If you look at the event that started this whole article, it was essentially Eugenia extrapolating "We'll do that if there's a developer who wants to" into "We don't care about what our users want". Hardly what I'd consider a logical step.
Yeah, hopefully what was intended was just a simple statement of fact. No one can force developers to work on these things. If it's an individual working in his spare time, then he'll work on what he wants to and what he views as important. If it's a paid programmer, he'll work on what he's being paid to work on, which is whatever his employer views as important. That's just the way it is. Someone has to work on it for it to be worked on.
I think there's just some worry that what was intended was to say that developers shouldn't be expected to work on improvements that don't affect them personally. Like if users are experience a problem, but the developers themselves haven't run across that problem for their own personal work, then screw the users.
Personally I think it's an issue of people getting angry and misunderstandings all around.
With the amount of coverage given to the defects in the projects, the casual reader might think that the FOSS movement is dying.
Or else FOSS is about to blow up (in the good way). Why are people getting so upset and paying so much attention if there weren't a lot of people interested in the future of these projects? Why would people be getting worked up over developers response to users if there weren't a lot of non-developer users who are using these products?
Seems to me each story has turned into a strange sort of developer vs. user vs. advocate flame-war, indicating that there are large numbers in each group, each with a certain amount of passion for seeing these projects succeed. Could be good news?
If you want to know my answer (which I'm assuming you do, since you asked), I guess I'll have to suggest you read my reply to your sibling post, who asked essentially the same thing.
Here's the thing, though. These people are coding this on their own free time, for their own enjoyment.
And I would say that, insofar as Gnome (or whatever OSS you want to talk about) is a hobby project run by developers who don't care about the needs of their users, I would be concerned about relying on it or advising others to rely on it. If you had developers who were willing to work against the best interests of the users for the sake of the fun of writing "elegant code", I think users should run for cover.
However, I don't believe that's the case. I think even the hobbyists [generally] are interested in making good tools for users. I think many of the developers must understand that an "elegant" solution isn't elegant if it doesn't solve a problem. I think part of what makes programmers enjoy this "hobby" rather than the programming they do at work is that the product is something they can feel proud of. And what's my evidence that many Gnome developers are user-centric? Well, just look at Gnome. It's really too good and user-friendly to be a mere geek-scratching-an-itch project.
Insofar as developers fail to address the needs of the users, I believe the real problem (most of the time) is that they fail to anticipate and understand the needs of the users, which more often than not comes from a failure to listen to the users, which is what this whole discussion is really about.
And let's not forget that there really are people who work on OSS for a living. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's all hobbyists.
I'd like to say again, for clarity, that I haven't been criticizing the Gnome software, and I'm not even criticizing the Gnome development process. I really LIKE Gnome. I use it. I'm running the new 2.10.
I am, however, trying to spark debates regarding the attitude of some people that open-source developers should not listen to users' comments, criticisms, and suggestions.
We're not talking about whether Gnome can handle the criticism, though. The issue is whether or not they are beholden to their users.
Well, I was writing in response to a post that said (and if you have any doubts, read your own subject) that we shouldn't criticize Gnome developers because they're poor, innocent hobbyists who've given us a gift.
The general argument here is that since the users aren't paying them, they have no responsibility to implement their ideas. Personally, I think that's a good thing, because it means that Gnome is free to pursue what it feels is the best design, rather than whatever features are popular at the moment. And if Gnome's design views differ from the users', they don't have to use it.
True enough, and this sort of attitude has lead, to some extent, to Gnome becoming the nice piece of software that Gnome is. However, it's also pretty much the attitude of the XFree86 people. Personally, I'm glad that pretty much every distro uses X.org these days, because the X.org organization seems focussed on addressing their users' needs.
When you can try it for free, there's little reason to complain that the product didn't meet your expectations.
Oh, there's a GREAT reason to complain. Maybe someone will listen.
Yeah, well guess what, the desire to make money is often what drives proprietary software developers to address their users wants and needs, which is part of the reason why users like proprietary software.
Maybe some what I said doesn't apply to you. Maybe you don't care about the success of FOSS in general. Maybe you don't like when large companies spend money to open-source development. My bad.
How about because a whole lot of money that does pay for FOSS comes, in a round-about way, from these rich three letter a-holes.
Don't let the "free" part of "FOSS" fool you-- there's a lot of money being spent. Where's the money going? Companies like Novell and Redhat and IBM, who are building their businesses on FOSS. And what do they do with the money? They spend a lot of money to pay programmers to develop FOSS full-time and spend money on projects that they think will help their business. And why do they do it? They expect a return on their investment.
There's this big myth that Redhat, Novell, and IBM don't "contribute anything back to the community" and it's just utterly false.
If you really think all these FOSS projects you're enjoying would do so well without corporate sponsorship, then go ahead and stop using any software that's benefited from corporate money. Oops, there goes Gnome, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, KDE, and, while we're at it, the Linux kernel itself.
Like I said in my first line, "that reasoning might have worked if their front page had been a disclaimer like: This is just my hobby. Don't rely on it."
Really what I'm questioning is whether a software developer can shirk his responsibilities to his users on the basis of the software being open-sourced. You could be a closed source developer, write a program, and expressly state, "This is my hobby, don't rely on it." Or you could claim that it's an enterprise-level product.
I'm not sure the openness of the code should have anything to do with it.
It's pretty safe to assume that Gnome is useful to enough people.
Nothing I've written should be read as a criticism of Gnome as software. I use it and like it quite a lot. I'm only questioning the right of people to push the product of their labor into the public arena and then complain that people can't criticize because it's their personal hobby.
Since these guys do not work for a Gnome-related corporation, but yet they are still working on Gnome, I think it's reasonable to assume they are doing it as a hobby.
Ok, so he's doing it as a hobby. And what, exactly, is his hobby? Contributing to a non-hobby project run by "the Gnome Foundation".
Second, while ignoring users may be a lot more pleasant than listening to their concerns and addressing them, it's *very* ultimately bad engineering practice (then again, job titles aside most software developers are NOT engineers!), and reinforces a selfishness and arrogance that can bleed over into one's professional work. I've seen this happen in others, I've seen it happen in myself a few times. If you're going to open your project up to the world, you're limiting your own experience and opportunities by maintaining it as a navel-gazing exercise.
Finally, considering user requests can move development in an unexpected direction. Sometimes it's the wrong direction, and I think it's OK to answer a request with "that's a bad idea, and here's why". But sometimes after going in that direction, adding some features, maybe refactoring a bit, you look back and say "why didn't I think of that?" Any community of developers develops blind spots and biases, and sometimes these can be substantial enough for outside input to benefit everyone.
I think both of these point (my reading of them is that they're similar) indicate what I view to be the most unfortunate aspect of when developers decide that they don't care what their users think: it often makes for a worse product.
Now, I'm not someone who believes in the "inherent intelligence of everyday people". I think people can be really stupid. However, the way in which they're stupid usually is that they're bad about understanding their problems and finding solutions to their problems, but they're usually pretty good at knowing that they have a problem.
As an example, think of when a person goes to the doctor/ER because they think something is wrong. Now, of course, there are hypochondriacs who go to the doctor all the time over stupid things, but mostly, when someone goes to the doctor because they believe something is wrong, for the most part, something *is* wrong. I might go in because I have a terrible sore throat. I might insist to the doctor that I have strep. It might turn out that I have throat cancer. I might insist that I need antibiotics, and he might insist that I need radiation.
Similarly, in software development, if a whole lot of users are complaining, there probably *is* a problem. They might not really understand the problem, and their proposed solutions might be wrong, but if you're getting loads of similar complaints, there is a problem somewhere. Why? Because software is all about the users. When software isn't being used by users, it's just a series of bits.
Maybe it's just a perception problem (users aren't understanding things), but a perception problem *is* a problem. Maybe you just need better documentation or need to explain something better. Maybe it's something tiny, like you label a button differently and people understand what's going on at that point. Maybe something is designed badly.
Beyond fixing problems, anyone trying to solve problems should be really open to input, because you never know what will give you some amazing inspiration. Contrary to popular belief, great thinkers don't come up with great ideas in a vacuum.
I guess my point is, the only way to know is to listen to the users. Either way, I think developers (all developers) should remember two things:
Satisfaction among target users is a good measure of the quality of software. If your target user is a developer, and developers are happy with it, that's an _indication_ that you've done a good job.
And that's because satisfaction among target users is an inherent quality of good sofware. What I mean here is, software is a tool. If users of that tool aren't finding it useful, it is, by definition, a bad tool.
The Gnome developers have slaved away for years to GIVE us a really nice desktop environment.
Yet, some people have decided that isn't good enough, and want the Gnome developers to become personal servants to fulfill their whims and fancies.
Yeah, that reasoning might have worked if their front page had been a disclaimer like: This is just my hobby. Don't rely on it.
However, the Gnome foundation has partnered up with other OSS products and developers, and the developers have been pushing to be taken seriously as a real DE fit for general use. They've encouraged other developers to use their DE as a platform, and generally acted as though they they don't intend their project to be some hobby software for their own use, but that they want people to use it. They've even marketed themselves as being the most user-friendly and user-centric DE for unix-like systems.
So, OSS foundations, don't promote your project that way unless you want users to expect you to pay attention to them. Developers, don't participate in projects of that sort if you can't handle users wanting the project to be useful. In the most general terms I can think of, don't publish your work on the internet if you can't handle criticism.
I mean, what if, in response to the impending flames this post will receive, I wrote, "I just wrote this for free! How dare you publicly disagree when I spent my own free time slaving away typing up clever little articles of writing, and GAVE them to you!" Wouldn't that be a little silly? I mean, I posted it for you to read of my own free will, in a forum that allows for responses. What should I expect?
I know this whole topic is bound to turn into a wild flame-fest, people on both sides, either honest misunderstanding or through malice, misrepresenting the other's opinions. However, I'd first like to say that this raises an interesting question that I've had in mind for quite a long time:
What is an open-source developer's responsibility to his users?
I mean, sure, there are instances where someone might through together a little tool for himself, and open-source it just in case someone else might have a use, in which case I'd say his responsibility is practically zero.
However, the matter seems different to me when you have these relatively large foundations running major projects that are used in a large percentage of available distributions. Imagine FOSS does take over the world someday, and the Linux/Gnome combination accounts for a large percentage of the desktop market-share, what then? Let's pretend 90% of desktop users are dependent on Gnome to get things done-- do we still say that Gnome developers have no responsibility to address the needs of Gnome users?
If the Gnome development community would say yes, I'd probably hope that someone fork the project ASAP, someone who is willing to take responsibility for being user-centric. That goes for any major project. As a bit of an open-source advocate, I hope developers of major projects are always keeping their users in mind. If not, I'll have to go back to advocating closed-source proprietary companies insofar as they recognize "users" to be an important part of the equation, and not just "that annoying whining sound".
You may be overstating your case, but I definitely think Apple has a strong influence over media standards. Although Apple's market share is small, Macintoshes are still the preferred machines within some specialized fields, specifically those fields that are related to media creation and distribution. More specifically, graphic design professionals and video editors work almost exclusively on Macintoshes, and if Apple makes it difficult to read/write a digital medium on their hardware/software, then the professionals won't use that medium, which is likely to have a bit of a trickle-down effect.
Aren't mac's itunes files just mpeg4 audio wrapped in aac?
You're talking about the right things, but I think you're talking about it backwards. AAC is an audio encoding format that is often used to encode the audio in mpeg4 video files. (I'm no expert, but I believe mp3 can also be used to encode audio in mpeg4 files). Apple uses AAC as the default iTunes encoder, and iTMS-purchased files are AAC encoded music wrapped in a proprietary DRM.
Ok, just a recap for those who are confused (I have no inside knowledge, but this is what I've gathered from public statements and the development pages):
The mozilla foundation, somewhere around 2 years ago, decided replace the Mozilla suite (which has had the codename "Seamonkey") with a group of standalone applications. There were projects already underway to create a standalone version of the browser and e-mail client, and the Mozilla foundation chose these two (which after a couple name-changes became Firefox and Thunderbird) to serve as the base for their development.
Originally, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" were meant to be code-names for these apps while they were under development, as Seamonkey was the codename for the Mozilla suite. When these products reached version 1.0, they were supposed to be renamed "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla E-mail".
However, the development versions of the software had become famous/popular enough that people become worried that changing the name would lose name-recognition (which is bad for branding purposes) so it was decided instead that they'd be called "Mozilla Firefox" and "Mozilla Thunderbird". As far as I can remember, those are now the final names, but perhaps someone who knows better will correct me.
Anyhow, these stand-alone apps were designated to be replacements/upgrades for the old suite, and indeed, most users have stopped using the old suite and are using the new applications. However, many developers still prefer the old suite and are gearing up to start a development group independent of the Mozilla Foundation and branch off from Mozilla 1.7. For this purpose, it has been suggested that they call the software "The Seamonkey Internet Suite" because, no longer being affiliated with Mozilla, they can't use the "Mozilla" name.
Phoenix / Firebird / Firefox was never intended to do everything that Mozilla could do, so it would never suit the needs of someone that wanted a suite of integrated internet applications.
OSX started at NeXT, and was intended to be an alternative to the old MacOS. Then Apple bought NeXT, and they started developing the OS as OS X with the intention of replacing the old MacOS. Likewise, when Phoenix was created, it was an alternative. When the Mozilla Foundation took the project in, it was done as part of a plan to replace the old Mozilla Suite with a series of stand-alone applications. The development since then, as Firebird and now Firefox, was aimed at completing that plan, and the current roadmap still reflects that plan.
There was no significant migration from IE to Phoenix or Firebird, because at that time the application was not mature enough, so those suggesting alternative browsers would suggest Mozilla, which was stable by that point.
And yet there wasn't significant migration from IE to Mozilla at that point, either. Believe me, I tried suggesting Mozilla as an alternative browser, and users didn't like it. I explained it prevented popus, I showed them tabbed browsing, and users didn't care. They still didn't like it. Yet somehow, every time I install Firefox, even for people who've never heard of it and seem to think Firefox is a stupid name-- almost every time, I end up getting thanks.
Let Firefox be Firefox, and let Mozilla be Mozilla, they are two independant code bases with different developers that have different goals, and there's no reason why both cannot co-exist.
I see no reason to get rid of the Mozilla suite. Being open-source, I don't think there's much danger of it, so long as people like it and find it useful. However, the arguments going on here seem to be more about the question of whether a specific group, the Mozilla Foundation, is wise/fair/right/allowed to focus their efforts on Firefox rather than the old suite. For a wide variety of reasons, I'd say yes. As a Firefox user and as an open-source advocate, I hope developers will jump on-board.
Unfortuantely, technicalities like control is what this is all about.
I agree.
Who controls the core (Gecko, XUL etc.)? Is it the same company that ships Firefox?
So it seems, insofar as anyone can control open-source software.
Will they make changes to the core that will break the suite, so that the maintainers of the suite will have to regression-fix behind them?
It does seem it will come to this. I get the sense that if there are developers who like the Mozilla suite and want to continue developing it, they'll have to branch and develop it independently. At least that's the way it's looking, unless the Mozilla Foundation decides to change their minds.
Also, is www.mozilla.org, the former home of the suite, allowed to market Firefox as the successor, pushing the Suite to be a sidenote?
Well, Mozilla.org is currently the website of the Mozilla Foundation's Mozilla-based software. Seems to me that whoever's running the Mozilla foundation can do what they please with it, and remove the old suite altogether if they please. Luckily, since it's open source, that doesn't have to be the end of things.
Then it's not wonder when everybody's switching.
In fairness, that's not why people are switching. Mozilla is pushing Firefox because Firefox picked up a user base very quickly and it's very popular-- not the other way around.
What about trademarks? Is the "Mozilla Foundation" allowed to forbit Debian and long-time Mozilla developers to use the Mozilla trademark for modified builds of Mozilla?
Yeah, I think if someone branches the old suite and wants to distribute it independently, the Mozilla Foundation has the right to withhold permission to use the trademark. They own it. However, if the new-old suite is really so good as to win users, I'm sure its new snazzy name will catch on.
First, I do understand what the term "power user" is intended to mean. However, I would maintain that many self-proclaimed "power users" are people with computer-related-OCD. You know, people who claim that they can't use OSX because they're a "power user", and OSX doesn't allow them to skin their interface easily enough, and the white color (as opposed to an off-white color) of the interface would cause a 90 second/day drop in their efficiency that just isn't allowable. However, they're spending their time posting these complaints [and Natalie Portman jokes] on slashdot. Oops, there goes that efficiency!
I know that's not the case with every "power user", but I've seen it often enough.
As I wrote previously, I take exception with your viewpoint that Firefox is the f'up to Mozilla. It isn't; it's a complimentary development with a different target audience.
It's not a follow-up to the entire Mozilla project, but it is intended to be the replacement for the old Mozilla browser. Insofar as the Mozilla Foundation is in charge of the Mozilla browser, that just seems to be fact. It's their stated position.
Why do some Firefox supporters want to make Mozilla developers abandon their project?
I don't think it's so much that Firefox user want Mozilla developers to "abandon their project". I think there are actually a couple of [connected] things going on at the same time.
First, the whole thing seems like the same-old anti-progress some-guy digging his heels in because he's used to something and he doesn't like the position some project has taken. People have gotten angry when they had to move from Windows 3.1 to 95, Windows 98 to 2000, from OS8 to OSX, from Gnome 1.4 to 2.0, from 2.6 to 2.8 (I think that was when the spacial Nautilus came in). Hell, there are still people who insist on running Netscape 4.0. Sometimes the resistance to change has good reason for it, but often enough, it's just somebody who's accustomed to doing things the old way, and wants to hold up progress for the rest of us rather than learning to adapt. So you're running into a perception, whether true or not, that you're just digging your heels in for no real reason.
Second, as much as you're annoyed at Firefox pulling development resources away from the old suite, Firefox users want to see their software developed too. They want the project that they benefit from to get as much in the way of resources as possible. On the other hand, you want resources to be spent on a project that doesn't address these users' needs. You want to support a product that, in the view of many, is old and growing-quickly-out-of-date.
Further, a lot of people will rebel against something specifically because it's popular. Using it doesn't live up to the 733t uber-geek image, so these people want to trash it. I think part of what might be going on is that there's fear that, merely because Firefox is successful, there's an uber-geek contingent that wants it gone. You know, the idea that N00bs running linux threatens my ego by suggesting that I might not be so 733t just because I made it through a Fedora install.
Now I'm really not trying to flame you here. You asked why Firefox users are saying certain things, and I'm telling you my best guess, sort of based on my opinion, but largely based on what I've heard others say.
The perception of many Firefox users, I think, is that you are doing the equivalent of advocating taking some of the resources from developing the 1.7 Mozilla branch in order to develop a new branch off of Netscape 4.0, and the stated reason is because you "love" Netscape 4.0, and think all changes since then were a mistake. Additionally, you're not claiming any intention to address the issues that people had with version 4.0, because, as I've said, you "love" Netscape 4.0, and feel it makes you more productive as it is. This only raises the question, if Netscape 4.0 is so perfect for you, then why does it need so much development anyhow? Why not just pou
Firefox is not an improvement on Mozilla, it is _different_ to Mozilla, a difference that some people happen to prefer.
"Windows 95 is not an improvement on Windows 3.1, it's _different_ than Windows 3.1, a difference some people happen to prefer."
-or-
"OSX is not an improvement on System 9, it's _different_ than than System 9, a difference some people happen to prefer."
So what's the difference?
And yes, there were lots of people who stuck with Windows 3.1, and lots of Mac users to this day who won't upgrade to OSX, yet they were both upgrades intended to replace the old system. Upgrades that had many differences from the software they were intended to replace, but upgrades none the less.
Personally I believe that if the Mozilla suite had a catchy name like 'Firefox' and was marketed as heavily as Firefox was, it'd be just as popular with non technical ex IE users, but we'll never know whether that's true.
Funny, because when Firefox originally started pulling users away from Mozilla, it wasn't called Firefox, and a lot of people claimed that "Mozilla" was a catchy name (don't ask me why). And it didn't start with a cult following. It didn't start out being heavily marketed. In fact, all this hype happened pretty much after Firefox had stolen a large portion of the Mozilla suite's user base. Seems pretty clear to me that Firefox has caught on because it's offering *something* that users like that isn't available from the Mozilla suite.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, hopefully what was intended was just a simple statement of fact. No one can force developers to work on these things. If it's an individual working in his spare time, then he'll work on what he wants to and what he views as important. If it's a paid programmer, he'll work on what he's being paid to work on, which is whatever his employer views as important. That's just the way it is. Someone has to work on it for it to be worked on.
I think there's just some worry that what was intended was to say that developers shouldn't be expected to work on improvements that don't affect them personally. Like if users are experience a problem, but the developers themselves haven't run across that problem for their own personal work, then screw the users.
Personally I think it's an issue of people getting angry and misunderstandings all around.
Or else FOSS is about to blow up (in the good way). Why are people getting so upset and paying so much attention if there weren't a lot of people interested in the future of these projects? Why would people be getting worked up over developers response to users if there weren't a lot of non-developer users who are using these products?
Seems to me each story has turned into a strange sort of developer vs. user vs. advocate flame-war, indicating that there are large numbers in each group, each with a certain amount of passion for seeing these projects succeed. Could be good news?
If you want to know my answer (which I'm assuming you do, since you asked), I guess I'll have to suggest you read my reply to your sibling post, who asked essentially the same thing.
And I would say that, insofar as Gnome (or whatever OSS you want to talk about) is a hobby project run by developers who don't care about the needs of their users, I would be concerned about relying on it or advising others to rely on it. If you had developers who were willing to work against the best interests of the users for the sake of the fun of writing "elegant code", I think users should run for cover.
However, I don't believe that's the case. I think even the hobbyists [generally] are interested in making good tools for users. I think many of the developers must understand that an "elegant" solution isn't elegant if it doesn't solve a problem. I think part of what makes programmers enjoy this "hobby" rather than the programming they do at work is that the product is something they can feel proud of. And what's my evidence that many Gnome developers are user-centric? Well, just look at Gnome. It's really too good and user-friendly to be a mere geek-scratching-an-itch project.
Insofar as developers fail to address the needs of the users, I believe the real problem (most of the time) is that they fail to anticipate and understand the needs of the users, which more often than not comes from a failure to listen to the users, which is what this whole discussion is really about.
And let's not forget that there really are people who work on OSS for a living. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's all hobbyists.
I am, however, trying to spark debates regarding the attitude of some people that open-source developers should not listen to users' comments, criticisms, and suggestions.
Well, I was writing in response to a post that said (and if you have any doubts, read your own subject) that we shouldn't criticize Gnome developers because they're poor, innocent hobbyists who've given us a gift.
The general argument here is that since the users aren't paying them, they have no responsibility to implement their ideas. Personally, I think that's a good thing, because it means that Gnome is free to pursue what it feels is the best design, rather than whatever features are popular at the moment. And if Gnome's design views differ from the users', they don't have to use it.
True enough, and this sort of attitude has lead, to some extent, to Gnome becoming the nice piece of software that Gnome is. However, it's also pretty much the attitude of the XFree86 people. Personally, I'm glad that pretty much every distro uses X.org these days, because the X.org organization seems focussed on addressing their users' needs.
When you can try it for free, there's little reason to complain that the product didn't meet your expectations.
Oh, there's a GREAT reason to complain. Maybe someone will listen.
Yeah, well guess what, the desire to make money is often what drives proprietary software developers to address their users wants and needs, which is part of the reason why users like proprietary software.
Maybe some what I said doesn't apply to you. Maybe you don't care about the success of FOSS in general. Maybe you don't like when large companies spend money to open-source development. My bad.
Don't let the "free" part of "FOSS" fool you-- there's a lot of money being spent. Where's the money going? Companies like Novell and Redhat and IBM, who are building their businesses on FOSS. And what do they do with the money? They spend a lot of money to pay programmers to develop FOSS full-time and spend money on projects that they think will help their business. And why do they do it? They expect a return on their investment.
There's this big myth that Redhat, Novell, and IBM don't "contribute anything back to the community" and it's just utterly false.
If you really think all these FOSS projects you're enjoying would do so well without corporate sponsorship, then go ahead and stop using any software that's benefited from corporate money. Oops, there goes Gnome, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, KDE, and, while we're at it, the Linux kernel itself.
So yeah, have fun with that.
Really what I'm questioning is whether a software developer can shirk his responsibilities to his users on the basis of the software being open-sourced. You could be a closed source developer, write a program, and expressly state, "This is my hobby, don't rely on it." Or you could claim that it's an enterprise-level product.
I'm not sure the openness of the code should have anything to do with it.
Nothing I've written should be read as a criticism of Gnome as software. I use it and like it quite a lot. I'm only questioning the right of people to push the product of their labor into the public arena and then complain that people can't criticize because it's their personal hobby.
Ok, so he's doing it as a hobby. And what, exactly, is his hobby? Contributing to a non-hobby project run by "the Gnome Foundation".
Finally, considering user requests can move development in an unexpected direction. Sometimes it's the wrong direction, and I think it's OK to answer a request with "that's a bad idea, and here's why". But sometimes after going in that direction, adding some features, maybe refactoring a bit, you look back and say "why didn't I think of that?" Any community of developers develops blind spots and biases, and sometimes these can be substantial enough for outside input to benefit everyone.
I think both of these point (my reading of them is that they're similar) indicate what I view to be the most unfortunate aspect of when developers decide that they don't care what their users think: it often makes for a worse product.
Now, I'm not someone who believes in the "inherent intelligence of everyday people". I think people can be really stupid. However, the way in which they're stupid usually is that they're bad about understanding their problems and finding solutions to their problems, but they're usually pretty good at knowing that they have a problem.
As an example, think of when a person goes to the doctor/ER because they think something is wrong. Now, of course, there are hypochondriacs who go to the doctor all the time over stupid things, but mostly, when someone goes to the doctor because they believe something is wrong, for the most part, something *is* wrong. I might go in because I have a terrible sore throat. I might insist to the doctor that I have strep. It might turn out that I have throat cancer. I might insist that I need antibiotics, and he might insist that I need radiation.
Similarly, in software development, if a whole lot of users are complaining, there probably *is* a problem. They might not really understand the problem, and their proposed solutions might be wrong, but if you're getting loads of similar complaints, there is a problem somewhere. Why? Because software is all about the users. When software isn't being used by users, it's just a series of bits.
Maybe it's just a perception problem (users aren't understanding things), but a perception problem *is* a problem. Maybe you just need better documentation or need to explain something better. Maybe it's something tiny, like you label a button differently and people understand what's going on at that point. Maybe something is designed badly.
Beyond fixing problems, anyone trying to solve problems should be really open to input, because you never know what will give you some amazing inspiration. Contrary to popular belief, great thinkers don't come up with great ideas in a vacuum.
I guess my point is, the only way to know is to listen to the users. Either way, I think developers (all developers) should remember two things:
Yet, some people have decided that isn't good enough, and want the Gnome developers to become personal servants to fulfill their whims and fancies.
Yeah, that reasoning might have worked if their front page had been a disclaimer like: This is just my hobby. Don't rely on it.
However, the Gnome foundation has partnered up with other OSS products and developers, and the developers have been pushing to be taken seriously as a real DE fit for general use. They've encouraged other developers to use their DE as a platform, and generally acted as though they they don't intend their project to be some hobby software for their own use, but that they want people to use it. They've even marketed themselves as being the most user-friendly and user-centric DE for unix-like systems.
So, OSS foundations, don't promote your project that way unless you want users to expect you to pay attention to them. Developers, don't participate in projects of that sort if you can't handle users wanting the project to be useful. In the most general terms I can think of, don't publish your work on the internet if you can't handle criticism.
I mean, what if, in response to the impending flames this post will receive, I wrote, "I just wrote this for free! How dare you publicly disagree when I spent my own free time slaving away typing up clever little articles of writing, and GAVE them to you!" Wouldn't that be a little silly? I mean, I posted it for you to read of my own free will, in a forum that allows for responses. What should I expect?
Way to talk all the CIOs/CFOs around the world out of using FOSS for anything ever.
What is an open-source developer's responsibility to his users?
I mean, sure, there are instances where someone might through together a little tool for himself, and open-source it just in case someone else might have a use, in which case I'd say his responsibility is practically zero.
However, the matter seems different to me when you have these relatively large foundations running major projects that are used in a large percentage of available distributions. Imagine FOSS does take over the world someday, and the Linux/Gnome combination accounts for a large percentage of the desktop market-share, what then? Let's pretend 90% of desktop users are dependent on Gnome to get things done-- do we still say that Gnome developers have no responsibility to address the needs of Gnome users?
If the Gnome development community would say yes, I'd probably hope that someone fork the project ASAP, someone who is willing to take responsibility for being user-centric. That goes for any major project. As a bit of an open-source advocate, I hope developers of major projects are always keeping their users in mind. If not, I'll have to go back to advocating closed-source proprietary companies insofar as they recognize "users" to be an important part of the equation, and not just "that annoying whining sound".
Well, apparently the Shuffle is no good as a food product.
You may be overstating your case, but I definitely think Apple has a strong influence over media standards. Although Apple's market share is small, Macintoshes are still the preferred machines within some specialized fields, specifically those fields that are related to media creation and distribution. More specifically, graphic design professionals and video editors work almost exclusively on Macintoshes, and if Apple makes it difficult to read/write a digital medium on their hardware/software, then the professionals won't use that medium, which is likely to have a bit of a trickle-down effect.
You're talking about the right things, but I think you're talking about it backwards. AAC is an audio encoding format that is often used to encode the audio in mpeg4 video files. (I'm no expert, but I believe mp3 can also be used to encode audio in mpeg4 files). Apple uses AAC as the default iTunes encoder, and iTMS-purchased files are AAC encoded music wrapped in a proprietary DRM.
The mozilla foundation, somewhere around 2 years ago, decided replace the Mozilla suite (which has had the codename "Seamonkey") with a group of standalone applications. There were projects already underway to create a standalone version of the browser and e-mail client, and the Mozilla foundation chose these two (which after a couple name-changes became Firefox and Thunderbird) to serve as the base for their development.
Originally, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" were meant to be code-names for these apps while they were under development, as Seamonkey was the codename for the Mozilla suite. When these products reached version 1.0, they were supposed to be renamed "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla E-mail".
However, the development versions of the software had become famous/popular enough that people become worried that changing the name would lose name-recognition (which is bad for branding purposes) so it was decided instead that they'd be called "Mozilla Firefox" and "Mozilla Thunderbird". As far as I can remember, those are now the final names, but perhaps someone who knows better will correct me.
Anyhow, these stand-alone apps were designated to be replacements/upgrades for the old suite, and indeed, most users have stopped using the old suite and are using the new applications. However, many developers still prefer the old suite and are gearing up to start a development group independent of the Mozilla Foundation and branch off from Mozilla 1.7. For this purpose, it has been suggested that they call the software "The Seamonkey Internet Suite" because, no longer being affiliated with Mozilla, they can't use the "Mozilla" name.
Make sense?
WTF?! This is MY post from a former topic! Damnit, what's going on?!
OSX started at NeXT, and was intended to be an alternative to the old MacOS. Then Apple bought NeXT, and they started developing the OS as OS X with the intention of replacing the old MacOS. Likewise, when Phoenix was created, it was an alternative. When the Mozilla Foundation took the project in, it was done as part of a plan to replace the old Mozilla Suite with a series of stand-alone applications. The development since then, as Firebird and now Firefox, was aimed at completing that plan, and the current roadmap still reflects that plan.
There was no significant migration from IE to Phoenix or Firebird, because at that time the application was not mature enough, so those suggesting alternative browsers would suggest Mozilla, which was stable by that point.
And yet there wasn't significant migration from IE to Mozilla at that point, either. Believe me, I tried suggesting Mozilla as an alternative browser, and users didn't like it. I explained it prevented popus, I showed them tabbed browsing, and users didn't care. They still didn't like it. Yet somehow, every time I install Firefox, even for people who've never heard of it and seem to think Firefox is a stupid name-- almost every time, I end up getting thanks.
Let Firefox be Firefox, and let Mozilla be Mozilla, they are two independant code bases with different developers that have different goals, and there's no reason why both cannot co-exist.
I see no reason to get rid of the Mozilla suite. Being open-source, I don't think there's much danger of it, so long as people like it and find it useful. However, the arguments going on here seem to be more about the question of whether a specific group, the Mozilla Foundation, is wise/fair/right/allowed to focus their efforts on Firefox rather than the old suite. For a wide variety of reasons, I'd say yes. As a Firefox user and as an open-source advocate, I hope developers will jump on-board.
I agree.
Who controls the core (Gecko, XUL etc.)? Is it the same company that ships Firefox?
So it seems, insofar as anyone can control open-source software.
Will they make changes to the core that will break the suite, so that the maintainers of the suite will have to regression-fix behind them?
It does seem it will come to this. I get the sense that if there are developers who like the Mozilla suite and want to continue developing it, they'll have to branch and develop it independently. At least that's the way it's looking, unless the Mozilla Foundation decides to change their minds.
Also, is www.mozilla.org, the former home of the suite, allowed to market Firefox as the successor, pushing the Suite to be a sidenote?
Well, Mozilla.org is currently the website of the Mozilla Foundation's Mozilla-based software. Seems to me that whoever's running the Mozilla foundation can do what they please with it, and remove the old suite altogether if they please. Luckily, since it's open source, that doesn't have to be the end of things.
Then it's not wonder when everybody's switching.
In fairness, that's not why people are switching. Mozilla is pushing Firefox because Firefox picked up a user base very quickly and it's very popular-- not the other way around.
What about trademarks? Is the "Mozilla Foundation" allowed to forbit Debian and long-time Mozilla developers to use the Mozilla trademark for modified builds of Mozilla?
Yeah, I think if someone branches the old suite and wants to distribute it independently, the Mozilla Foundation has the right to withhold permission to use the trademark. They own it. However, if the new-old suite is really so good as to win users, I'm sure its new snazzy name will catch on.
First, I do understand what the term "power user" is intended to mean. However, I would maintain that many self-proclaimed "power users" are people with computer-related-OCD. You know, people who claim that they can't use OSX because they're a "power user", and OSX doesn't allow them to skin their interface easily enough, and the white color (as opposed to an off-white color) of the interface would cause a 90 second/day drop in their efficiency that just isn't allowable. However, they're spending their time posting these complaints [and Natalie Portman jokes] on slashdot. Oops, there goes that efficiency!
I know that's not the case with every "power user", but I've seen it often enough.
As I wrote previously, I take exception with your viewpoint that Firefox is the f'up to Mozilla. It isn't; it's a complimentary development with a different target audience.
It's not a follow-up to the entire Mozilla project, but it is intended to be the replacement for the old Mozilla browser. Insofar as the Mozilla Foundation is in charge of the Mozilla browser, that just seems to be fact. It's their stated position.
Why do some Firefox supporters want to make Mozilla developers abandon their project?
I don't think it's so much that Firefox user want Mozilla developers to "abandon their project". I think there are actually a couple of [connected] things going on at the same time.
First, the whole thing seems like the same-old anti-progress some-guy digging his heels in because he's used to something and he doesn't like the position some project has taken. People have gotten angry when they had to move from Windows 3.1 to 95, Windows 98 to 2000, from OS8 to OSX, from Gnome 1.4 to 2.0, from 2.6 to 2.8 (I think that was when the spacial Nautilus came in). Hell, there are still people who insist on running Netscape 4.0. Sometimes the resistance to change has good reason for it, but often enough, it's just somebody who's accustomed to doing things the old way, and wants to hold up progress for the rest of us rather than learning to adapt. So you're running into a perception, whether true or not, that you're just digging your heels in for no real reason.
Second, as much as you're annoyed at Firefox pulling development resources away from the old suite, Firefox users want to see their software developed too. They want the project that they benefit from to get as much in the way of resources as possible. On the other hand, you want resources to be spent on a project that doesn't address these users' needs. You want to support a product that, in the view of many, is old and growing-quickly-out-of-date.
Further, a lot of people will rebel against something specifically because it's popular. Using it doesn't live up to the 733t uber-geek image, so these people want to trash it. I think part of what might be going on is that there's fear that, merely because Firefox is successful, there's an uber-geek contingent that wants it gone. You know, the idea that N00bs running linux threatens my ego by suggesting that I might not be so 733t just because I made it through a Fedora install.
Now I'm really not trying to flame you here. You asked why Firefox users are saying certain things, and I'm telling you my best guess, sort of based on my opinion, but largely based on what I've heard others say.
The perception of many Firefox users, I think, is that you are doing the equivalent of advocating taking some of the resources from developing the 1.7 Mozilla branch in order to develop a new branch off of Netscape 4.0, and the stated reason is because you "love" Netscape 4.0, and think all changes since then were a mistake. Additionally, you're not claiming any intention to address the issues that people had with version 4.0, because, as I've said, you "love" Netscape 4.0, and feel it makes you more productive as it is. This only raises the question, if Netscape 4.0 is so perfect for you, then why does it need so much development anyhow? Why not just pou
"Windows 95 is not an improvement on Windows 3.1, it's _different_ than Windows 3.1, a difference some people happen to prefer."
-or-
"OSX is not an improvement on System 9, it's _different_ than than System 9, a difference some people happen to prefer."
So what's the difference?
And yes, there were lots of people who stuck with Windows 3.1, and lots of Mac users to this day who won't upgrade to OSX, yet they were both upgrades intended to replace the old system. Upgrades that had many differences from the software they were intended to replace, but upgrades none the less.
Personally I believe that if the Mozilla suite had a catchy name like 'Firefox' and was marketed as heavily as Firefox was, it'd be just as popular with non technical ex IE users, but we'll never know whether that's true.
Funny, because when Firefox originally started pulling users away from Mozilla, it wasn't called Firefox, and a lot of people claimed that "Mozilla" was a catchy name (don't ask me why). And it didn't start with a cult following. It didn't start out being heavily marketed. In fact, all this hype happened pretty much after Firefox had stolen a large portion of the Mozilla suite's user base. Seems pretty clear to me that Firefox has caught on because it's offering *something* that users like that isn't available from the Mozilla suite.