geniuses take the control over the USABILITY DESIGN of their software. They're not hired to make something look or feel right, they do as they please.
Or simply they like some existing FOSS that isn't user friendly but more popular, and never started clones that would rock
i.e. have you seen Linux ports (clones) of:
- Photoshop (GIMP is better, we don't use photocrap)
- irfanview (what?)
- Visual Basic (real programmers use python/c++ / don't use GUIs / program using the API themselves / insert your stupid excuse here)
In general, I can give a simple phrase for FOSS programmers to remember:
"The user (customer) is always right". Trust me, it'll make your program much more popular than it is now.
You're saying open source stands for "no cuties for the oldies", perpetual retreat, and "tramp, tramp, bang, bang" is the highest form of enlightenment?
Are you an anti-antizealot?
But - The Buddha further advises old men not to have young wives as the old and young are unlikely to be compatible, which can create undue problems, disharmony and downfall (Parabhava Sutta).
Buddhism retreated from India, China, Vietnam, and other countries rather than involve its believers in armed struggles to preserve itself. Again, this illustrates the strengths and the weaknesses of Buddhism.
Particularly uncomfortable for me was the conduct of Harada Daiun Sogaku, well-known in the West due to Kapleau's influential The Three Pillars of Zen, and my own Dharma great-grandfather. In 1934 he recommended implementing fascist politics while criticizing education for making people shallow and "cosmopolitan minded". In 1939 he described the oneness of Zen and war: "[If ordered to] march: tramp tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]"
Source code is not only not a feature to the majority of users, but is a negative. Users may not care if the source happens to be included, but the great majority of them understand perfectly well that they have neither the skills nor the time to change their programs. So Open Source really doesn't mean squat to users. Ease of use is, ability to get a job done quickly have meaning for users. Open Source will struggle along playing catch-up until we stop talking open source and start talking about the things that are important to users, and why a particular program is best for the task.
Kickbacks. Most of the people making decisions are getting kickbacks either in the form of chachkis (open source could emulate this) or, for larger purchases, as a direct cash bribe (much harder for a not-for-profit outfit to copy). This is why sales and marketing budgets are as high as they are...
What gets you (you, metaphorically) is that most people who profess to be religious tend to have some sort of factor of not accepting other religious paths, or those who choose no religion for themselves.
Personally, I like choosing whether to give things to Cthulhu, Shiva and Ra, depending on my mood.
Too many people have a hard time reconciling the harsh, angry, judgemental god of Abraham's time (whichever you want to call it) with other religious tenets in the particular faith which say the exact opposite.
Like, calling oneself a Christian, but being all "old testament" about one's views on the world.
Sweet, now all we need to do is develop an application that is attractive, easy to use, and addictive. Wow, why didn't we think of that before.
That's hilarious. If they believe this, have them read through the EULA they probably don't know about. When has Microsoft, or ANY mass-market software company, EVER been held "accountable" for something that went wrong? Generally, that just doesn't happen.
I've been trying to switch to Linux from Windows for several years. I always have trouble trying to get something working or to get some software to complete a certain task. I have to search through thousands of sites to find the correct answer I need, and at times, it can be frustrating.
Contrast that to the fantastic experience I had with BeOS 5 Personal Edition. It installed in under five minutes. Set up all my hardware, including a TV card. For any task I wanted, I could simply go to bebits.com and get what I needed. It wasn't too long that I dumped Windows completely and used Be exclusively. If Be hadn't folded, I'd probably still be using BeOS to this day. For the first time in my life I knew what it felt like to be a mac-head. I truly loved BeOS on an emotional level.
I can't help but think that because BeOS had a single company behind it, that switching was made much easier. While open source is great for getting something to work. Proprietary software is great for making the process easy and pleasurable. (Of course Microsoft is changing that rule via Product Activation. Calling up and asking permission to change your hardware is about as frustrating an experience as you can get.)
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
as JWZ said it:
"How will this software get my users laid" should be on the minds of anyone writing social software (and these days, almost all software is social software).
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
It doesn't matter what the truth is. All that matters is perception. Thats why companies have marketing staffs.
I still think the analogy is shallow at best. Many people have observed that the open source software community is similar to a religion, but as far as comparing it to specific religions, I think that takes it a bit far. There are certainly elements of missionary zeal and righteous anger in the open source community -- just look at the furore over SCO; I'm sure Darl McBride would not characterize Linux advocates as passive or pacifistic, given that he has received death threats.
And closed source is like Christianity only in the sense that any large heirarchical organization, be it government, business, or religion, resembles another. Furthermore, there is plenty of money (in the billions) riding on Linux, from giant companies such as IBM and Novell. Large-scale users sign support agreements that are similar in nature to licensing agreements from Microsoft. The individual home user is still small potatoes to Linux, and my personal opinion is that this has nothing to do with the fact that Linux is non-proprietary.
To digress, you seem to confuse Christianity with Catholicism, whereas the latter is a subset of the former. One may as well argue that Buddhism is a violent religion because of the actions of the Shinto Japanese in WW2. In fact, my religion allows priests to marry, ordains women, and blesses gay unions. And let's not forget that Christianity has given the world some of its greatest freedom fighters and poverty advocates, from St Francis of Assisi, to Martin Luther King Jr, to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, to Mother Teresa.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.