Most of the points about "external" criticism so far ignore the fact that there is not one common use-case nor external viewpoint. A big difference between OSS code and commercial products is that there is not a single funded owner/developer working from a commercial market strategy.
So there simply does not exist a target user community (as identified in the market strategy) from which a proper survey or critical basis can be extracted. People make (often) false assumptions that they personally are the target audience for OSS code, when in fact they may not be.
The lack of simple 1:1 correspondences between OSS markets and consumer markets is what causes much of the friction. Until you learn the vocabulary and expectations of both worlds, it is hard to imagine why "criticism" is ignored.
In the OSS world, you really do need to find an advocate who is aligned with your interests if you expect things to improve for your use case. Such an advocate can be your own developers funded to work on OSS, or a commercial re-seller working on an OSS-based release you can use and support. Sometimes you can be lucky and find an existing advocate proceeding without your economic support, in which case you may beable to ride along for free. But nobody is particularly concerned with the critiques coming from a parasitic user base.
All of your points IMO seem to add up reasons why you would not want to use Linux. Lack of direction, no target user community, having to find someone aligned to you to have a voice, being considered part of a parasitic user base just because you have complaints.
What is often frustrating for the receiver of criticism is that the giver often assumes the receiver should "own" the problem. So "Code it yourself or shutup" means, "Yes, I acknowledge what you are saying, but I will not own the problem. If you won't own the problem either, then there is nothing productive to say on the matter."
Actually I understand the reasons you mention and realize that what you say is true. I didn't mean to imply that the responsibility should fall in the developer, who might in fact be busy. Rather that this kind of reply tends to keep some people away for Linux.
I believe that what you are saying, is just another way to show what the problem is with Linux: there's no people willing to take responsibility. If you look at this from the perspective of someone who code for hobby, it's completely reasonable, but the end result is that from the perspective of a customer you feel no attention is given to you.
I simply believe the problem is that users' requests should be driving the development. Some way has to be found to make this feasible for Linux to be successful.
Re:Maybe Linux needs more trolling journalists?
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
My reply is assuming the topic here is how to make Linux more user friendly...
Sorry buy I disagree. The kind of criticism that Linux requires the most is not what you find in public bug trackers, linux developer forums and such, but posts by simple people with simple and reasonable non-technical rants troubling their lives.
A great issue that I see with Linux is that technical reasons and decisions are driving the development for this platform, and this is all wrong! Technical decisions should be taken in order to accomplish the goal, but Joe Doe's rants should be the force that's driving the development instead, if there are enough Joe Doe's asking for it. The best way to turn your good product into something great is to look at what the most ignorant of your users have to say about it, because they will ultimately offer you the most sincere explanation as to why most ignorant users are not going to buy what you are selling.
As developers we should never forget that our goal is to make life easier for these Joe Does. THIS is what we should be listening to.
Being critical of your own code doesn't mean you're open to criticism. And IMO the article is right on the spot.
If I were to say Linux sucks because it doesn't have X or Y, most Linux users/developers would just reply that I should code it myself or shut up.
On the other hand most of the same people would consider it acceptable to criticize Windows in the same manner just because it's closed source.
Some of us just want to use them as tools, and not extend them every time something's missing. The tired and old reply of "code it yourself" just goes on further to spread the notion that the tool you're trying to use may soon become a source of more work for you, instead of a solution.
Playing games, especially networked games where you talk with other people, is only seen as a bad thing by hypocrites who believe sitting on their asses reading a book, or watching some history channel on television is better.
Just as long as you don't become obsessed by any one of them you're good. Reading books the whole days is no better than playing games the whole day.
PS: I do all of those activities, I just don't pretend any one of them is better.
I don't disagree with your points. But you do have to admit that the comparison doesn't make sense also because you can't compare Windows and OS X as being the same thing.
I was talking with the idea of an average user in mind, someone that won't be tweaking his system. I really do think that there's more you're paying for than just the hardware. And I'm saying this because I really see the difference between maintaining a PC and a Mac for people that don't know much about PCs.
Indeed you notice the performance hit under Windows after some time. In regards to OS X, what I really do like is it's responsiveness. Even if it sometimes isn't exactly the fastest thing on earth, with the latest version of it I always feel it very responsive and quick to acknoledge my actions.
I recently switched my gf to Mac, she is a designer. The reason for the switch was that every time Windows slowed down for her (an average user) she couldn't install it back on her own. She was really afraid of using Macs, but fortunately, she found it easy to learn the basic concepts, and is now using it full time. I am really glad I won't need to be installing Windows again in 6 months:D
In any case, I do realize that OS X isn't perfect. It may not be the most secure sistem either. But I believe that there's no discussion that it requires less maintenance for the average user today. Today is all that matters today. If things change, I'll see other options.
Making a 1 on 1 specs comparison between Mac and PC is unfair in my opinion.
Once yo install Vista and anti virus software, the PC is easily outperformed by a Mac with the same specs.
If instead you choose XP, you get the usual speed bumps, like when you disconnect the ethernet cable and the OS is attempting to use the connection. Not to mention the AV software which is still there.
Add a virus that you could get through a pendrive to the mix, and the performance difference grows more.
Don't want to sound like a Mac fanboi, but I've been using both for quite some time now, and I'm always surprised by how much the OS and software you run can influence your overall experience.
I would say he can learn from Steam. The other day I went to the mall, looking for half life 2... and I couldn't find it. I started thinking about copying it from some friend to get it, when I remembered about Steam. I logged in, downloaded Steam, purchased the game, and have been playing it happily ever since.
The key aspects here are availability and convenience. If you make it easy for me to get a good product from a fast online service at a reasonable price, then there's no need to go out to buy it, which is what people tries to avoid by copying it in many cases. This is the same for pirated games. I believe that "availability" and "convenience" or the lack of them, is what drives most piracy.
Actually I like Open Source. I just don't like being forced into it.
On the other hand I don't disagree that OSS may be the future, but going Open Source is still (fortunately) not required by the market. Last time I checked, making the best software is even more important. Talking about market forces to make your point seems odd to me, since I can think of many more successful closed sourced software solutions than the open source ones.
Once again though, I am not against open source. I go against trying to force us all into it. Especially by using FUD, like market forces or morality.
You're discussing semantics. No matter how much Richar Stallman wants to help me, I fail to see how imposing his views on us makes us any more free... even if he merges the concept of user and developer, the developer is still not free to choose his own license. One can play with words and try to make it look differently, but in the end it's less choice for the developer.
My point is simple: he wants developers not to have the freedom to choose the license they want. He wants us not to be able to choose a closed source.
Ok but the way you present your point of view is quite different from how Richard does it. At least you leave space for someone to think differently. I can totally respect what you just said.
What I disagree with, is the notion that closed source software is evil. I develop closed source small software utilities (Hex Editors and such), and I really do give a lot of importance to the quality of what I do. I never rush a development out of the door.
Is my software evil? I don't really think so. I always aim at making the best software. That's what matters the most to me.
Richard Stallman is not about freedom. Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
But I fail to see why end user freedom should be more important than the developer's freedom to choose. It's almost as if developers were evil by default from his point of view. Unless of course they embrace the GPL.
It usually helps me A LOT to set a dark background (not black, a dark gray is better) and light colored text / glyphs / caret. A friend of mine showed this to me. At first I thought this was stupid... that it was my friend trying to look like a geek while using text editors. But to be honest I ended up realizing that it's too much white on screen what really hurts my eyes.
Once you have set this up, start playing with the color of the text to make sure you find the perfect match... you want opaque colors. Also, you don't want to have a hight contrast, only enough (start testing colors).
No it's not progress. It would be if OS tools provided an actual better and more advanced way of writing software. But as the article says, OS development tools have no technological advantage; The only advantage is they're free.
Technological advantages are not the only way you can have progress. Progress can be attained by, for example, having every programmer in the world be able to access affordable development tools. This goes to the advantage of everyone, and the disadvantage of those who want to sell development tools. Maybe they should just move on to the next product, or look for an alternate business model. It happens all the time to all kinds of companies.
I really think that we have reached a point where all development tools offer the same features, more or less. Maybe the point is that these software companies should move to something more than making source code editors which we can no longer distinguish from each other.
I wonder how many more ridiculous lawsuits like this need to be brought before the government finally wakes up and realizes software patents are a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the points about "external" criticism so far ignore the fact that there is not one common use-case nor external viewpoint. A big difference between OSS code and commercial products is that there is not a single funded owner/developer working from a commercial market strategy.
So there simply does not exist a target user community (as identified in the market strategy) from which a proper survey or critical basis can be extracted. People make (often) false assumptions that they personally are the target audience for OSS code, when in fact they may not be.
The lack of simple 1:1 correspondences between OSS markets and consumer markets is what causes much of the friction. Until you learn the vocabulary and expectations of both worlds, it is hard to imagine why "criticism" is ignored.
In the OSS world, you really do need to find an advocate who is aligned with your interests if you expect things to improve for your use case. Such an advocate can be your own developers funded to work on OSS, or a commercial re-seller working on an OSS-based release you can use and support. Sometimes you can be lucky and find an existing advocate proceeding without your economic support, in which case you may beable to ride along for free. But nobody is particularly concerned with the critiques coming from a parasitic user base.
All of your points IMO seem to add up reasons why you would not want to use Linux. Lack of direction, no target user community, having to find someone aligned to you to have a voice, being considered part of a parasitic user base just because you have complaints.
It's not like these are good things!
What is often frustrating for the receiver of criticism is that the giver often assumes the receiver should "own" the problem. So "Code it yourself or shutup" means, "Yes, I acknowledge what you are saying, but I will not own the problem. If you won't own the problem either, then there is nothing productive to say on the matter."
Actually I understand the reasons you mention and realize that what you say is true. I didn't mean to imply that the responsibility should fall in the developer, who might in fact be busy. Rather that this kind of reply tends to keep some people away for Linux.
I believe that what you are saying, is just another way to show what the problem is with Linux: there's no people willing to take responsibility. If you look at this from the perspective of someone who code for hobby, it's completely reasonable, but the end result is that from the perspective of a customer you feel no attention is given to you.
I simply believe the problem is that users' requests should be driving the development. Some way has to be found to make this feasible for Linux to be successful.
My reply is assuming the topic here is how to make Linux more user friendly...
Sorry buy I disagree. The kind of criticism that Linux requires the most is not what you find in public bug trackers, linux developer forums and such, but posts by simple people with simple and reasonable non-technical rants troubling their lives.
A great issue that I see with Linux is that technical reasons and decisions are driving the development for this platform, and this is all wrong! Technical decisions should be taken in order to accomplish the goal, but Joe Doe's rants should be the force that's driving the development instead, if there are enough Joe Doe's asking for it. The best way to turn your good product into something great is to look at what the most ignorant of your users have to say about it, because they will ultimately offer you the most sincere explanation as to why most ignorant users are not going to buy what you are selling.
As developers we should never forget that our goal is to make life easier for these Joe Does. THIS is what we should be listening to.
Being critical of your own code doesn't mean you're open to criticism. And IMO the article is right on the spot.
If I were to say Linux sucks because it doesn't have X or Y, most Linux users/developers would just reply that I should code it myself or shut up.
On the other hand most of the same people would consider it acceptable to criticize Windows in the same manner just because it's closed source.
Some of us just want to use them as tools, and not extend them every time something's missing. The tired and old reply of "code it yourself" just goes on further to spread the notion that the tool you're trying to use may soon become a source of more work for you, instead of a solution.
Playing games, especially networked games where you talk with other people, is only seen as a bad thing by hypocrites who believe sitting on their asses reading a book, or watching some history channel on television is better.
Just as long as you don't become obsessed by any one of them you're good. Reading books the whole days is no better than playing games the whole day.
PS: I do all of those activities, I just don't pretend any one of them is better.
It's not 0.027% of available addresses in IPv6, it's 0.027% of all allocated addresses in IPv4 + IPv6.
Tetris can't be crappy.
I don't disagree with your points. But you do have to admit that the comparison doesn't make sense also because you can't compare Windows and OS X as being the same thing.
I was talking with the idea of an average user in mind, someone that won't be tweaking his system. I really do think that there's more you're paying for than just the hardware. And I'm saying this because I really see the difference between maintaining a PC and a Mac for people that don't know much about PCs.
Indeed you notice the performance hit under Windows after some time. In regards to OS X, what I really do like is it's responsiveness. Even if it sometimes isn't exactly the fastest thing on earth, with the latest version of it I always feel it very responsive and quick to acknoledge my actions.
I recently switched my gf to Mac, she is a designer. The reason for the switch was that every time Windows slowed down for her (an average user) she couldn't install it back on her own. She was really afraid of using Macs, but fortunately, she found it easy to learn the basic concepts, and is now using it full time. I am really glad I won't need to be installing Windows again in 6 months :D
In any case, I do realize that OS X isn't perfect. It may not be the most secure sistem either. But I believe that there's no discussion that it requires less maintenance for the average user today. Today is all that matters today. If things change, I'll see other options.
Making a 1 on 1 specs comparison between Mac and PC is unfair in my opinion.
Once yo install Vista and anti virus software, the PC is easily outperformed by a Mac with the same specs.
If instead you choose XP, you get the usual speed bumps, like when you disconnect the ethernet cable and the OS is attempting to use the connection. Not to mention the AV software which is still there.
Add a virus that you could get through a pendrive to the mix, and the performance difference grows more.
Don't want to sound like a Mac fanboi, but I've been using both for quite some time now, and I'm always surprised by how much the OS and software you run can influence your overall experience.
I would say he can learn from Steam. The other day I went to the mall, looking for half life 2... and I couldn't find it. I started thinking about copying it from some friend to get it, when I remembered about Steam. I logged in, downloaded Steam, purchased the game, and have been playing it happily ever since.
The key aspects here are availability and convenience. If you make it easy for me to get a good product from a fast online service at a reasonable price, then there's no need to go out to buy it, which is what people tries to avoid by copying it in many cases. This is the same for pirated games. I believe that "availability" and "convenience" or the lack of them, is what drives most piracy.
Actually I like Open Source. I just don't like being forced into it.
On the other hand I don't disagree that OSS may be the future, but going Open Source is still (fortunately) not required by the market. Last time I checked, making the best software is even more important. Talking about market forces to make your point seems odd to me, since I can think of many more successful closed sourced software solutions than the open source ones.
Once again though, I am not against open source. I go against trying to force us all into it. Especially by using FUD, like market forces or morality.
You're discussing semantics. No matter how much Richar Stallman wants to help me, I fail to see how imposing his views on us makes us any more free... even if he merges the concept of user and developer, the developer is still not free to choose his own license. One can play with words and try to make it look differently, but in the end it's less choice for the developer.
My point is simple: he wants developers not to have the freedom to choose the license they want. He wants us not to be able to choose a closed source.
Ok but the way you present your point of view is quite different from how Richard does it. At least you leave space for someone to think differently. I can totally respect what you just said.
What I disagree with, is the notion that closed source software is evil. I develop closed source small software utilities (Hex Editors and such), and I really do give a lot of importance to the quality of what I do. I never rush a development out of the door.
Is my software evil? I don't really think so. I always aim at making the best software. That's what matters the most to me.
Richard Stallman is not about freedom. Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
But I fail to see why end user freedom should be more important than the developer's freedom to choose. It's almost as if developers were evil by default from his point of view. Unless of course they embrace the GPL.
It usually helps me A LOT to set a dark background (not black, a dark gray is better) and light colored text / glyphs / caret. A friend of mine showed this to me. At first I thought this was stupid... that it was my friend trying to look like a geek while using text editors. But to be honest I ended up realizing that it's too much white on screen what really hurts my eyes.
Once you have set this up, start playing with the color of the text to make sure you find the perfect match... you want opaque colors. Also, you don't want to have a hight contrast, only enough (start testing colors).
Example:
For background:
Hue: 160
Sat: 0
Lum: 73
Red: 78
Green: 78
Blue: 78
For text:
Hue: 119
Sat: 94
Lum: 175
Red: 159
Green: 213
Blue: 211
Technological advantages are not the only way you can have progress. Progress can be attained by, for example, having every programmer in the world be able to access affordable development tools. This goes to the advantage of everyone, and the disadvantage of those who want to sell development tools. Maybe they should just move on to the next product, or look for an alternate business model. It happens all the time to all kinds of companies.
I really think that we have reached a point where all development tools offer the same features, more or less. Maybe the point is that these software companies should move to something more than making source code editors which we can no longer distinguish from each other.
And this is not funny.
As a side note: "orto" in argentina means ass. I don't think I'd want to run anything through it.
You sir, are an optimist.
Yes.
I got the ad too! If they keep this decision I may just stop coming to this site. :-( Aren't there already enough ads?
/. think twice about this.
Companies often forget how important it is to invest in their image... please
Lemmings are not suicidal, they are just optimistic: they are sure you're going to put that floor in time.
Because as humans we can understand basic rules of behaviour while dogs can't?
Seriously, I taught my dogs not to piss on the sidewalk, but when they need to go, you just can't stop it.
Yeah, completely stupid people.
It's like mistaking Windows Vista Starter with Windows Vista Home Basic or with Windows Vista Home Premium or with Windows Vista Business or with Windows Vista Enterprise or with Windows Vista Ultimate.
Or like believing that Plays For Sure plays for sure.