FOSS Is Not Free if It's Not Free From Complexity

A reader writes:"This article argues that freedom from complexity is an essential part of the first FOSS freedom - the freedom to run a program. Freedom to run means nothing if the exercise of such right excludes people who do not possess high technical knowledge or advanced skills sets. Without the guarantee of "ease of use", the freedom to run FOSS for most users is a hollow promise. " (My own bias ensues here): I think that there are some valuable points in here; what good is a good if it cannot be used, but OTOH this argument seems simplistic.

Comments

Simplistic?

[Catskul]

The argument is not simplistic, it just has freedom from complexity! : )

Re:Simplistic?

[mausmalone]

What the fuck is a FOSS?

... seriously, though, part of the complexity comes from using your own terms and vocabulary that the average software user wouldn't understand.

Re:Simplistic?

[TubeSteak]

RTFA

The very first sentence answer your question.

Free and open source software (FOSS)

You have a UID lower than mine, but it seems like you're still new here.

Re:Simplistic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Articles such as this make mounds out of mole-hills, for the
simple reason of fuelling fodder in opposition the growth of linux
and related OPEN SOURCE groups. It is merely splitting hairs here.

A majority of current software on all platforms is complex.
My father is perplexed each time his Scanner/Fax won't scan or
fax for him under WindowsXP. And the resulting error message popup
is close to being useless as well.

Retail software is designed to be simple minded, however still
remaining complex under the hood. Any pop-up dialogues do not
give relavent hints as to what went wrong, or what it is
actually doing - let alone the generic error messages generated
in Windows when something does go wrong. This would appear complex
to any non-tech savvy user as well. I don't see the differences
between the free OS & apps, versus the retail boxed OS & apps.

My experience is that once a linux workstation is assembled,
and everything is configured, it works rather well. My father
can handle it, and he comments on how some applications are
more friendly.

I've used about a dozen different Linux distro's over the
last 10 years+ and there have only been a couple of apps which
fit the category of being unusable/over-complex.

I hope that when people read these type of articles that they
take it with a grain of salt, and compare it to their daily
experiences with their currently installed non-linux OS on
their PC's.

The 450 users in my department would give good testimony of
the daily quirks, confusing pop-up messages, and troubles
with their high powered mainstream machines( running windows).
Where's the difference here?

Re:Simplistic?

[ajs318]

Exactly.

The problem is that the human organism has two modes of learning. Babies tend to learn by blind repetition and obedience; older children and adults tend to think more in terms of abstract concepts and underlying reasons. This makes sense from a survival point of view: it's more important for a toddler not to fall off a cliff / get eaten by a bear / drown &c., than to understand why not.

It seems that some adults are simply frightened of computers, and this is triggering a change in their behaviour around computers. The Eternal N00b is reduced to the status of a three-year-old playing near a pit of deadly vipers. The computer's error messages are interpreted akin to the strident warnings barked out by a nearby adult. The E.N. learns nothing about the way computers work, only that certain courses of action are proscribed. A real child probably would eventually come to understand what is so dangerous about the snakes, or leave them alone altogether. In fear born of ignorance, the Eternal N00b never understands computers or software, only learns by rote what not to do; and so will remain evermore a n00b.

Re:Simplistic?

[eno2001]

Well there's a bigger problem. The entire set of concepts and licenses behind Free and Open Source Software is quite complex so that even most Slashdotters don't really know what they're talking about in this regard. Just a nit BTW... "FOSS" is an acronym like USA. How many people walk around daily saying "The United States of America" and never saying "the USA"? Or how about SCSI to bring this closer to home. Have you EVER heard anyone actually say Small Computer Systems Interface repeatedly instead of SCSI? The fact is that acronyms have to be learned in any field and the computer field is rife with them. VGA, BMP, JPEG, MPEG, PCI, etc... If someone is interested in Free/Open Source Software, then they are going to have to learn what the acronym means. Plain and simple.

Getting back to the licenses and concepts though... think about the amount of people who hear "Linux" and think that it includes Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and the like. I know that one of my supervisors thinks that "Linux" means ANY software that is given away at no charge. But how do you explain to "Joe Average" that Linux is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system which is packaged by multiple projects and vendors as a distribution? And beyond that, how do you get people to realize that RedHat, Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, SuSE and all the others are NOT just GNU/Linux, but are various distributions of GNU/Linux? And how do you get them to see the value in this? That's the problem. It's not FOSS at all, it's the ignorance of most users these days and we have "ease of use" lies to thank for that. There was a time in the United States of America when people were raised to respect intelligence and asipre to it. Today, they are raised to respect earning power and asipre to "being rich". That's why people don't get FOSS. They're being conditioned to be the ultimate consumers instead of producers themselves. And that's just the way business wants it.

Re:Simplistic?

[Skreems]

Amen, sir. This bothers me to no end as well. Most objects in the everyday world are so simple because they have a very small set of tasks to perform. A car has one pedal that makes it go accelerate, another that makes it slow down, and a wheel that directs its motion. The concept of a clutch and shifter is too complex for most people today.

Computers, on the other hand, allow the user to run multiple applications, enter text, perform searches, communicate with a global network, burn writable media, etc. A web browser alone has about twenty times more options than a car. They are not simple machines, and the people who have been selling them as such have been lying through their teeth.

You can either have a simple interface, or a full feature set. You can't have both. Google's Search, for example, is so simple because you can take one operation. That's all. I give them some words, it gives me back what it thinks I mean. Anything more complex (searching within a certain site, searching page titles) uses cryptic search keys that most users are unaware of. Even more advanced operations like searching by change date, are not provided at all. Desktop software provides many, many more options, and it has to because the software provides that much functionality. But it also requires people to learn for a change. I'm all for simplifying interfaces as much as possible, but there's a certain amount of complexity inherent in a task.

Re:Simplistic?

[Iron Condor]

Maybe YOU shoud read what you are responding to. I gave you a list of new features in cars.

No, you did not. You are merely confused.

A computerized fuel pump is NOT (repeat NOT) a feature. It is a matter of internal complexity. It is not something that a user can do with a car. It is not a function a user would want to perform with the car. It is not something the car is purchased to do.

People buy cars to perferofm some task. Go from here to there. Haul some stuff in the process. That's it. That's what you do with a car. THE ONE feature of a car is this ability to move. All else is flrill (that is bought with added complexity of the interface).

People buy computers to send and receive email. Browse the www. Share photos. Produce business reports. Manage their finances and file taxes. Download music. Thousands of different features that all have to be represented in the UI. It does not matter what happens under the hood -- the user interface does not get more complex because you put in more ram or a faster processor. Because these are NOT (repeat NOT) features any more than the computerized fuel pump.

You need to stop looking at the car from the perspective of a mechanic and look at it from the perspective of the USER of the computer. The "features" are things like "audio system". And the fuller the feature set, the more complex the interface becomes. A fuel injection system is NOT (repeat: NOT) a feature in todays cars. All cars have it. It is not even mentioned in the ad. It does not influence a single buying decision anywhere. Nobody goes around and brags about it. It does not change one iota about the features of the car: when you depress this pedal here it accelerates and when you hit that other pedal is slows down.

There's a metric bazillion things in todays computers that they didn't have 15 years ago, memory controllers and GPUs and onboard ethernet -- and none of them change the features of the computer which are "when you click this icon you get a web-browser whic will show some page and if you want to change what it shows you click on options | preferences tab to 'general', click on the 'home page' button ..." etc etc. Complexity of UI because there is a feature here (where does the browser start) that the car simply doesn't have (it always starts where you last left it). You can strip this complexity from the browser UI by making it work like the car and always start where you last turned it off. Less complex UI, reduced feature set.

And that's only ONE feature of only ONE piece of software that people use on a computer for ONE task. While "accelerating and decelerating and steering" pretty much exhaust the feature list of a car: Automatic transmission caught on exactly because "shifting gears" is NOT a feature - it is an annoyance that most people would like to get rid of because it doesn't contribute to this feature set. People buy computers to browse the web -- they don't buy cars "to shift gears".

Author seems confused.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

1) The author talks about 'complexity', but all software is complex, the number of people who understand the countless abstraction layers that exist in a typical piece of modern software can be counted on one hand (a closed fist). I suspect by complexity, the author means usability

2) Usability is not specifically an F/OSS problem - it is a software problem. There's a lot of crap software out there, that the vast majority of people never see (because it costs money). However, many people do see free / oss as it's (generally) availalbe free of charge.

I do take the authors point that for a user to effectively maintain their freedom, free software must be usable.

Re:Author seems confused.

[PepeGSay]

If GPL'd software isn't complex then how will you make money off it? I mean you can hardly charge for the software (yes legally you can, but we all know what you can really get is peanuts) and everyone recommends charging for services that surround the software.

Complexity, difficulty of use, difficulty of modification, and difficulty of extension are promoted (thought not consciously) by the GPL and other licensing methods because people have determined that support, training, continued access to modifictions, and fee based extensions are how you make money off them.

Re:Author seems confused.

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

My thoughts exactly. Then again, the author uses Openoffice as an example of a simple application -- his definition of simple being similar to Microsoft Office. The logic is ... undeniable.

Re:Author seems confused.

[marcello_dl]

That might be the case for some projects, like JBoss. In the majority of cases anyway I am sure that FOSS projects suffer from lack of documentation or QA because they are the less creative aspects of the project.
And imho even underdocumented stuff is easier to live with than commercial software designed to perpetuate one vendor's marketshare. (shuddering recalling the good old commercial/invasive shareware installation and usage days).

I do not see how creating difficult to use software can make you competitive in the long run. Competition just "gets inspired" by your project, copies some code, adds documentation and eats you alive.

Re:Author seems confused.

[AKAImBatman]

Ease = money. Cheap or free = work a little. Always has been, always will be.

So what you're saying is: You get what you pay for?

Re:Author seems confused.

[ajs]

This comes up fairly often, but it's always the same song. No one looks at the curve, they just cherry-pick the current items that are usability hurdles. Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc. They're all "hard to use". The key thing is how quickly their target users can come up to speed and surmount those usability hurdles. The OSS tactic has always been to nail the tech stuff first (because that's our target audience) and let folks like Sun (with their massive contribution to / creation of the Gnome usability effort), Ubuntu, Lindows, Mantiva, etc. work on the usability by mere mortals.

This has resulted in a system which has solid technical underpinnings, and yet has become more and more usable over time.

Today's Linux systems, for example, are far easier to install and use than they were just a few years ago, and that curve continues to improve for the end-user.

Re:Author seems confused.

[mothlos]

1) Complexity of use is definitely complexity here. Like good programmers, a lot of the people working on FOSS are trying to build in flexibility. This means a boatload of options, most of which are cryptic techno-speak for interoperability. Instead of tucking all of the options out of the way of people who won't understand them, much FOSS even requires that you deal with these settings before the software will even work. The author is using complexity from a user perspective, which is a more specific gripe than just complaining about usability, which is broader.

2) I agree that it is a problem with software in general, but FOSS is particularly bad in this regard. Paid software companies that want to have a popular product will hire people who might not be coding experts, but understand usability for their target audience to come in and help create the result. They also end up hiring people who can translate between these folks and the devs so they don't kill each other. One outstanding criticism of FOSS is that most projects exclude those without a coding skillset even if they can bring other skillsets to the table that would improve the project. This means that people who have insights regarding usability often get excluded from influencing development.

I do want to point out that a vast majority of FOSS is just fine because the target audience is very technology savvy folks. The problem here is when FOSS evangalists run around asking why people are still installing Windows when this great other OS is available for free. Even if FOSS were to bridge that last usability gap to the non-technical user, there are other obstacles which bar the way, but this last gap is a requirement for use by the general public.

Re:Author seems confused.

[misleb]

That is complete rubbish. OSS developers do not sit around consciously (or unconsciously) thinking about how to keep their software difficult to use. Except for companies like RedHat, OSS developers are not even the ones making money from the software. And RedHat Linux is historically considered one of the easier distributions to use.

What it comes down to is that making a system easy to use for non-techs is HARD. Like thourough documentation, it is tedious and thankless work. There is just no motivation for volunteer developers to go that extra step. If the software works for them and the people on their mailing list, that is often good enough.

-matthew

Isn't this the "Unix Philosophy" anyway?

[metternich]

Do one thing and do it well? Modular archetecture rather than giant monolithic design is why *nix has been successful.

Not again...

[jawtheshark]

While there have been some progress in making the installation and use of FOSS OSes like Ubuntu easier and simpler, they still do not have the "click-click-click" ease of installation of popular proprietary OSes like Windows XP or Mac OS X. In addition, even after one successfully installs a FOSS OS on a computer, a user will typically have to deal with issues like lack of drivers, incompatibility with third party devices or difficulty in installing new programs or software packages

Has this guy ever installed Windows XP on a new bare computer? I don't think so... The first thing I have to do is to go and hunt for the diverse drivers for nearly every device that it has. Graphics, sound, wireless,....
Linux often supports everything out of the box, and what is not supported is, ehm... simply not supported because the specs of the devices are not available and thus the developpers that want to develop the drivers have to resort to reverse-engineering.

Sure, application installation is "harder" in a Linux environment, because it doesn't follow the "double-click-on-that-icon-and-press-next-next-nex t-finish" or even worse "insert-cd-and-automatically-run-a-program-that-mi ght-damage-your-computer" (see Sony Rootkit on Audio CD's...)

If we want it that easy, we have only one way to go, and that is the Apple way: drag an application in the "Application" folder and that is all you got to do for installation. The Windows way is actually not what you want...

Re:Not again...

[Southpaw018]

This isn't true. For either OS. Either you're running a highly exotic hardware setup, or you're choosing to do the installer's work for it.
Installing Windows XP from scratch on a freshly formatted hard drive is nigh hands off; every now and then, Dell puts out a driver that isn't included with Win XP, so you go to dell.com and download it. No biggie. Then...I'm not a real Nix fan, but I was very impressed with the Debian install I did. I expected it to be a horrid experience. Instead, it was quite pleasant. Everything except the video card drivers installed itself, and a quick question to a nix using friend helped me find xvidtune and everything was all set.

Re:Not again...

[TrappedByMyself]

Hooray for propaganda!

Umm Windows is hard to install (well, not really) and Linux is easy to install, but if it turns out to be hard to install, then it's someone else's fault! Oh, and Linux applications are harder to install because Windows applications are easy to install, but that's a good thing because sometimes people do bad things, (even though they could also do bad things on Linux, they would just be harder to install, and it would be someone else's fault anyway). So, anyway, if you want easy, then you need to use a Mac(ignoring that the discussion is about the need for FOSS software to be more user-friendly).

So, in summary: If someone suggests that FOSS needs to be more user friendly, then the answer is that Windows sucks and if you want useability, go buy a Mac.

Re:Not again...

[GroinWeasel]

Macs use both the "drag package to apps folder" and "run installer wizard" systems. The drag+drop is used for programs that don't need to install anything outside their own package (e.g. FTP clients etc) The second is used for programs that do need to install things elsewhere (off the top of my head... I think photoshop installs like this, certainly the bigger apple apps do, maybe even iTunes) If you are an admin account (or have that permission) you can just drag+drop with impunity, if you aren't given that control you are asked for an admin uid/pwd before teh drag+drop action can be done. The wizard style install ALWAYS requires an admin authentication before installing.

Re:Not again...

[LWATCDR]

This does bring up one of my pet peeves with Linux.
The lack of a stable binary interface for drivers. The main reason is strictly philosophical but it drives me nuts.
Why should I constantly have to get new drivers when I upgrade Linux? Often I have to recompile the old driver. Yea it isn't that hard for me to do but it is out side the comfort zone of about 99.9% of the computer using population! Nvidia and ATI are not going to open source their drivers anytime soon. We will keep using Nvidia and ATIs closed source drivers because they are 1. Free and 2. Work. Making it painful by not having a clean, stable, binary interface will not work. All it does is make users lives harder and slow adoption of Linux.
Since I have just helped a friend install XP on a new system she built I know that it can be a total PITA to install. She had to slipstream SP2 and then hunt down drivers for her sata controller. Ubuntu looks like child's play compared to that.

MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, we can't mod stories yet, but if we could, you should.

All too often, the people "open sourcing" their software are the same ones who have this elitist attitude of "if you don't have enough time to gather reams of knowledge, don't bother hoping to understand the source". Honestly -- how many of you would be capable of knowing where to add code to GIMP if you wanted to add your own image manipulation/comparison algorithm?

For me, even though I know C++, most C++ FOSS source code might as well be in binary. Once I wanted to adapt an open source word processor to suit my needs, and there's no way I would ever hope to do with an existing FOSS program.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Would you know where to do it in Adobe Photoshop? If you answered: "Yeah, you simply write a file importer plugin" then you'd also know where to do it in the GIMP code.

I always like the whole Photoshop vs GIMP discussion. People take a lot of courses learning Photoshop. Then when you start a discussion that GIMP is a great tool they always complain that it's design isn't intuitive and that Photoshop is "better". Yet they spend hours learning how to use Photoshop. If they spend the same time learning GIMP there wouldn't be a problem.

ObPython

[Rob T Firefly]

Cut to a sign saying 'How to do it'. Music. Pull out to reveal a 'Blue Peter' type set. Sitting casually on the edge of a dais are three presenters in sweaters - Noel, Jackie and Alan - plus a large bloodhound.
Alan: Hello.
Noel: Hello.
Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.
Jackie: Hello, Alan.
Alan: Hello, Jackie.
Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.
Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.
Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.
Alan: Bye.
Jackie: Bye.

On the mark

[Billosaur]

Normally, I'd be a little put off by what amounts to an opinion piece bya lawyer on open source, but there are good points:

Current FOSS operating systems (OS) are targeted mainly at geeks, hackers and other technically skilled developers and users. While there have been some progress in making the installation and use of FOSS OSes like Ubuntu easier and simpler, they still do not have the "click-click-click" ease of installation of popular proprietary OSes like Windows XP or Mac OS X. In addition, even after one successfully installs a FOSS OS on a computer, a user will typically have to deal with issues like lack of drivers, incompatibility with third party devices or difficulty in installing new programs or software packages. A normal user wants everything to work out-of-the-box [emphasis mine]. This is especially true in developing countries where a computer costs more than a month's salary. Since a computer is a major purchase, it's usefulness and usability should be present at the moment a user turns on his or her computer. People are not interested in (in fact, most are adverse to) messing around with, tinkering or hacking a program - the second, third and fourth software freedoms.

It goes back to the whole idea of Linux as an everyday operating system. Anyone who is not a geek, i.e. most of the population, is not going to adopt something that isn't easy to operate. I mean, there's no reason to make a Windows-like GUI for Linux unless you want people to actually think of Linux as an alternative to Windows. And while you might impress the average user with a Windows-like look and feel, unless it's just as easy to use out of the box as their Windows PC is now, there will be no great swell of converts.

I've said it before: Linux's popularity depends on what it wants to be. If it wants to be the OS of geeks and hackers and multi-million dollar corporations, so be it. If Linux (or any of its derivatives) wish to compete against Windows for market share, there has to be a shift in thinking, away from kernel-centric, gizmos-and-gadgets way of thinking to the "what would a user want to do" mindset.

Re:On the mark

[marcosdumay]

Where is "that easy to use" or "works out of the box" that eveybody says Windows has? I've never been able to see it, and don't know a user that is able to install Windows (not a lot of people) and not able to install an easy Linux distro.

"Works out of the box" is even the worse possible description of Windows, since it is useless out of the box.

The article's not stupid, just free from logic.

[petard]

Seriously. I want my 30 seconds back.

The entire article hinges on this point:

Current FOSS operating systems (OS) are targeted mainly at geeks, hackers and other technically skilled developers and users. While there have been some progress in making the installation and use of FOSS OSes like Ubuntu easier and simpler, they still do not have the "click-click-click" ease of installation of popular proprietary OSes like Windows XP or Mac OS X.

which is simply wrong. The author acknowledges that "OSes like Ubuntu" are easy to use but dings them on the installation process relative to Windows XP. (S/)He has clearly never installed XP from scratch. That's reflected again in his dig about driver problems...

Those two concerns are addressed by buying a machine with a pre-installed OS and using that. He never argues why you should buy a machine pre-installed with Windows. He also misses the point that all users are, of course, free to learn the advanced technical skills that are dismissed in this column. And the point that such self improvement is much more accessible when the developers of the software in use have preserved the freedoms the author derides as only useful for tinkering that real people have no interest in.

Depends how you define "free"

[Demona]

Ah, the eternal conflict between those who define freedom as the absence of external limitations and those who define it simply as ability without regard to resources. "I am required to breathe oxygen in order to survive; therefore I am not free."

The missing point

[grasshoppa]

I think the author is missing one of the points. It's not necessary to be usable for endusers to be good for them.

For example; I work for a semi-large dental office. 3 offices, 100+ employees. Each and everyone of those employees benefit from OSS, even if they don't know it. From the spam being kept out of their mail boxes, to email being delivered all together, to the IM network, not to mention the file server. I won't even go into how the phones are handled.

I am the only one ( on the payroll ) that knows how any of this works, and that benefits at least 100+ people ( not to mention the secondary effects of such a setup ). That's the true power of opensource software.

I call bollocks.

[Mac Degger]

What a rubbish statement. Take 3d for example. An open source 3d program is free, grreat and at this point is called Blender. But 3D ain't simple, it ain't easy. It's gonna take a couple of days to figure out if you've done nothing in that direction. So for any newb, it's gonna be very complex. Hell, certain aspects can be complex for non-newbs.

But to call Blender non-free 'cause it's a complex piece of software? That's a very stupid thing to say.

XP does not require a driver hunt.

[Shivetya]

I have installed a few machines recently and not once did I have to hunt down drivers to have a functional machine.

Now there are cases where there are newer drivers that I could go get should I need them but they are not required.

The big difference between installing Linux versus XP?

If I need drivers they most likely exist for XP.

Re:XP does not require a driver hunt.

[hacker]

The big difference between installing Linux versus XP?

If I need drivers they most likely exist for XP.

This is not a Linux problem. Please talk to your hardware vendor and ask where their Linux drivers are on their website.

Re:XP does not require a driver hunt.

[Vomibra]

I don't know what kind of hardware you're running, but I know I had to hunt down drivers for my motherboard--including sound and ethernet drivers--as well as video drivers. This was followed by several hours of furious clicking to install enough stuff to make the damn thing usable. In contrast, the only drivers that I had to go out and get for my Linux install were the nvidia drivers--and those are packaged by my distribution (and therefore update automatically along with all my other software!). If open Linux drivers exist for your hardware, that hardware will likely work out of the box on any recent distribution with automatic hardware detection (e.g, Ubuntu).

OMG NO DIGG

[linvir]

A blog entry about Linux being too hard to use? What the hell is this? It's not even well written. At a glance it just looks like a mass of the word FOSS over and over.

When the FOSS community finally releases a FOSS OS that is as easy to install and use as any proprietary OS, users will have no trouble moving to this FOSS OS since the programs they know and love will run on it.

This doesn't even make any sense. How the fuck does the second part follow from the first part?

Users who use and run FOSS programs on Windows do not have to concern themselves with driver issues and other technical mumbo-jumbo.

This is complete bullshit. I can't count the number of times I've had to have people do weird shit like boot a LiveCD just to run lspci, because Windows doesn't support any of their hardware, and can't even retrieve the vendor information hardcoded into it so as they can find their own drivers.

A normal user wants everything to work out-of-the-box. This is especially true in developing countries where a computer costs more than a month's salary.

More bullshit. If you don't have the money, you'll either put the work into learning how to use it as you would with a car, or you'll pirate a copy of Windows, and put the exact same amount of work into learning.

No more blog entries please.

And anyway, there is already a "FOSS OS that is as easy to install and use as any proprietary OS", it's called OpenSUSE. It's the easiest thing I've ever used in my life, though it was bloaty and I eventually got sick of it and came back to Slackware.

sigh...

[kgcurrie]

Math is too hard! Until the mathematicians make it more usable, it will never gain acceptance in the Real World(TM).

Here's my summary of TFA:

"Somebody needs to do everything for me, including all of my thinking."

Move alone everyone. There is nothing to see here.

Re:sigh...

[helix_r]

Many of you don't understand the point of the article. Of course, somethings are going to hard.

The question is whether or not the user is wasting effort getting past YOUR (the developer's) CRUFT-- or whether they are spending effort efficiently focusing on THEIR PROBLEMS.

For example...

If installing a piece of software means having to edit a ridiculous xml config file, many people just aren't going to do it, and for good reason.

Note to developer's: xml was NOT meant to be editted by hand. You have great tools at your disposal to automate the manipulation of xml for your users. USE THEM! Don't make people guess and struggle with config files because you are are not willing to either make SANE "out of the box" default configs or are too lazy to provide a basic wizard to make things easy.

Re:sigh...

[ezavada]

Math is too hard! Until the mathematicians make it more usable, it will never gain acceptance in the Real World(TM).

While undeniably funny, this is decidedly not insightful. First, math is hard, and thus the widespread use of calculators and computers to make it easier.

Here's my summary of TFA: "Somebody needs to do everything for me, including all of my thinking."

This couldn't be further from what TFA actually says. A better summary would be "don't make me have to spend time fiddling with the cruft, make it easy to use so I can get on with thinking about the important stuff."

A good user interface will get out of the way and let you get your job done, and perhaps more important it will have a shallow, near linear learning curve. A bad user interface imposes itself between you and the problem space, and is characterized by a steep learning curve. The command line is a great example of this. It requires a large amount of knowlege to do rather simple things compared to a GUI. Command lines have their place -- for those who have the knowlege required and need to do complicated things, they are quite useful.

Just because you're free to doesn't mean you can..

[strider44]

I'm free to swim to Europe, that doesn't mean I can. I'm also free to build a formula one vehicle, but that doesn't mean I know how, or have the resources to do it.

I think this author has a strange meaning of the word "free". "Free" has nothing to do with the credentials of the user - if they want to use the software they're free to learn how to.

He's Not Confused

[eldavojohn]

1) The author talks about 'complexity', but all software is complex, the number of people who understand the countless abstraction layers that exist in a typical piece of modern software can be counted on one hand (a closed fist). I suspect by complexity, the author means usability

I don't think the author's confused. I think the author is trying to argue the same thing that Microsoft argues when it says that Linux costs more than Windows. I know that this goes against the Slashdot mantra and I don't agree with it but Gates claims that the complexity of an operating system (like Linux or Windows) coupled with the lack of support leads to an unmeasurable cost. Since most distros of Linux don't have quite the support he claims necessary, he can then argue that they will only end up costing you more when something goes wrong and the people who wrote the code aren't around to fix it. This author seems to be trying to argue the same theory for FOSS. In that complexity without support is dangerous.

I don't agree with his argument but it's not because he's confused ... it's just because I don't agree with his base assumptions which the author attempts to deduce fact from.

Re:Do we want to go the Word way?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

That's because the "average user" has the IQ of a coconut. In the States, anyway.

You seem confused.

[TubeSteak]

The author specifically talks about the complexity of getting a FOSS OS running

even after one successfully installs a FOSS OS on a computer, a user will typically have to deal with issues like lack of drivers, incompatibility with third party devices or difficulty in installing new programs or software packages.

His solution to increasing the adoption of FOSS sidesteps Gnu/Linux (and their complex problems) by suggesting a push into Windows software.

Even this push into Windows software does not bring with it the types of issues you describe, as the author is discussing relatively mature programs.

To summarize TFA's point: Encourage more OSS on Windows, so that when the OSS operating systems are stupid simple, the transition will be transparent to the user. Everything will just work.

Re:Agree on principle.

[WhiteWolf666]

Use SuSE.

Seriously. The SuSE RPM database is excellent, and with online repositories you don't need to carry around CDs.

For example, Snes9x is part of SuSE: http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/profe ssional/snes9x.html

Need to get roms?

You can install the easy-to-install Limewire RPM from Limewire's site (installing me "click on the 'download' link", and then press the "Install in YaST" link on the embedded RPM browser that shows up in your web browser. Limewire's icon will show up under the "Internet" category in your KDE menu.

How is this not far easier than on Windows?

All you have to do is go to YaST, search for "SNES", and install it. No hunting out which-is-the-right file, no worrying about stuff you can't install;

It's all managed by RPM, via GUI, and all the packages you could ever want are avaliable. The worst thing you'll ever have to do is learn to add an additional RPM source, and there are step-by-step screenshot guides that show you how to do that. These guides are generally easier to use than the step-by-step guides which show you how to install a wireless router, or a printer (on Windows; printing on SUSE is dead easy).

It's not a problem with FOSS; ease of use is up to the distro makers. I don't expect Gentoo or Slackware to be easy for noobs; that's not why they are there. Use Mandrake or SuSE (especially SuSE). I've converted my relatives to SuSE, and they don't mind a bit.

Freedom isn't free

[The Monster]

People have unrealistic ideas about what 'free' means. It's the speech/beer thing. While sometimes things can be free in both senses, there is often a tradeoff between the two. My Chevy is 'free/open source' in the sense that I can get my oil changed at Jiffy Lube instead of Mr. Goodwrench. Or I can buy some oil, a filter, and the appropriate tools (maybe even a Haynes manual) at O'Reilly Auto Parts, and do it myself.

My Linux boxes are free in the sense that I can hire anyone I want to help me with them, or I can get a book from O'Reilly Media, and do it myself.

Freedom doesn't mean that no effort/expense is required. It only means that the effort won't be artificially impeded.

Re:Freedom isn't free

[MikeFM]

This guys argument is why America doesn't work. Everyone wants freedom without having any responsibilities. People seem not to understand that the payment required for freedom is higher responsibility. When you no longer live with mama you have to make sure your bills get paid, do your own laundry, get your ass out of bed in the morning, etc - there is no longer somebody there making sure all this happens. That's just the way freedom works.

People are free to have easier to use FOSS software - all they have to do is learn how the software works and either submit patches that make it easier to use, write their own version that is easier to use, or write a frontend that makes it easier to use. Everyone has that freedom. If they don't want to take advantage of it then it's their own problem. That's where their rights and responsibilities meet.

Leaving behind the whole freedom issue though I'll agree that FOSS could often be easier. Sometimes it is well designed and well documented but to often it's something thrown together without concern and with either sucky or non-existing documentation. It's frustrating, even for advanced users, when your trying to use something and you're expected to read, and sometimes fix, the source code to figure things out. For programs that are out of beta and in use by thousands or millions of people that isn't a good situation.

Complexity and Freedom

[Nephroth]

I can agree with the notion that some FOSS is too complex for most users, but I think that is mostly indicative of a few poorly designed programs.

Let's take GIMP, for example. It is free, and easy to install, but the ease of use ends there as it bears very very little similarity to other graphics editors of similar calibur such as Photoshop, Illustrator, or (my personal favorite) Paint Shop Pro. Now, it is possible to learn and become proficient with GIMP, I have had to and I can appreciate the software, but users hate to click and see nothing happen.

GIMP is an exception to the rules, however, as I have found most open-source software to be relatively intuitive and easy to use. Albeit, much of that software asks a little more of its users than the equivalent Windows software, but not much. Using the command line, or having a cursory knowledge of what one is doing is not an unreasonable demand for a user.

In fact, I would be more prone to saying that it is far more unreasonable to demand that software developers make software that anyone can use without any prior knowledge of the software. There are very few devices, electronic or otherwise, that require no prior knowledge on their use on the part of the user, and software shouldn't be expected to be the exception.

There is also a certain amount of freedom that comes from complexity. A number of my open source applications offer me a wealth of options that their closed-source counterparts lack. This adds to complexity, but I am rewarded for my efforts to learn by saved time and effort, and specific control over what I'm doing.

I understand the point the author is trying to make, but I think they are being very short-sighted. Applications such as Word and Excel are very complex, it's just that most users are ignorant to the complexity, and the applications are made to be tolerant of their ignorance. Someone who is familiar with page formatting on more advanced systems, however, tends to find applications like Word (and it's "auto-formatting") very frustrating.

I suppose the point that I'm trying to make is this: If you don't have the prior knowledge necessary to use a piece of software, that is in no way the fault of the developer. If you want to do something, do the work necessary.

Re:MOD STORY UNSIGHTFUL

[nietsch]

Photoshop I have seldom used, so I know little about that. But I have used the Gimp too often. It always has something that makes me start screaming at my monitor, and that is a very bad sign for any program.

It does not matter that photoshop is hard to learn too, the problem is that it takes too much time to learn the gimp's interface. I don't want to spend 3 weeks learning the gimp, I want it to do what I want when I need it.

If any Gimp developers replies that I am not (in) the intended audience, then she/he does not deserve widespread succes. I heard that there was a new and more friendly editor named xara in town, so I'll be checking that one out soon. They don't have to do that many things right to win me (and a lot of other part-time gimp users) over.

But to tie the diversion to TFA; the problem is most likely caused that FOSS developers are mostly sratching their own itches. So for them it is no problem at all that the interface is hard to understand. They probably won't even notice, because when you have developed the software, you have automatically learned the interface (or molded it to your expectations). And when it gets really bad and it finally is suggested that the interface needs to be totally overhauled, the developers will baulk at it because all of a sudden they will need to unlearn the old interface and learn a new one.

My suggestion how to this problem: make the interface skinnable or plug-able, so that other people can develop a more simple interface. I would love it if I could change the interface behaviour via (menu)->edit->preferences->configure interface, or (menu)->settings->configure interface. And while you are at it, please dump that braindead gnome toolkit for a kde one :P

Free.

[twitter]

... part of the complexity comes from using your own terms and vocabulary that the average software user wouldn't understand.

That's true, you have to know your audience and simple terms are always better. "Free software" is a better term than FOSS, despite the ambiguity. Everyone likes "free," even if they don't understand what that means for software. Everyone knows what "distribution" is, though they might not have the foggiest idea where free software comes from. Though it's a mouthfull, everyone knows what "image manipulation" and "text editing" are all about. This is an advantage free software has over commercial software, where brand recognition is so important the user is forced to remember company names and three letter file extensions in order to start and use programs. Most free software advocates do take advantage of this fact.

It's not really an issue here. The author is addressing the technical community, which knows what free and open software is. He wants people to continue to port software to Windoze. I dissagree with his opinion, but that's another matter. I doubt Linux newbies are going to find their way to this essay.

Equivocation

[Anonymous Coward]

This confusion of the senses of the word "free" happens a lot, sometimes deliberately. I have heard justifications for human slavery that ran something like this: "Slaves are more free than their owners because slaves are free from the burdens of responsibility."

The two senses used here are:
1)the freedom to DO something that one wants.
2) the lack of presence of something that one does not want.

and don't forget

3) A product which is distributed at no financial cost.

These three meanings constitute three very different concepts, they just happen to be tied up in a single word.

In the case of "free" software, non-techies often think of the word in the third sense (oh...i don't have to pay for it? then why is suse charging 70 bucks for it?). Usually the techies think of the word in the first sense (aha, I can do whatever I want with it, including look at the code, change it, and redistribute it). One word is used, but two meanings are invoked.

Adding the word "truly" to the front of the word "free" does not clarify its meaning in any way whatsoever.

FOSS is what it is, and various senses of the word "free" apply to it in various contexts.

Ease of use (or, more accurately, ease-of-learning-how-to-use-without-reading-much) is a feature. Some free software has it, and some free software does not. This feature does not make it any more free in the first or third sense of the word, but it might make it more free in the second sense of the word (free from barriers to adoption). This does not make it "truly" free, it just makes it more free in a completely different way.

I might add: if something is available to you at no financial cost, and all you are doing is complaining that it isn't exactly like the stuff you already know how to use, don't be surprised when the response from the providers is less than positive.

Ease of Use and Quality Software are Mutually...

[eno2001]

...exclusive concepts. However this is highly subjective since "quality software" is defined in different ways by different users. Witness:

1. Today, I consider quality software to be very flexible and to allow for extensive CLI interfaces as well as highly intricate GUI interfaces. Think of combining tools like KDE Konsole, Enlightenment 0.7 Desktop, GNU Screen, LVM, and Xen virtualization.
2. When I was a new PC user (circa 1994) I considered quality software to be exclusively GUI based, object oriented (even though I didn't really know what that meant at the time), statically linked binaries (just a single executable with everything built in and no lib dependencies or "DLL Hell"), and everything had to be a metaphor to real world objects.
3. Mr. Middle Management considers quality software to be what all other Mr. Middle Managers use. Regardless of whether the program actually works well or works at all, if all the others have it, then he's got to have it too.
4. Mr. Joe User believes that quality software is something that "just works" from his point of view. It might be the most inefficient, spyware-ridden piece of crap, but if it allows him to do task X with little or no effort, then it's "quality" as far as he's concerned and he doesn't want to know about better ways even if they will help him save money, and get the most out of his computer.

So the problem isn't with FOSS. The problem lies with the users. Unless you're willing to work harder to get the most out of your computing experience, you will probably shy away from FOSS. Besides, who says that FOSS is primarily trying to get more mindshare? FOSS doesn't exist to be popular. It exists to do a job and do it well. In many cases, doing a job well is something that only professionals and hobbyists can do. (Ugh, I hate the term "hobbyist" because it belittles the importance of these advanced users) And this will never change.

Re:Office is key

[TobascoKid]

Most computers out there are probably bought to run office software, do email and browse the Web

While I can agree with email and browsing, I always wonder if Office apps are ever used that much in the home. I can see it being a factor in somebody's decision to buy a PC, but a few months down the line how often is Office fired up? How many people write letters that can't be written in Wordpad? Maybe people will want to use Excel (probably in order to look at thier finances) but how many people will go from the wanting to stage to the regularly using stage? Powerpoint? What use is that in the home? Access? You could catalogue all your CDs like you've wanted to for years, but are you really going to put in the effort? And then there's the "I can take my work home" argument with Office, yes, you could take your work home, but do you really want to?

Before the internet "came along" how many home computers were little more than games machines or paper weights?

In fact...

[LuYu]

Freedom comes with responsibility. A free people can only remain so if they watch their government. If one is to be free to walk the streets, one must be able to protect oneself. When one is free to learn, one must take care to educate oneself.

Therefore, freedom comes with the exercise of effort (vigilance, skill, exercise, study) and cannot be exercised without it.

If one does not watch, the power of government will increase. If one cannot defend oneself, he will be afraid to go out at night or rely on the police to protect him. If one is not educated, anyone can tell him anything, and he will believe it.

Convenience is not a "freedom".

Positive vs. negative freedom

[ccmay]

This reminds me of the debate between the Right and Left over what freedom really is. Hard right-wingers like me believe only in negative rights, in other words the freedom to be left alone: i.e rights of free speech, religion, press, assembly, bearing arms, choosing a career, etc. Leftists tend to believe in positive rights, which are more properly termed privileges.

Roosevelt started it with his "Freedom from Want" business, and now the left wing pushes for the "right" to a job, or a house, or a college education, and also for such moonbeams as the "right" not to feel offended or marginalized based on one's personal characteristics.

The common denominator in the Left's concept of liberty is that they see nothing wrong with violating someone else's ancient natural rights in order to award pseudo-"rights" (privileges) to people they feel deserve it. Speech codes violate my right to speak my mind lest someone else be offended. The "right" to a job means someone less favored gets a job taken away (affirmative action) or all of us have tax money extorted at gunpoint to subsidize jobs for people who otherwise couldn't hold one (i.e. most government workers and educrats).

When a lefty tries to tell me that someone has a "right" to a job, my response is "Fuck you, you have liberty unparalleled in human history, use it to find your own job or starve to death, I don't care which." And when I see a headline like "FOSS Is Not Free If It's Not Free From Complexity", my response is "Fuck you, it is too free, and if you're too stupid to use it that's your problem and nobody else's."

-ccm

Re:Calling out Troll Keith Russell.

[Keith Russell]

Thinks "Trustworthy Computing" is about security...

I said that Trustworthy Computing was a response to security failures, not that TC was "about" security. TC was really about marketing and stalling for time until Longhorn.

...and recommends XP SP2.

I merely compared XP SP2 to XP base. What makes you think that was a general recommendation?

don't recall Microsoft ever disabling [M$Office] features in individual applications based on those tiers

The only thing anybody could come up with was additional stencil sets in Visio Professional. Do you recall something more substantial than that?

Accuses the EFF of "worst-case-scenario hyperbole"

If you can show me, book, chapter, and verse, where in the Bible God retired and named Fred von Lohmann his successor, I will surely recant, as the word of the EFF is now Absolute Truth.

Blames DRM on "Big Media," exonerating Microsoft, and says Vista DRM is no worse than OSX or XP DRM.

I don't see anything in that post that exonerates Microsoft. If you read outside the italicized type, you'll see that I accuse Microsoft and other companies of acquiescing to Big Media's demands. If we apply your standards to your assertion, you've just exonerated Big Media.

Praises Vista

The exact quote is: "Video drivers have moved to user mode in Vista (and praise be for that!)" I was praising Microsoft for a correct design decision. Moving video drivers from user to kernel space in Win2000 and XP destabilized the OS, introducing problems that didn't exist when video drivers were in user space in NT4. Of course, to a paranoid, frothing-at-the-mouth zealot, praising Microsoft makes me a blasphemer.

Loathes the free software community.

I'm going to repost that link verbatim. I challenge anyone on this planet who has a faint grasp of the English language to find any loathing in the following statement: "The nature of Open Source means that the Linux 'community' is both the users and the distro maintainers. Poor Dell* is stuck in the middle. *: I can't believe I just used 'poor Dell' in a sentence."

The GPL can only tell you how to share source code. If you want a religion, find a church.