Slashdot Mirror
What Open Source Can Learn From Apple
Linux and open source have long struggled to gain acceptance from the wider (read: non-technical) audience. This has improved in recent years, but still has a long way to go. Columnist Matt Asay suggests that perhaps open source projects should attempt to emulate Apple's design philosophy, with whoever succeeds becoming the "winner" of the hearts and minds of the vast majority of users. "Some projects already accomplish this to some extent. The strength of Mozilla, for example, is that it has figured out how to enable 40 percent of its development to be done by outside contributors, as BusinessWeek recently wrote. The downside is that these contributors are techies, but the upside is that they're techies who add language packs, accessibility features, and other "niche" areas that Mozilla might otherwise struggle to deliver. This suggests a start: enable your open-source project to accept meaningful outside contributions that make the project reflective of a wider development community. But the real goldmine is broadening the definition of "developer" to include lay users of your software. The day that I, as a nontechnical software user, can meaningfully participate in an open-source project is the day that open source will truly have won."
> To be fair you're comparing apples to oranges.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
I am comparing the SAME FUNCTION across two different apps that
manipulate the same data format. The fact that iPhoto is supposed
to be Grandma's photo manager doesn't give it a free pass to be
technically incorrect or crude. If anything it means that iPhoto
has to be even BETTER. It will be more difficult for Grandma to
fix mistakes.
Gimp is not a $600 extra like Photoshop is. It's a well established
and "standard" part of the Linux desktop toolset. A simpler and more
targeted tool would relieve me of the burden of navigating the Gimp
menus. However, that's a benefit that should not be traded for accuracy.
"flexibility" is a matter of taste but accuracy is not.
Gimp is there. It can be exploited. You can use it to work the way that
you want to rather than how someone else tells you. The fact that some
people want to lump it in with a $600 pro app is not really relevant in
the end.
This notion of "the right comparison" is just walled garden nonsense.
The size of the tool doesn't alter the nature of the function in question.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Some of us care about the little details.
The fact that it comes under the heading of "casual photography" doesn't
mean that you necessarily want to be sloppy with it. The end results with
any luck will last as long as conventional print photography has.
There's no reason to do anything besides "do it right" if you are the owner
of the prevailing platform for "professional artists".
Someone trained in fine arts that hasn't drunk the cool-aid might nit pick.
Thus the Mac fails at "getting stuff done".
The fact that it is adequate for those willing to compromise is not a great endorsement.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.