OSNews

Well...

They do it for free, in their free time.
You can't expect miracles, especially when there are not enough people to fulfill those requests.

Quote:
"A feature will be implemented if and only if there is a developer who wants to implement it" (e.g. if the developer actually has such a need himself).

Here you assume that the developer needs to have a need himself to implement it.
I don't think that's true. He does need to have to time to do so though. And I can imagine that with all the other bug reports, that some features will have to wait till these developers get the time to implement them, or wait for new developers who do have that need.

My opinion though.

I think the FOSS community has gotten a huge flux of *just users* in the last 3 years, and not as many developers to cope.

We need more users to become developers.

The article was right on the part of software being a tool. It's just means to an end.
What about then those hobbyOS?

Freedom to use software. Freedom to look at the source code. Freedom to not listen to other people's ideas/suggestion and write code they way you want.

Well, to the developers, OSS is already a success. They already won. Because they themselves are using their own software.

Fundamental projects such as Gnome should be responsive to the needs of the community.

For example, businesses users probably want easy network-wide user policy management. For example, how do I set change the HTTP proxy settings for all my systems at once? Nautilus and Konqueror don't manage ACL permissions because, I imagine, most developers are in home/SO setting where this is not necessary. (Note: ACL management is both old and highly voted on the KDE Bugzilla.) Gnome 2.10 has impressive new features, but many are suited for home users (such as the multimedia).

OpenOffice.org for Linux doesn't warn a user if another user is editing the same file, but it does on Windows. (This is what I read. We are rolling out the Linux desktops soon.)

I suggest a project for identifying the needs of business users using OSS, prioritizing the needs, and getting them taken care of.

In any case, OSS is always my first choice. I'm confident these problems will be addressed, but sooner is better than later.

Although I don't agree with everything, I agree with the main points, especially concerning Gnome. However I think one should stress that this problem doesn't exist with all OSS, at least not as much as it obviously exists with Gnome.

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but in my experience the attitude of the KDE devs towards their users is much more open. In fact, this is one of the major advantages of KDE for me (although I'm using Gnome right now, go figure).

Case in point, simply removing menu editing wouldn't have happened had the devs asked the users, I'm pretty sure, but they simply decided that this wasn't an important feature and people could do without it, at least for half a year. Frankly, though I can imagine the KDE devs doing a lot of stupid things, this would clearly be beyond them.

it's open source. don't like it? change it yourself.
closed source: don't like it? tough poop.
either case, your personal tweaks will be ignored until they reach mass appeal.

you want changes to gnome and lack the programming skills? then pay someone to do it. with open source you can actually contact the programmers and i'd bet there'd be many who would contract to do exactly what you want to do.

otherwise what's your point? that life's not fair? hey, newsflash! nobody owes you anything.

and how about accepting the reality that you can't change anyone else, you can only change yourself.

and lastly, when you're got no stroke, you've gotta learn to lump it.

"A feature will be implemented if and only if there is a developer who wants to implement it" (e.g. if the developer actually has such a need himself).

Obviously I haven`t been following the thread on the mailing lists but that line really does look like an assumption. A developer doesn't have to have a "need" for a feature himself to want to implement it. The quote above doesn't imply that in the slightest. It clearly says a developer has to "want" to implement it. Not need.

Although this is certainly a problem in the OSS community, I see a lack of concern for the user to be endemic to software development as a whole. There are plenty of commercial developers that, somewhere along the way, forgot they were developing for people, not features. Perhaps it's a little unfair to point the finger just at OSS. Besides, if anything, I think OSS has made remarkable strides in the past few years. It's come a long way from the "hack it yourself"/RTFM philosophy it once peddled. I'm not saying this attitude doesn't exist, but that it's certainly not the norm anymore. Usability is fast becoming the latest (and hopefully longest-lived) craze in OSS.

Also, the article really only focused on Gnome, so the title is somewhat misleading. You yourself even said that many of the projects on GnomeFiles.org constantly solicit user feedback. Don't attack all of OSS for the failings of one (albeit rather major) product.

I think Gnome's philosophy has its good side and its bad side. You just saw the bad side. Ease of use for Jane Professional trumps feature requests from Joe Sixpack. The good side is that this singularity of focus has led to a simple, easy-to-use desktop with its trademark KISS perspective.

I like Gnome, but I agree with you that ignoring their userbase will ultimately get them screwed. I'd estimate that most of their users (by a vast margin) are desktop-wielding Joe Sixpacks and not Jane Professionals.

...basically, your point is that developers should do what you ask them to do, to make you happy?

You say, "what reason would I have to use open source software?". Well, that's not for us to answer, is it? You have to do it. Either you have a reason, and you use it, or you don't have a reason, and you don't.

If you have a reason, you can try to push the software environment towards your own needs. However, just like in real life, some ways to push work, some ways to push get you a fist in the nose.

Keep in mind the following:

what reason do developers have to give a damn if you use their software or not? And remember that you are not betting much, compared to them.

You are betting nothing, pretty much. You decide not to use free software. You use something else. Since you decided to switch based on your own reasons, that should make you happier. So what's your loss?

The developers, on the other hand, are betting hundreds or thousands of hours of work, a strain in their personal life, and probably lots of money (lost income).

So, just like you have all the right to write an article complaining about deaf developers, developers have, in spades! the right to be deaf.

I've been using GNU/Linux & otehr opensource products for years now in a support and adminning prof. environment. Using it longer to play with GIMP & other fun stuff. I've yet to run across a situation where I couldn't fined the proper tool.

More often, I find that when I don't immediately see a solution, I can find a tool (google's great) to fit my needs from another project.

I'd like the author to explain how & how much he supports this movement.......

Konqueror don't manage ACL permissions because, I imagine, most developers are in home/SO setting where this is not necessary.
----------

many of the developers are working in major companies not homes and that includes Novell, mandrake, Linspire etc. ACL is not implemented in KDE because it tends to be specific to certain operating systems like Linux and cannot be implemented easily in a way that allows KDE to mantain OS neutrality and allows it to be ported to other OS like freebsd, solaris and what not

"
OpenOffice.org for Linux doesn't warn a user if another user is editing the same file, but it does on Windows. (This is what I read. We are rolling out the Linux desktops soon.) "

This is not true. Linux systems usually run with people having their own unique identities and they are typically not shared in the file level. colloboration features exist with OO.o for more fine grained locking

You don't have $200 a day, but you could start a fund raiser for your idea to be added. If truly, MILLIONS of people want a feature, ask them all to chip in $1 each. $1,000,000 would certainly pay for any damn feature as it could fund many full-time experienced developers for a year or years.


Despite what you've heard, money makes the world go around. It is a great convincer and incentive to produce needed work.

If you were getting a house built for free by Jimmy Carter's organization, but you absolutely, really and truly wanted a tiled inground pool in your yard, you can't expect the organization of VOLUNTEERS to build it for YOU. They will do what they believe is needed and whatever else might interest them. If you want the pool, either A) go to pool college and add it to your house project, B) save up some money and find a pool developer to make it for you, or C) get a bunch of people together who want pools and start a fundraiser to get a community pool built.

This is the way of the world Eugina. The first US highways were paid for by proceeds from national lotteries. If it worked in the 1780's, it sure works now. Start up a 50-50 raffle and give a cut for the developers or something similar.

I think it's strange to find people upset that even though they use free open source software they expect to be waited on.

Your ideas are suggestions. Put money behind them and all of a sudden they carry much more weight as you are now a stakeholder in the project.

This is not a troll of anykind, just a statement of the obvious with some realisitc suggestions for solving your problem.

If you like, organizations such as Rentacoder.com are setup for this very job. Try em out?

Success for open source is several things. As someone mentioned, it's freedom and that the develepers use their own software. This is great for volunteer developers.

Another measure of success is meeting the needs of a wide range of audiences and, consequently, wide-scale adoption. This is an appropriate goal for OSS businesses (say, Mandrakesoft) and organizations.

"But I am increasingly frustrated with Open Source software written by hobbyists; hobbyists who write a specific application or library because they need a specific function out of their applications, for their own needs and only their own needs."

Eugenia, I don't see how you this situation can be changed. How can you blame developers for making software for fun? FLOSS is mostly about projects, not products, it's more like like art than like business. If your hobby is, say, songwriting, do you really care what other people say about your songs if goes against what you feel is right? Such is the nature of this kind of software -- live with it. With proprietary software, the developer gets satisfaction through money; with FLOSS, the developer gets satisfaction through the process of shaping his creation the way he/she sees fit and with the pace he/she deems necessary. By hypotetically depriving the FLOSS developer of this right, you remove the very incentive to write software.

Seeing as how he used Gnome as an example and even cited Novell's indifference. How is this an OSS issue and not purely a corporate issue? AFAIK, Microsoft doesn't simply put features into Windows just because somebody sends them an email.

NOWHERE. They will laugh in your face. But most likely they will never even hear what you have to say since there is no way to contact them other than some feedback@ bitbucket which gets flushed every night

Love it or hate it, Gnome is just another corporate product now.

The person who wrote this article seems to be naive. It's a very simple fact that, if a developer does not "want" to implement something, they won't. I doubt the Gnome devs were saying anything more or less. A different, and more important question is what "motivates" a developer to "want" to impliment a feature. There are several such motivating factors. I develop a very small open source project, but which has users in the 10's of thousands. Initially I started it to scratch an itch. Both in terms of a programme that I'd use, and also to learn some programming skills (where before I had none). The programme became popular. Initially I added features to it that I wanted. However, of late I've been implimenting features that users are calling for. The programme had enough features to satisfy my needs about a year ago.

So what motivates me now? To be honest I'm not sure. Often it's the challenge of implimenting a feature, and successfully doing it in a way that I think is optimal. Sometimes it's the pressure of users, all wanting something, and making them happy. One thing that really de-motivates me is people demanding features without offering to help in there implimentation, or a decent suggestion about how it might be acheived. I don't know what motivates the gnome developers. However, I doubt personal need is particularly high on the agenda. I doubt developers involved in projects of that magnitude and maturity have many itches left to scratch. I am picking it's the challenge of implimenting tricky stuff, and kudos that motivates them now.

So to cut a long story short, I think the premise of this article (that developers only do what they personally need) is wrong. I also don't think that this article has any useful suggestions on how to fix the underlying problem, which is that developers who aren't paid won't do anything that they don't want. However, GPL software has an in-built mechanism to deal with that. If you want a feature so bad, and no-one else will impliment it, then you can do it yourself, or pay someone to do it for you. That's what forking is all about. Often times, people will take my code, add features to it. If those features are any good, I'll roll that back into the main code, and release it. Hey presto, feature implimented that I didn't "want" to do.

I do think that this issue is going to become a greater source of friction as linux gets more popular on the desktop. It will take a while for those used to the proprietary model to get used to an open model, and how things work. However, I think the problem being referred to is solved by the fact that the code is open. If a feature is not implimented, and you don't mind paying for software, then pay someone to impliment it. If you can't, you have to motivate someone to do it. Get them excited about it, challenge them.

i completely agree with this and it's the reason why linux has been so slow to be adopted in the linux community. also the replies i've seen to this article are the reason why it more than likely never will be. the open source community is to elitist to care about the needs of others, and yet they still complain at the fact the microsoft is a market leader in just about everything they do.

eh, hmmm....linux community, um yeah, i meant desktop community, market, err, whatever you want to call it

I see Open Source as a big knowledge repository, but in general not as something that has to do with business. There are a lot of small applications dedicated to very special needs and in my oppinion that'S the heart of Open Source.
You are not entitled to criticize some OSS hobby developer in this way, because you make the wrong assumptions; that the developer want's to satisfy somebodies needs. His or her work is based uppon some other OSS stuff so maybe he want's to give back some knowledge. That's all. See it as an art, not as a commercial endeavour.

If you don't find the OSS platforms good enough, theres Windows XP, MacOS X and Solaris, along with all the 3rd party applications and investment in those platforms just waiting for you.

Nobody promised you a rose garden, and if you find GNOME doesn't work for you, then dump it. Its just a DE, and a pretty average DE at the moment.

I switched from GNOME to KDE on my machines at work because KDE let me remotely edit files over sftp, something gedit simply won't do - I didn't feel the need to rant about it, I just did it.


The GNOME devs are quite aware of the exodus of 'power users' from the platform, and also quite aware of the influx of new users, especially in the corporate arena due to wide distro-level standardisation on GNOME - There is no grand plan to screw over the loyal followers, the project simply evolves due to the influence of the developers running the project.

If you feel the time is right to join the GNOME project and concentrate on devloping a prototype environment that reflects what is important to you and like-minded others, then perhaps you need to assemble a team of developers and take a leadership role here - I mean, I've followed OSNews for a while, and I mostly agree with the things you have to say however I think you're preaching to the choir here, and ultimately you're wasting your breath.

Unfortunately, i'd guess that you think you don't have the time, and you could count on one hand the number of people on OSNews preapred to actually contribute to something like this.

And if that is the case, then the sad truth is that you're pretty much totally irrelevant to the Free Software/Open Source community anyway - It's not about what you take from the community, it's what you give. Youre just fuelling the flames that already burn so brightly on this site.

I understand your dissatisfaction with GNOME, but without new contributors, the project will simply continue to evolve as a slower pace than we would all like.

So contribute, or deal with the half-assed nature of things - It's that simple

"the open source community is to elitist to care about the needs of others, and yet they still complain at the fact the microsoft is a market leader in just about everything they do."

This is simply not true. While I agree that there are more than enough of the people you describe (and you are right, you just have to read some of the responses), this kind of attitude certainly isn't symptomatic for the whole OS community, or even just the majority.

Eugenia, welcome in real GNOME live. That was the same stuff I went through in the past years and what I wanted to make people understand which you regulary accused me as 'Troll'. Now it looks like you finally got confronted with the same painful situation that I and many many others were in. Hope you take a lesson out of it.

Btw: This is not meant as attack or something (even knowing how fast something might thrill you up) it was just a normal comment since I am not the kind of person attacking people.

IMO Eugenia points some important issues. It is not easy to write software for some other users, when You are not well motivated. In closed software $$$ is magic making "world go around". In hobbylike OSSes there has to be other magic ;-)) As long as project leader has ability to motivate developers (at least to motivate himself ;-)) ) to do boring stuff, project will go forward and will gain users. In other cases project will be something never finished in every bit.... I mean something usable, but with lot of small iritating issues...

For sure it is fine when users can send own patches, but regarding todays software complexity I dont think it will succed. At least in projects oriented to the mass users (mythical "avareage users"). In narrow environments (such science) where average user is not so average ;-) "you need it, do it yourself" approach may (but not always) will work.

Look at it this way, you save lots of money getting tons of features for free, why not find someone willing to do it and pay them or use something else. It happens everywhere. I stopped using outlook express, which I was happy with at the time, because I wanted a newsreader to handle binaries. I kept it for a while, for email only, before dumping it completely. I dumped ie for phoenix(now firefox) a few years because I wanted tabs & a couple of other features. It's just the way it goes.

Every bit of software is going to have missing features, none of them are perfect. On a different subject, and a much smaller scale, I wanted RSS feeds for websites that didn't offer them. I asked the site owners, no response. I chanced upon some info on how to write a script parse the news pages of these sites and make them. It was in perl, and I don't know perl, but I learned enough to the job. I passed my scripts on to the site owners to use, for free, no response. I'm not bothered though, because I got what I wanted.

If you can't do it yourself & can't pay anyone, befriend people who can do it, persuade them of the usefulness and they can do it for you for free. There's no harm in that.

An extra note, is that there are 3rd party gnome addons that are only made part of the desktop AFTER they've been made. It's usefulness was proven, and then it got included.

A typical sentiment: So, just like you have all the right to write an article complaining about deaf developers, developers have, in spades! the right to be deaf.

Unfortunately its too much a blanket statement. It's all good and nice as long as you tinker away on you own pet project, and just happen to host it on Sourceforge.

But once you get into a project which is actually used, in particular a fundamental project like Gnome, it is no longer your project alone - it is also the user's ones.

After all, the users have spent time and effort to download your software, install it, configure it, suffer through the inevitable bugs - all the while trusting you to develop it in a sensible way.

I know, it's a big strike to a developer's "I am God" ego, but it bears saying again: by accepting external users (real users, who just want to get something done), you give up part of your ownership. Don't like that? Then don't make your software available.

It's a situation I am in myself: my project is used in a couple of places, so I have always walk the line between stuff I want to implement, and stuff I need to implement. Sometimes it's frustrating - but on the other hand: what good is software which isn't used?

Seriously, why would an unpaid developer implement something that joe-random user wants when it's the developer doing all the work.

There's absolutely no incentive.

You got the answer: it will get done if someone wants to do it. You say this is not right.

Here's my question: what would be a better system? Software's features will always be determined, in the end, by developers.

Take the Linux kernel. Not everyone agress with choices Linus makes, but he's in control. Not everyone agrees about choices made in the development of Debian. Same with blackbox. Same with Macromedia Dreamweaver. Same with Windows.

Features are by definition decided upon by developers, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

It's possible that a particular development team is not being "generous" in it design choices or in community inclusion. The truth is that there is always another choice to make or a fork to do, etc. Don't say that this is unrealistic or that I'm putting the onus on the user. I'm saying that the responsability for the success or failure of projects is squarely on the shoulders of the users in the OSS world. If GNOME's behaviour is truly unacceptable, then where is the alternative? Oh, wait, there ARE alternatives.

I'd suggest making informed decisions about the software you use. Possibly stay away from software you see as being developed by hobbyists. I would never discourage these people, though, because they are a critical part of the community.

As for pitying people who politicize software...I wouldn't waste the energy, Eugenia. Invalidating something that someone has chosen to take a stand for is only disempowering to YOU, not them.

Opinions are like a**holes: everyone's got one, and they all stink...unlike, a**holes, though, everyone thinks their opinion is TRUE.

It is true that we have no right to expect anything from someone who is giving something away for free. But do you remember "Hey kids! Gnome foundations need your support! Give us your money now, please"? Then they suddenly place themselves in a bit different position. Also, when you see that you should address the check to the "GNOME Foundation c/o Novell, Inc, 8 Cambridge Center" etc., you start to wonder what the hell is going on. We are donating to a multinational corporation? Then maybe they SHOULD start listening to their users.

This time Eugenia makes it rather plain there are some things she don't get. The "it" being the difference between most of OSS and commercial software. She agrees with the commercial entities like RH and Novels should be controlled by their marketing departments, but demands the other OSS developers to follow the same kind of controll. And then completely ignores the fact that OSS don't have those functions.

A feedback system like Apple's are a good idea, if you have a department to go trough and filter the entries, then rework them into design documents before turning them over to the developers(Probably running them trough marketing first). Who is going to do this in OSS, the developers?

As for bugzilla, try to spend some time in the hell that is whislist before you judge. If only power users use bugzilla, they sure make many clueless wishes. The questions you'll rise most often are what, how and why? What is it the reporter actually want, lots of wishes are really hard to understand the meaning of. How is the wish meant to work and why would somebody want to do that. Is questions the developers have to answer before trying to implement it. If not, they tend to ignore the wishes, rather than sending a reply that may offend the reporter.

" But once you get into a project which is actually used, in particular a fundamental project like Gnome, it is no longer your project alone - it is also the user's ones.

After all, the users have spent time and effort to download your software, install it, configure it, suffer through the inevitable bugs - all the while trusting you to develop it in a sensible way. "

Nope. You are comparing a couple hours of effort (the user's) with months or years (the developer's). Proposing that just because you download something you have a measurable controlling right on its steering is laughable.

You have leverage. But it's tiny. Almost invisibly so. Unless a couple hundreds push together (or thousands, or dozens, depending on how much you have to lift), you ain't gonna move the project.

And... GNOME is a large project. It has a ton of inertia. One user is not going to move it. One developer can. He can use his code to do it.

If you want more people working on a software package, you need to donate to help the possibility that your issue will be addressed sooner, not later.

Otherwise you have no right to complain.

It's not like GNOME didn't had enough developers. There used to be plenty of people who wanted to help the Desktop to become more successful and more usable. Exactly the problems that Eugenia described within the first 2-3 paragraphs are the reason why those developers got scared away. How much offensive stuff, how much bad politics, how much 'demonstrating' powers, how much plain ignorance, how much insulting people. I think Eugenia finally seem to understand the politics around GNOME now and I am quite sure she even know more than she wanted to write here. At least this part has been made clear now - which I am finally thankful for. GNOME as Desktop certainly has potential to become something really cool. But simply contributing code, fixing bugs, writing patches doesn't solve the problem if you hit the ignorant maintainer/developer kind of person. All best contributions are worth nothing if the problem as a whole isn't seen.

Thing is, you don't get it. The Gnome devs made it quite clear that they don't care about their users.

As a contrast, take a look at this:
http://quality.kde.org/

They encorage people, even and especially people who can't program, to participate.

See the difference?
And your point was?

Eugenia, you can make suggestions, not demands...unless you put your money where your mouth is. The group of people you're pissing off right now is the volunteer developers who do their best to fill the gaps which are left by the big guns in the corporate world. I do think they deserve a little more credit for their work than you give them by this mindless complaint.

Like we say; Pay me and I'll implement whatever you want, and even handhold you into using it. If not, you're just there for the free ride.

One specific point. Apple (and Microsoft) have a nice simple feedback form. Well, whoopy doo. And did you try testing it, Eugenia? Did you research what actually *happens* when you fill it in? Where your message goes? Who reads it? If it ever goes within 50 feet of anyone who writes actual MacOS X code? If you didn't, then for all you know, it all gets dumped straight down the trash as soon as you fill it in. A form means nothing. What happens to what's written on it is what matters, so please reassure us that you actually made an effort to find this out.

If you file a bug on a piece of OSS software you might get a message saying it's not going to be fixed or it was too vague or it's not a priority or asking you to be clearer. Same goes for a mailing list. But in general at least you *get* a reply, it's not automatic, and on most projects it actually comes from someone who's *writing the damn code*. I like that a lot better than a fuzzy feedback form which falls into a black box about which I know nothing at all.

"The GNOME devs are quite aware of the exodus of 'power users' from the platform, and also quite aware of the influx of new users, especially in the corporate arena due to wide distro-level standardisation on GNOME - There is no grand plan to screw over the loyal followers, the project simply evolves due to the influence of the developers running the project. "

In response to "Anonymous"... you really think that including Evolution monster in Gnome was not a push by corporate distributor !!! For sure it was not a request by Joe user.

I agree devs do it for free so they can choose to do only that they want.. but still, I agree with Eugenia, in the end, that mean the failure of the larger project to reach higher ground....

"In response to "Anonymous"... you really think that including Evolution monster in Gnome was not a push by corporate distributor !!! For sure it was not a request by Joe user."

Why not? I like Evolution. KMail is a central part of KDE. Outlook is a central part of many people's Windows lives. Evolution does a job damn well and its inclusion in GNOME has had a clear effect - see all the integration work that's happening lately, connecting it to beagle, gaim and other areas of the desktop. I think this is a very good thing indeed and would be much harder if Evolution were not part of GNOME.

I don't always agree with everything Eugenia says, but I think she is onto something here. If I read the editorial correctly, she is primarily talking about projects and developers that openly aspire to large numbers of users. (Does anyone deny that Gnome, KDE, Open Office and the like want lots of people to use their applications?)

In those instances (again, I'm not and I don't think Eugenia is talking about people who write applications primarily for their own use), it seems to me that the developers have a responsibility to at least respond when users make a well-reasoned request or ask politely about the possibility of implementing a change or feature.

Personally, I'd like to see more basic desktop applications (GUI rather than command line) that do not require Gnome or KDE libraries. I don't run either DE on my older, slower laptop and cannot see the need or sense in devoting large chunks of my hard drive to the libraries. Besides, I found that apps seemed to take forever to load, not to mention the boot time for the machine itself.

Ideally, there might also be a single web resource that would either house these applications or at least point to where to find them. (I might even be able to work on something like that if others could point me to some starting points.) But as long as developers insist on tying their applications into Gnome or KDE (at first glance, this seems like Microsoft-ish behavior), I think they and the DE developers themselves do have an obliigation and a responsibility to listen and respond to their users. Besides, it's just good manners.

walt_huntsman [at] myrealbox [dot] com

The problem with the arguments put forth in this tidbit is that the author fails to recognize the motivation factor, and yet it toushes the edges of it in the very first paragraph.

In the case of Open Source developer's they are motivated by needs and wants. This means that the code they write is to address the things the motivated the effort. That's the carrot if you will.

In commercial software, that motivation is the money that is inherent in the sale of a product, which in turn trickles down to the developer's that are motivated by the paycheck.

In his example of RedHat and Novell, he acknowledges where the motivation comes from. Further he acknowledges that the core devs work on what they want because it's what motivates them.

The solution, is to offer that carrot. Rather than complain, he should commit a motivating factor. In other words, he needs to feed the business side of the Open Source community. Provide an incentive, a motivation, a bounty on the feature changes that are needed, or hire one of those Open Source Developer's to make and contribute the needed changes back into the community, thus providing the motivation where there was none.

Look closely at how the bounty system has worked in OSS over the past couple of years. If there is motivation, it will get done, if there isn't, it will not.

Please stop referring to the author as 'he'. Eugenia wrote it. She's female.

There are some good points in the article - open-source developers should listen to their users because no one would use the software otherwise. Because the open-source developers are users themselves - they use other open-source software which they depend on. So that's the only way the whole open-source world can work.

However - Eugenia says:

1. The GNOME developers don't listen to their users.
2. She refuses to use software made by people who don't listen to their users.

So, a logical conclusion:

3. Eugenia doesn't use GNOME.

Right? Let's be honest.

I moved back to WindowMaker, yes. At least I don't expect anything more from it, because it is not a prominent environment and I know it's a much smaller project with fewer responsibilities.

Sorry /s/he/she in my previous post

Free Software was meant to be open to anyone who wanted to develop it. FreeBSD uses its own free license, and they say this a little differently: if you want it in, write the code and submit it.

There is nothing stopping anyone from getting together and paying a developer to write up a bunch of code for wanted features. Because of the GPL, if this is released and works well, it will probably go back into the main tree at some point. If it does not, you can start your own distribution.

There's plenty of choices out there. Use KDE or Windows or MAC. Wouldn't it be easier to switch instead of beating your head against a wall.

So if you don't think the developers should write what they want and instead write what "the people" want, how does that apply to your own article? You wrote an editorial that says editorial style software writing it wrong.

You are of course entitled your own opinion, but so are the developers. Their opinions just happen to be executable.

If it does not, you can start your own distribution.

You CAN NOT start new fork for almost each software You want to use ;-)))

Man, I didn't even get to read the whole article, but why is it that you have to mention gnome-files in every article you write? Also it seems every time some developer doesn't do something the way you want it, you write an article and have to tell everyone that they have a problem and make them as bas as you can. This is not the first time I noticed that as well.

"... And I want Open Source to succeed.", oh, how sweet of you, you're so selfless.

Yeah, I guess this article will probably go to the other "moderated down" article of other annoyed people... but whatever...

I totally sympathise Eugenia, but it is difficult to impose on developers who are giving up their free time to develop software. If there isn't a developer there to do it then there isn't much you can do. Software development is very developer centric because, when it comes down to it, they are the people who do the work. The developers are users in open source projects - that's part of the point.

I would love users to be able to provide a nice simple form of feedback, but unfortunately that kind of feedback has to be useful. Most of the time users give examples of things that are just too general to get to a solution, and sometimes you just get people who like to complain on IRC, mailing lists just for the sake of it. Because of that the vast majority of that traffic just goes ignored. The world isn't candy-coated unfortunately.

On the other hand, open source projects like Gnome have now become so large that a selfish attitude towards this sort of thing can't really go on if they are to go where people want them to go. Developers working on open source projects are often only too happy to take credit when non-technical, ordinary computer users out there use their software seriously but many seemingly won't take any sort of criticism. That goes with the territory of a certain amount of success I'm afraid.

If people really want open source software to get out there, then this is something that will need to be addressed. How? At the moment, I haven't got a clue. That's just the way things are.

Based on the subject I thought this was going to be about OSS and disabilities. After reading it I now know that it is just a rant by someone who thinks to much of themselves.

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You do not matter.

Companies pay developers to do what someone thinks will make the company more money. Developers who don't get paid do what they feel like.

If you want some particular feature, try talking to developers and see if they agree that it would be a good idea. If it's worth doing, you should be willing to contribute something, even if it's only finding the right people and convincing them your idea is worth their time.

Making demands of people who work for free or expecting companies to do things they're not paid for is a good way to alienate everyone who can make your idea a reality.

I agree with many of the observations made. They are valid and true. However, the form in which they were presented is likely to be a big turnoff to those who could fix the problems. Identifying a problem is easy. Finding a productive way to work towards a solution is the hard part.

We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
[ Mohandas Gandhi ]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind band won't change the subject.
[ Winston Churchill ]

an opensource contributer has no obligation to anyone but himself, unless he is being paid for his work. distro developers however are paid to work on stuff they may not nessicerily want to.

this is the way opensource software development works, there needs to be some motivation to do something you dont want to. if a bug is annoying a developer, chances are it will be fixed long before one that doesnt even show up on his distro/hardware. why would it work any other way?

imho, e is a beautiful system in some ways, and archaic as hell in others (opinion, please no flames). should i mail up rasterman and tell him that he needs to take the focus off graphic subsystems and work on making it more usable? of course not. what right would i have? now, if i emailed him, and said i would fund e development to make it more usable, that would be a different story. he may still say no, but at least im not trying to act like his boss, without giving him a salary.

more and more money is getting made off of linux, but when it comes to who is whose responsability, stuff starts getting circular. if an end user wants a feature implemented, he should go through his distro. that distro than works it out with the developers if needed, or makes a vendor specific patch (as they are so fond of doing), after which the maintainers can roll it back into the trunk if they choose to do so.

this system would be closer to the way things are done in the commercial software world. if you have a request, you send off an email to the apropriate contact. they have a moentary interest in pleasing their users, so if enough people want it chances are itll be included. if that missing feature is enough to get users to stop using the product, they will be out of a job and they know it. same with distros. not the same with maintainers.

maybe its just me, but there seems to be this real big misconception that oss developers owe their users something. they spend their free time to develop software that they then give away. for some reason, people think that by using a product for free, they have a say in how it is made. it really doesnt work that way, and if it did there would be a hell of alot less developers working on free software.

Berating gnome for not following a standard you try to impose on them is demeaning. How would you like to live up to someone else's whimsical demands? You gladly do unto other what you would never allow to be done unto you.

... no it's not. It exactly describes the situation correctly. And be happy she hadn't had written more.

if the user is a contributer, things are different. if the user has filled out bug reports, tested development versions, contributed art, documentation, or some other use of his/her time to the project, the developers do have an ethical responsability to listen to them. forgot to mention that....

Impressive editorial Eugenia, and I must say I agree.

Someone already mentioned it; but the removal of the menu editor in Gnome is definitely a perfect example of how the developers decide for themselves what's good; and they don't really care what the users might think.

Of course they do it in their free time; but that isn't a reason to say "screw my users". If your piece of software becomes as important as Gnome is, then you have a responsibility resting on your shoulders. If you cannot cope with this responsibilty-- then leave the project, make way for someone who can. By being a part of a project so big and extensive as Gnome you automatically inherit this responsibility; not only millions of ordinary users depend on you, but also big corporations deploying Red Hat and Novell Linux Desktop. If they (those oh-so-important companies running Linux/Gnome) see a lack of interest from the developers to fulfill their wishes-- then say bye-bye customers.

It feels like if the OSS community (well, parts of it) cannot cope with the growing demand of OSS. OSS has gained a foothold in the corporate, and, to a lesser extent, SOHO environment-- this means OSS now serves customers, and you cannot simply ignore those because you don't agree with them. They'd go back to Windows, or whatever.

"hobbyists who write a specific application or library because they need a specific function out of their applications, for their own needs and only their own needs"

I say: Don't look a gift horse in the mouth...

oh, and to prove a point...

i am not a subscriber of osnews, and i have a browser which blocks all ads. you have not received a cent for the amount of dedication you have put into this site, that i benefit from on a daily basis. however, i demand that you implement a thread based comment system, and an edit button. if you dont, i will declaire how much you disregard your users as loud as possible to whoever will listen. i will stop going there, and do my best to encourage others to do the same.

There is nothing stopping anyone from getting together and paying a developer to write up a bunch of code for wanted features. Because of the GPL, if this is released and works well, it will probably go back into the main tree at some point. If it does not, you can start your own distribution.

You mean, aside from the almost complete lack of a mechanism for doing so, the prohibitive costs for users, and the relatively small pool of developers fluent with the internal workings of a program to make effective modifications?

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say that users should contract developers to add the features they want to FOSS, and then complain when users do the cost/benefit analysis and turn to proprietary solutions.

There is a serious problem here when the rhetoric talks about community and world liberation, but that community only includes the needs of active developers.

amen

this "editorial" is nothing but a hypocritical whine fest.

@eugenia

OSS developers owe you NOTHING unless you are paying them. not paying them? go write your own. dont like what they do? find a replacement.

the only elitist attitude i see is yours thinking you are owed something. this is the overall problem with society today, too many people think they are owed something and arent willing to work for anything.

Such an awful, black-hearted, contemptible attack may be a pleasure to write, but it sickens me to read it.

PLONK! I'll never visit this website again.

Of course they do it in their free time; but that isn't a reason to say "screw my users". If your piece of software becomes as important as Gnome is, then you have a responsibility resting on your shoulders. If you cannot cope with this responsibilty-- then leave the project, make way for someone who can. By being a part of a project so big and extensive as Gnome you automatically inherit this responsibility; not only millions of ordinary users depend on you, but also big corporations deploying Red Hat and Novell Linux Desktop. If they (those oh-so-important companies running Linux/Gnome) see a lack of interest from the developers to fulfill their wishes-- then say bye-bye customers.

they are not customers. red hat has customers, gnome has users. that kind of sense of responsability isnt manditory for any contributer, neither is it manditory for commercial software developers. if it is there, in both cases your users will love you for it. in the vast majority of cases, developers work for a paycheck, or to do something fun. if a user wants their wishes fullfilled, and they are something quite boring to do, AND the user is unwilling to pay for it, then why in the world would it get done?



It feels like if the OSS community (well, parts of it) cannot cope with the growing demand of OSS. OSS has gained a foothold in the corporate, and, to a lesser extent, SOHO environment-- this means OSS now serves customers, and you cannot simply ignore those because you don't agree with them. They'd go back to Windows, or whatever.

actually, it feels like the massive migration of windows users we've seen over the last few years are extremely self-centered and greedy. if the only reason you can come up with as a motivation for taking on the responsability of a paying job, just without the pay, is altruism, then you are living in a dream world. there are people like that who do exist, but they are few and far between, and tend to get taken advantage of by the rest of the world pretty much constantly.

Well said mattb.

I have invested time in reading OSNews, and used my bandwidth on downloading the site, should I therefore have any amount of control over it? Hell no, my time invested is dwarfed by the time Eugenia has spent on it, so I'm quite content to let her decide what the site is like. Eugenia, I would expect you to understand this concept, which is why this incredibly arrogant article surprised me.

I don't understand this entitlement that people have. If OSS software is useful for you, great. If it isn't, improve it. If you don't want to improve it, pay for the alternative.
That kind of freedom is what OSS is all about. It is certainly not about forcing volunteers to do your bidding.

You are only entitled to something if you paid for it, or if you signed a contract saying you would get it. I'm pretty sure you have done neither of those things.

This isn't an editorial, it's antagonism and provocation.

Can't we all just get along?

I have been moderated out of this comment section for making the same statements this author has made.

OSS is a hobby-hack. It is a symphony of amateur programming. The developers are driven by the "coolness" factor. Yeah, it would be cool if... (fill in the blank). Commercial software developers are motivated by money. And customers have money, hence you better listen to them. This also explains why Linux really hasn't made a dent in Microsoft's market share. Even with all the problems and bad press MS gets, their software is just flat better. They run circles around Linux. And Linux always seems to be playing catch-up to MS.

Linux has the potential to be an awesome OS. But with no motivating factors behind it; it is doomed...

> OSS developers owe you NOTHING unless you are paying them.

If you pay them, then how much do you think one must pay ? If the amount you need to pay for it is getting bigger than how commercial producs such as QNX, Windows or MacOSX costs then what benefits do you have from all this movement ?

> This is the overall problem with society today, too many
> people think they are owed something and arent willing to
> work for anything.

The problem here is not Eugenia, the problem here is the organization called GNOME who promises a lot to their users but don't keep what they promise, who reject others to participate and help and who behave selfish at some point. GNOME is not a closed source company or something its an open organisation of volunteer people and thus these people need to learn to work with others and even accept criticism and other stuff from them.

No they don't owe Eugenia anything, but they do huge marketing crap around GNOME and raise the impression in peoples head that GNOME is something important, something big, something with commercial backing (which is just pure BS). And commercial backing means that there is interest to offer a product to people they can use and get their work done. A product that works and feels correctly. Eugenia wanted to help with that project because of her constructive and good comments she gave (as well as plenty of people before her before they resigned, as well as plenty of people who actually wrote productive code and resigned due to same experiences they made).

So if GNOME is not able to deal with these things then they should STEP back from promoting and marketing GNOME as the Desktop solution, because there are others already who can do this much better.

Developers always like to do some "challenging" things such like OS kernel. If the thing is not that _fun_, they may not willing to develope it. On the contrary, for business, no matter the thing is _fun_ or _not_, developer must work on it, because customer need it and developer need $. That's the difference.

Find a solution to fix the problem. OSNews should have it's own programmers that can add their own features to GNOME.

Well, while I can agree that the editorial can be written better. I didn't see that the complaint was at all about features that have not been implemented. Instead, I see the complaint was about a perceived lack of interest in user feedback. And really I think there is a valid complaint here that I think will really harm FOSS in the long run, and is at the core of a lot of frequent complaints about FOSS software.

One related problem is that you don't get usability, (however you wish to define it) from a developer-centered design process. You get it from user-centered design processes. This means not just knowing yourself as a designer, it means knowing the people who use your software, and the people you want to use your software.

Second, there seems to be a strong desire for broader adoption of FOSS software. However, adoption of FOSS software is not going to happen if it does not meet the needs of the people who will use this software.

Really how much trouble would it be to say, "that's a good idea, but we don't have the resources to implement that at this time."

(And yes, before anyone asks. I have volunteered chunks of my time doing needs and task analysis for FOSS projects.)

You don't have to pay certain people to write code. Many people already have jobs and they write code as a hobby.

[quote]
> OSS developers owe you NOTHING unless you are paying them.

If you pay them, then how much do you think one must pay ? If the amount you need to pay for it is getting bigger than how commercial producs such as QNX, Windows or MacOSX costs then what benefits do you have from all this movement ?
[/quote]

Where is it cast in stone that the services and products coming from the OSS community has to be free or cheaper than their commercial counterparts? Exactly, nowhere. What you get from paying for a feature is the feature you want, how you want it. What you pay for with commercial software is features that you may not need but get anyway just because the developer decided you need them...with no way in hell to change that unless you have an enterprise contract and a TAM with the good will to help you out. In short; unless you're an enterprise with deep pockets and a motivation to pay for features you want you're screwed. With OSS you're just screwed a little less because of the freedom OSS software provides to those who are willing to pull up their sleeves and dig into the dirt. Most people won't though, and that's ok. But that doesn't mean it gives anyone the right to be nasty and put demands on those who do.

If you pay them, then how much do you think one must pay ? If the amount you need to pay for it is getting bigger than how commercial producs such as QNX, Windows or MacOSX costs then what benefits do you have from all this movement ?

do you think if you asked microsoft for a feature that didnt interest them, they would just implement it? do you have any clue how much it would cost you to make it worth their while? the only reason you have any voice at all is that you payed for your liscence, and that voice is quite, quite small.

> This is the overall problem with society today, too many
> people think they are owed something and arent willing to
> work for anything.

The problem here is not Eugenia, the problem here is the organization called GNOME who promises a lot to their users but don't keep what they promise, who reject others to participate and help and who behave selfish at some point. GNOME is not a closed source company or something its an open organisation of volunteer people and thus these people need to learn to work with others and even accept criticism and other stuff from them.

you are totally correct. anyone who has contributed in some way should have a voice, just like anyone who bought xp. if demanded a better menu editor from ms, because you paid for xp home, they will probably do some polite equivilent of laughing in your face. i think eugenia is owed a level of respect by the gnome guys for the substancial effort she has put into promoting gnome. and guess what? she was heard. there was discourse. the developers just didnt agree, which they have the right to do.(personally, i think an end user feedback system is a great idea, but im not going to fly off the handle because they dont agree.)

No they don't owe Eugenia anything, but they do huge marketing crap around GNOME and raise the impression in peoples head that GNOME is something important, something big, something with commercial backing (which is just pure BS). And commercial backing means that there is interest to offer a product to people they can use and get their work done. A product that works and feels correctly. Eugenia wanted to help with that project because of her constructive and good comments she gave (as well as plenty of people before her before they resigned, as well as plenty of people who actually wrote productive code and resigned due to same experiences they made).

yes, and they listened. if i were to make the same request, i seriously doubt i would have gotten the response she did. and if corporate sponsorship is the reason that gnome must agree with user suggestions, then talk to the corporations giving them the money.

So if GNOME is not able to deal with these things then they should STEP back from promoting and marketing GNOME as the Desktop solution, because there are others already who can do this much better.

gnome can promote and market themselves however they like, if they piss off their users too much, then those users will leave (as eugenia has).

keep in mind though, the xfree86 guys seem to be going on without the massive support they once had, as has window maker, as has fluxbox, as has slack, etc...

Sun's responce to users and developers votes appear to be to let all but most of the crash the systems features sit undeveloped until they become obsolete and then mark the bug/feature as closed... and I wish I were kidding.

Gnome is my default desktop because it's so clean and fairl consistant. They are working on many aspects to bring the development to a new level of scalibility and stability.

If you want a feature then you either a) develop it yourself b) make a case for another developer to make it within or outside the gnome team/framework.

they are not customers. red hat has customers, gnome has users. that kind of sense of responsability isnt manditory for any contributer, neither is it manditory for commercial software developers.

I think the big difference here is that I don't see that as a good thing. If you are not engaged in user-centered design, then you are developing crap that should not be published beyond a particular niche purpose.

Thankfully however, there are developers who give a darn.

if it is there, in both cases your users will love you for it. in the vast majority of cases, developers work for a paycheck, or to do something fun. if a user wants their wishes fullfilled, and they are something quite boring to do, AND the user is unwilling to pay for it, then why in the world would it get done?

I see it as going both ways. FOSS projects do make requests of their users in the form of word of mouth promotion, advocacy, use, peer support and feedback. Now, if a project expresses that my needs and concerns are irrelevant, why should I use that project's software, encourage its adoption and deployment, or spend my time and energy providing peer support for it?

@leo:
It's not about forcing anyone to do anything. It's about encouraging good design practices (grounded in the needs and desires of the people who will use your software) rather than bad design practices (grounded in the immediate desires of the designers.)

There isn't a software company in existence that really listens to their customers. None. I've worked on a multi-million dollar ERP/MRP package that blew off the customer more flagrantly than gnome could ever dream of. In fact this ERP company (which shall remain nameless, due to lawsuit potential) used the lack of features to force the customers to order custom programming services.

I've saw this first hand as a programmer when I went along as the technical adivsor on sales calls. We had a slew of undocumented options the salesmen used to hike the price of the software. The salesmen would play the game of saying what a difficult task the request was and that it would take a