Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Jun 2008 14:35 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces As I already explained in the first Usability Terms article, consistency goes a long way in ensuring a pleasurable user experience in graphical user interfaces. While some user interfaces appear to be more graphically consistent than others, Windows has always appeared to be worse than most others - probably because it carries with it stuff that dates back to the 16bit era. IStartedSomething agrees with this, and started the Windows UI TaskForce.
Thread beginning with comment 316673
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Why?
by chris_dk on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
chris_dk
Member since:
2005-07-12

As I said, I think proprietary software is bad, and it should go as soon as possible.


I am interested in your opinion on how to make sustainable products that are specialized.

Open Source and Free Software is very good at producing low level software and software for the general public. However, I don't think that it is a good business model for niche products that very few developers can actually contribute to.

This is something that Free Software developers to this day still have not acknowledged: that there exists other business models than their own. This hurts the advancement of Free Software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Why?
by superstoned on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 17:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Why?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not saying I've got answers to all questions, but generally, even rather specialized software can be build on FOSS. Besides, if it's really specialized, companies have to write it themselves anyway... You might know 95% of the money (that statistic is - well, rather random, btw, it might as well be 90 or 99%) being made in software development is made on custom software. Only 5% of the business depends on the whole concept of proprietary software, and I believe most of them could find a business model based on FOSS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Why?
by chris_dk on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 18:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Why?"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

Only 5% of the business depends on the whole concept of proprietary software, and I believe most of them could find a business model based on FOSS.


An if they can't?

I think you need to get out more in companies that depend on proprietary apps. These products are never going to be written as FOSS apps, simply because there are no developers that can do it.

These apps might be rewritten to use the cloud as software-as-a-service - using FOSS tools - but don't force anyone to open source everything. Why force a GPL monopoly? It sounds catastrophic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Why?
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 18:27 in reply to "RE[7]: Why?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

that is a very simplistic way to look at things.

First off, there is domain specific software (for example, ERP/Workflow for the apparel industry). There is a big enough market to build a business on it, but chances are you will have 3-4 clients (albeit, all fortune 500). This type of software is almost always proprietary, especially in submarkets where they haven't really embraced technology.

Then there is framework software, like SAP or Business Objects. These are big generic frameworks that a business will buy, and then hire a small team to customize it to their needs. These companies are huge.

Then you have library/component companies. It doesn't make sense to pay someone who has a general skillset for a hundred hours of work at 20$/hr to deliver something of less quality then a product that is available for 200$ developed by people who specialize in that product. An example of this is http://demos.devexpress.com/ASPxGridViewDemos/GroupingSorting/Group..., which I used while I was freelancing. I actually made sales thanks to that component, and it is just plug and play, leaving me to focus on things that the client is actually paying me to focus on.

Lastly, you have infrastructure companies like IBM/MS/Sun/Oracle/etc. As good as MySQL is for small projects, it is not remotely in the same calibur as Oracle, Sql Server, DB/2 or Sybase. There are also things that simply do not exist in the open source space (like BizTalk, Commerce Server, etc)

The first two types could theoretically become an open source project, but most companies which are not IT centric do not want to deal with any of the issues around even helping to manage a project like that. You see open source efforts pop up now and then, but they rarely come close to competing in a serious way.

The third can sometimes be open source, but when I want a good component, I want it to be slick. Most open source software looks like garbage, especially in the component space. While a client may say they want function over form, as I mentioned before I have made sales on the demo-ability of ASPxGridView.

The fourth has some open source options, but is still mostly commercial. For years open source has meant "not for production", however that view has been changing thanks to IBM and Google. Even if you see someone running a linux server in an enterprise setting, chances are they have Oracle and some sort of propriatary appserver on it as well.


All that to say, you can't write off the enter enterprise market as "well, that is all done in house". It is actually only a very small percentage, and even then it is usually tying big propriatary tools together.

Reply Parent Score: 2