On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 09:17 -0500, mac wrote: > Let me state for the record, I'm not flaming anyone or anything. So, let > me play devils advocate for a bit: > > To paraphrase a lot of this thread: "F/OSS is for software geeks and > tinkers, so if you want to do creative work, that does not involve > learning or creating software, then go buy ***software application for > whatever creative art you choose*** (i.e. protools, photoshop, Adobe > studio, etc.)"
This is a generalization of what I said, which was somewhat more nuanced. The bottom line is that, by its very nature, F/OSS developers have _no_ responsibility to the end-user community, whatever that may be. None! Zarro! Zilch!! Open Source is developed in the context of a gift economy. Developers may _take_ some such responsibility, by choice, but there's no one really looking over their shoulders requiring them to do this or do that if they want to continue the work, nor do I believe there's any such ethical obligation. Often F/OSS software is written by geeks, for geeks, which is why some packages seem to be perpetually in a state of flux, or poorly documented. Sometimes such packages _need_ to be taken over by a commercial entity if they're going to be usable by the rest of us. CUPS, the Common Unix Printing System, was a total disaster area from a usability standpoint until Apple took it over, but now it's a whole lot better. To Apple's credit, they realized that it was to their advantage to simply put the project on the right track and leave it in the F/OSS world without trying to co-opt it. So some F/OSS software may be _very_ usable and intelligently designed. I use Bluefish for professional HTML editing, and the principal developers are quite concerned with usability, and although not always wise in evaluating usability issues, they listen, and understand such concerns - and often act on them. Likewise, I've used a lot of CD / DVD recording software for Windows, and for Linux, and have come across few packages for any platform that are as solid and as intelligently designed as KDE's k3b utility. I'm not a diehard /.-er with an attitude that all commercial software is evil. The dynamics of commercial software creation are such that people have a chance to vote for the best with the wallets, and good software sells for a substantial price. People who use it professionally find it a reasonable price to pay if it improves their work and their productivity. It's often an honest business relationship which benefits everyone involved, with nothing evil about it. > Now I searched for the lawyer speak, in small print where it says: > "General knowledge of Linux system admin, software development, > understanding of xwindows, and other geeky stuff may be required before > successful creativity in audio, graphics, or video can be achieved." > > Couldn't find it. That's because everything you need to know about the package legally is contained in the GPL, and in the usual disclaimer that there is no guarantee regarding the usability of the software. Anyone can say anything about anything. Truth in advertising is only an obligation if there's a buyer and purchaser involved, and even then caveat emptor is an established legal principle. > Basically, what's said over and over in countless forums is: if you just > want to use F/OSS because you believe it's a better way (i.e. because of > the philosophy) and you can't, for whatever reason, help make it > better(i.e. jump in and write code, fix bugs, write documentation, > etc.), leave us alone. And certainly don't point out bugs or > deficiencies. I certainly don't agree with this! And my guess is that the attitude you describe is generally put forth by people who have never done any substantial F/OSS software in their lives! The best F/OSS projects consider thoughtful feedback from _anyone_ using their software as a resource, and actively solicit bug reports suggestions from non-developers. It all depends on the project. I found a bug in a Debian package several years ago and filed a bug report with Debian. Some fellow in Debian QA jumped in and flamed me because I didn't have all the reporting formalities in order - the right keywords in the right places in the report, or some such. I got pissed, and told him so, and he flamed me back, and before long Joey Hess had to step in and mediate, which he did quite skillfully. I then took the problem report directly to the package developer who was quite friendly and glad to get it - in any form - and he released an updated package with a fix within 24 hours. So it's really, in the end, not about F/OSS, or the Open Source philosophy, but about people. Attitudes and approaches to development and user feedback are as varied as the personalities of the people involved. Some of the people who yell the loudest about this or about that may not be the people whose opinions and work are on the line. The latter are probably too busy doing what they do best to worry about it. > I guess my point is: if this stuff is only for people who have skills > and/or plenty of spare time to help in other ways, then state that up > front and scare all the other folks away immediately and don't waste > their time. Living makes us savvy in these things - hopefully. There will always be things which will waste our time, and some surprises along the way when we find diamonds in unexpected places. The real skill is to evaluate our tool options and to be able to determine quickly which are going to be worth while pursuing, and for what reasons, and which are going to eat more time and personal bandwidth than we can afford. This goes for F/OSS and commercial software - both. -- Lindsay Haisley | "In an open world, | PGP public key FMP Computer Services | who needs Windows | available at 512-259-1190 | or Gates" | http://pubkeys.fmp.com http://www.fmp.com | | -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
