Slashdot Mirror
Are End Users to Blame for OS Flaws?
tomsHH writes to mention OSWeekly author Brandon Watts claims that really it is end users who should be blamed for many OS flaws. "Believe it or not, as users, we also have a large role to play in the evolution of an operating system. We use what's been created, and this means that we're the best people to turn to for judging what works and what doesn't. Passionate communities that are supportive aid development, and when users join their efforts to make their voices heard, this benefits everyone. Have you ever thought that if you wanted something to be improved, then maybe you should just speak up and offer a solution instead of quietly or publicly venting without offering any input? Nothing changes by staying the same. Companies are listening, and as taboo as it may seem, most of them want to make their users happy, so if you shout loud enough, you're bound to be heard. If you need proof of this, then just look at how Linux has progressed in its development."
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, but the OS should be robust enough to deal with clumsy endusers.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I found that to be an odd little opinion piece. It has something of the "chicken/egg" to it what with blaming users for not speaking up stridently enough... about the problems they have with the OS that... they didn't speak up stridently enough about?
I think that most OSes receive PLENTY of feedback, strident and otherwise about perceived flaws and issues.
This article is basically content free.
I can't speak for others, but EVERY time I call support, I let them know if I think this was a crappy design, or oversight.
If it's a common issue, there will be plenty of people that do the same. The REAL issue, I think, is that the organizations I see DON'T use customer support calls as places to look for ways to improve the product.
I think most companies just see support as a neccesary evil, and not an easy way to see what your customers are wanting.
I work on a program with somewhere between 100,000-400,000 users. That's a relatively small market compared to OSes. Even with relatively few users, there's far too many voices for suggestions to listen to. Users ask how to submit wishes, but it's really not worth it for us to make it easy. There's already far too many wishes just from our beta testers, not to mention that many requests are either contradictory, would break the database model we've developed, or are in fact already in the program and they just haven't realized it. And that's not counting the fact that my fellow developers, marketers, and I have our own "brilliant" ideas on how to best improve the program.
So I can't see blaming the users; I couldn't listen to all of them even if they were trying to tell us about their problems.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Microsoft doesn't give a shit about making you or I happy. They care about corporate customers with support contracts and umpteen-hojillion seats.
Even if you are heard, however, you're likely to be ignored. It's only when hundreds or thousands of voices in chorus ask for the same thing that any major developer gives a damn.
This is an exceptionally ignorant thing to say, unless we're speaking exclusively about Open Source or Free Software or something, and we are not. Linux is driven by two groups; one is the major companies which cater to paying customers. If you have purchased a large support contract, they care about you. Otherwise not. The other group is the hobbyists. They want to implement first those things which they think would be cool, second those things which they think are necessary (these may be swapped depending on sensibilities) and third any other feature they think is cool, or would teach them something, or which would get them some props. This last can be the most powerful motivator but usually the competent are not the greatest seekers of glory.
Compare this to a commercial corporation that only cares if you are important to the bottom line, and you will see how lame the comparison is.
Let me tell you what companies actually care about: Money. No one cares if you say that you want the product to do X, unless lots of other people said it. But if a product comes out that does what you want and you buy it, well, that sort of thing tends to be noticed. People will then emulate that product, trying to give you what you want.
Vote with your dollars. End of story, unless it's a free-as-in-beer Linux, and then you're either stroking someone's ego or helping their bottom line by growing their installed base and making their distribution look more desirable to corporate customers. If it's free-as-in-beer, vote with your feet, same concept. By all means tell people what you want, but don't expect to get it because unless everyone else wants it, you're probably not going to get it - again, if it's commercial.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Microsoft tried that late in Vista development at the Shell: Revealed forums. We voiced many concerns, only a few of which got any attention, much of it hand-waving. No one from MS has posted there in a while now, so users have stopped too. A post about the new backup program, sdclt.exe and how much functionality it lacks compared to the old one, ntbackup.exe, was even deleted.
Someone at Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to get some public feedback on Vista development. Late, but good. But then, they didn't listen to our feedback. Some of the stuff we brought up should have been pretty easy to fix, but was blown off instead.
You know, I did exactly just that and offered Microsoft a few ideas as to how they could improve Windows Vista (done during their beta program). And you know what Billg said to me? "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft."
I thought the same thing, a flaw is a bug. A bad implementation can be technically flawless.
;)
Bzzzt. Wrong, and this is the typically techy approach to OSes. An OS with no bugs is not necessarily flawless. Flaw can be other things than bugs - flawed usability (e.g. having to go through a menu, 2 sub menus and an option page just to get to a very frequently used search, or having a modern OS that only supports 320x200 on the display).
Flaws are everywhere, in code, but also in DESIGN. And, of course, the design ones are often the hardest to fix, especially if you look at a list of flaws with only techy eyes
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
I don't know about software, but I think glue usage is responsible for this article's shittyness.
I found a bug recently in an administrative template that shipped with the initial release of Office 2007. I spent a lot of my own time determining that there was a bug, and exactly what it was. I *fixed* the bug.
/all..."
I went to Microsoft to report the bug and offer the fix. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the front door. There was one little door off to the side, but the bouncer wanted almost $200 to get through it. I found a large group of people congregating in the parking lot around a few guys with "MVP" badges. Figuring that the MVPs must be representing the company somehow, I told one of them about the problem. He repeated everything I said back to him, and then read something out of a manual. I explained to him that I wasn't having trouble understanding how the software was supposed to work, but I was there to report that the software was not working as documented. He repeated everything I had just said, then everything he had previously said, then everything I originally said, and then asked me about my network settings. I said, "no no, you don't understand. Here's the problem, and here is the fix." I handed him a copy of the exact instructions to fix the problem, and awaited his response. Perhaps a big smooch on the cheek and a check for $50!? No, he just stared off blankly for a while and then started asking some other guy for his network settings. "Click start. Click run. Enter cmd and press enter. Type ipconfig
I was a little disappointed that I didn't even get a hug or anything for solving a problem for the company who I had just given 24,000 dollars to earlier in the year, but I went away certain that the trustworthy MVP personally delivered my complaint to the proper executives once he had ascertained his daily quota of network settings. I mean, the MVPs can get past the bouncer, right? Of course, of course.
You know, sometimes bitching on the web 2.0 is all we got.