Stuff to think about
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Aug 26, 2008 6:38 PM EDT |
The article definitely gives you stuff to think about: How to turn users into contributers? How to attract new developers so you can support more users? |
| tqk Aug 26, 2008 9:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:How to turn users into contributers?More to the point, how to turn customers into community? Porting Firefox to Windows may help introduce Windows users to better software, but does it get them any closer to abandoning Windows for better alternatives? I'd guess, yes, but for only one in a thousand of those users (the more astute of the already technically literate). Do I want to see any FLOSS developers wasting a second on proprietary OS ports? Hell no! For that other 999 users, you're just helping them stay where they are, and they won't go anywhere until they're forced (through their own ignorance on how to stop it happening; cf. "sheeple"). Forget them, they're just a time sink. In this instance, yes, blame those users for not stepping up and becoming part of the community. That's bottom line around here (FLOSS). If they want their ports to proprietary OSs to continue to work (remember, Redmond's in the background, continually coming up with new ways for them to break), it's up to them to step up, and keep up. I don't give a flying !@#$ what's going on with their OS and I don't have to. They might like to, in their own best interests. I think Wine and Cygwin are abominations. You're helping proprietary software's continuance by employing them. No, "proprietary" is not evil, but free is certainly better (for everyone but the oligopolist). |
| dumper4311 Aug 27, 2008 12:58 AM EDT |
>"How to turn users into contributers? How to attract new developers so you can support more users?" Well, I can tell you precisely how NOT to accomplish these things - see tqk's post above. :) |
| herzeleid Aug 27, 2008 1:13 AM EDT |
> Well, I can tell you precisely how NOT to accomplish these things - see tqk's post above. :) Much as we all like to be all-inclusive, he does make a good point. The big push by some well meaning open source advocates to work hard porting every possible bit of open source goodness to ms windows has made life much easier for microsoft. After all, microsoft loves open source software, as long as its running on top of a microsoft os - and their big push now is, "make ms windows your platform of choice for open source" and thus bidding fair to make linux irrelevant. Is that really what we want? |
| DiBosco Aug 27, 2008 4:44 AM EDT |
Maybe an daft question, Sander, but when you talk about contributing are you meaning writing some code? If that is what you mean, I come across very few people who are interested in switching to Linux (or already using it) who are also coders. I guess I am the sort of person who needs to be enticed in as I have written code for years (and I have written a couple of simple KDE programs plus the odd Python script). I wouldn't know, however, where to start with getting involved in an existing project, plus I would also wonder whether my code was good enough! Having said all this, I would love to be able to make some contribution to something that is used by lots of people and would find real pride in it. (Odd as that might sound.) Oh, I wouldn't be interested in doing it for Windows though as I come out in hives when I have to work on it these days. ;-) Not only that, from a practical point of view, I don't own any Windows machines any more; the only one I have is a work laptop and they would not take kindly to me installing development software on it I would think. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 27, 2008 4:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:Maybe an daft question, Sander, but when you talk about contributing are you meaning writing some code? Not just code. Any contributions. People who can triage and analyse bugs for example are also valuable because it saves the developers time. Writing documentation: ditto. Promotion. Graphics work (IMHO there's a major shortage of FOSS graphics artists). There's tons of non-developer ways that someone can contribute to a project. That said, developers are still important to get as well. Quoting:I wouldn't know, however, where to start with getting involved in an existing project, plus I would also wonder whether my code was good enough! This indicates a lack of documentation for the project IMHO. Something a non-developer could fix. I once again urge people to read http://producingoss.com/ if you haven't done so already. It has proven invaluable for me when I was setting up gnome-hearts. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 27, 2008 9:48 AM EDT |
For some projects it can make sense. I was a casual level tester on the pre-release versions of Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 where it was obvious that Windows variant was given preference. Nonetheless, I noted too that there seemed to be more Windows users characterizing faults. Moreover, most seemed knowledgeable and committed. [There was one big exception I noticed, but that would happen even if it stayed just Linux and the Mac., more at the bottom.] So there were a good number of committed contributors helping prepare Firefox for Windows. I have no idea how many contributed code as developers. However, for any OS, including Linux, those having the requisite skills, free time, resources and the ability to get their code accepted are a very small subset of users for any project. Hence, the question to ask if this were the paramount concern: "were there enough to compensate for the extra grief?", which should determine the decision. Next in the case of Firefox, there was component (perhaps still is) being Google's vested interest in not being frozen out of the search and resultant cash flow from advertising market. The usual MS ploy would be defaulting all Windows users to IE. This would effectively lock Google out of the larger market base. Therefore, Firefox was Google's tool for entrance, hence, Firefox (Mozilla really) did well financially by aiding Google. So it really depends on the project and backers to determine if the rise in the magnitude of demands are worth the added "costs". For example, specific projects may deem the effort worthy, not for their direct gain as for the harm it could cause a large competitor. A business ploy that is used to lower its effective pricing, is to claim it is moving to an alternative. There have been a number of publicized claims by some bigger players saying they were jumping off of MS ship. The claims varied to going to Linux or another Office option. I soon noticed these proclamations rose and disappeared, rapidly with no further mention. [If you do not think that did not result in some heavy discounting, I have a slew of infra structure properties that I will lease to you on a percentage basis*.] Even small companies make the same noises with no intention of leaving MS. Therefore, bleeding MS might bring some financial benefits to some projects that they too might pursue the path of more pain, but hidden gain. So despite Ballmer's chant it is not alway, "Developers, developers ... developers!". They are other pertinent considerations that could be explored. For many small FOSS projects already in a marginal state, going Windows could be the coup de grace for others with non-obvious backing it could make their brand name. So the concerns are wider than just attracting a sufficient number of skilled developers. Cash can buy Windows skills. Or later, think of this: a large FOSS project announces its intentions to drop Windows support, because of losses ... MS might be forced to support the project. * I no longer sell, buy backs were too expensive. This way you pay a reasonable fee to renew your lease(s) or to drop out if the returns do not meet your expectations. With a sharp lawyer I spend less on keeping my prison time vacations at a more modest level and overall business expenses within reason. Regarding the swarm of (Windows) fans that are out to disrupt projects, one stated he could kill Firefox by just getting anyone to run his code. I believe there was a quick concurring posting that followed that boast. I tried it, running a version of Linux I had no problem. I think it was no more than a command to commence printing to a printer one had no access. I saw a Firefox message that allowed me to cancel, with no lockup. In this case the individual left a reference to his pathetic web site where he bragged about his powers as a Windows consultant. I posted the details (as others did about the ineffectiveness of his code) and cited his/her site as proof this person was not even a first class jerk. It was a Windows problem that was taken care of very early in the testing versions. So even flakes can make a better product, some times, even when their goal is to be disruptive. |
| dumper4311 Aug 27, 2008 1:13 PM EDT |
@herzeleid: >"porting every possible bit of open source goodness to ms windows has made life much easier for microsoft. . . . "make ms windows your platform of choice for open source" and thus bidding fair to make linux irrelevant" Fair enough, that is Microsoft's newest plan, but I think that misses the point. Those same tactics, employed by F/OSS projects, are used to make microsoft irrelevant. We have the same application capability, because of the work of such projects, on an open platform. Users just want to get things done. If they can only do said things on the "evil" platform, they'll chose that every time. If they have a choice of platforms, they'll choose the most convenient (and generally common) platform. Without a strong enough motivation, they'll never move. What does that leave us with? Three things I can see: 1) Who owns your data? 2) Killer, must-have, Open Source only functionality, or capability. and 3) cost. It's probably a combination of the three that has gotten us the server market penetration we've seen to this point, but we'll have to work MUCH harder on the desktop. MS is starting to figure things out a bit, and is now using the benefits we've offered to maintain their platform. The real hitch is that if we stop supporting USERS, our platform of choice won't matter anyway. It's pure hubris to assume that we can control the market through killer software features, "openness", or even cost, in a way that will cause users to switch platforms en masse. Nobody's going to willingly let someone else dump them in the middle of that lake, as pretty as it may be. The only way to woo users is by gradual steps away from the familiar shore. Once they're ready, they'll dive in and go for a swim. If MS is using our own openness to prop up their platform, that's fine. Ultimately, we'll gain feature parity (or more advanced features) cross platform. At which point it's back to the argument of who owns your data, and how much do the various platforms cost. I say let them come. Anything that allows users to get their feet wet, and expands their view of alternatives a bit just helps us in the long run. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 27, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
I believe that porting FOSS applications to Windows is the single best way to bring users in large numbers to FOSS apps and whole idea of free, open-source software. In turn, getting users of proprietary OSes to use non-proprietary applications is the first step in bringing them over to a non-proprietary operating system like Linux. If users become familiar with apps like Firefox, OpenOffice, the GIMP, Pidgin, even Inkscape (which I use in both Windows and Linux), making the leap away from Windows and Mac OS to Linux or a BSD isn't so huge. And while we sit here arguing about who's going to submit how many bug reports and then figure out how to code their way out of them, we all need to remember that the vast majority of computer users have no idea what FOSS is. They know about paying for software. They know about stealing non-free software; they do it all the time, always have. They might know about '80s-style shareware, in which a "free" program tries to hook a user with a 30-day trial and then stops working until the presumably enchanted user decides to pay up. But free software with a GPL or BSD license? Not even on their radar. They use Firefox, for sure, but 99.9 percent of Firefox users know nothing about software licenses, the philosophy of FOSS, or that Firefox runs on OSes that aren't Windows and Mac OS. I'm not about to start coding an OS kernel in C. At this point, my "contribution," such as it is, is writing incessantly about my experience with hardware and software, mostly old (hardware), mostly FOSS (but not all). Educating, informing, tempting and luring the rest of the world to free operating systems and applications -- and then not smacking them down when they have a question or two, or 100, is what we need to do. |
| herzeleid Aug 27, 2008 1:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:I believe that porting FOSS applications to Windows is the single best way to bring users in large numbers to FOSS apps and whole idea of free, open-source software. In turn, getting users of proprietary OSes to use non-proprietary applications is the first step in bringing them over to a non-proprietary operating system like Linux.And some would answer that, on the contrary, porting FOSS applications to windows is the best way to make linux irrelevant. Imagine a brave new world where windows users ask "who needs linux? We have all the cool FOSS apps right here on ms windows" Sure, folks in the know will prefer linux for the reliability, performance and incredible flexibility, but those things won't register with the windows crowd, and really can't unless they really experience it for themselves. By going out of our way to make ms windows less painful, we reduce the incentive for them to seek something better. |
| NoDough Aug 27, 2008 2:37 PM EDT |
>> "It's pure hubris to assume that we can control the market through killer software features, "openness", or even cost, in a way that will cause users to switch platforms en masse." >> "I believe that porting FOSS applications to Windows is the single best way to bring users in large numbers to FOSS apps and..." Common sense 101: The two primary obstacles to FOSS adoption are familiarity and convenience. People use Windows because it's convenient. I.E. It came already installed on their computers. People will resist anything unfamiliar. I.E. In Windows I pop in a CD and click "next, next, next, finish" to install an application. If I can't do this in Linux, then it's too difficult (no matter how easy it is.) As an example of the latter, I recently lost a possible convert. I had an extra PC (older, but still useful) that I had converted to Linux. She mentioned that she would like a PC for her child. I was more than happy to give it to her. However, she asked, "Can I buy a CD at Best Buy and install it on this PC?" After hearing the free-download-from-an-app-on-your-desktop answer, she declined the PC. Scared stupid of anything unfamiliar. |
| dumper4311 Aug 27, 2008 3:23 PM EDT |
>"but those things won't register with the windows crowd" Those things NEVER WILL register with this "windows crowd" you refer to. You're suffering under the delusion that if you build a better, faster tool, the users will come for it's sake. They could care less, as long as they can get the job done. Trying to force them to your platform is no different than MS trying to force users to stay with its own. And that's under the wild and unsupportable assumption that you'll ever have enough pretty, shiny things to make this mythical "windows crowd" swing your way in the first place. >"folks in the know will prefer linux for the reliability, performance and incredible flexibility" That's one of the few unique selling points we have. It's also why it's important to leverage the other tools - on other platforms - to slowly acclimate users to a better way of doing things. |
| azerthoth Aug 27, 2008 10:31 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, where in the FOSS lexicon does it say that FOSS can only be FOSS if run on an approved OS. FOSS is by definition OS agnostic. If you choose to denigrate those who would port it to then you do not have a terribly firm grasp of it to begin with. You have fallen into the trap of "you can only be free if your free the way I tell you to be". You can not say "It's not supposed to run on windows" and still espouse belief in the FOSS ideals. Doing so is only hypocrisy, and there is enough of that in this world already without adding to it by protesting something that in all obviousness you do not fully grasp the meaning of. Yes, I realize what I just said, and if you took offense ... great, It means the comment struck home. |
| jdixon Aug 27, 2008 10:57 PM EDT |
> You can not say "It's not supposed to run on windows" and still espouse belief in the FOSS ideals. No, but you can say, "Windows is not worth MY time" and refuse to support it. That's a choice each individual must make, and doing so (either way) IS within realm of FOSS ideals. |
| azerthoth Aug 27, 2008 11:13 PM EDT |
agreed |
| tqk Aug 28, 2008 8:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:You can not say "It's not supposed to run on windows" and still espouse belief in the FOSS ideals.I say I don't give a rat's ass whether it runs on windows, and I don't understand why any FLOSS user would. I resent the time suck the developers have to put up with making their stuff work there. That world used to thrive on public domain, shareware, begware, et al. That disappeared, so FLOSS is going to do it for them now, and it's up to FLOSS developers to make that happen? Why? The more Windows continues to suck, the more even sheeple will consider voting with their feet. I've seen some of the better ones come over when their house of cards fell down yet again, and that's with no urging. If they want this stuff, Freshmeat's out there for them, just as it is for all of us. Fixing or alleviating problems their vendor can't be bothered to fix should not be FLOSS' problem. |
| dinotrac Aug 28, 2008 9:39 PM EDT |
> I resent the time suck the developers have to put up with making their stuff work there. So, I gather this to mean you don't know crap about free software. Freedom as in freedom to make your own choices -- as in KDE or GNOME or E, as in python or ruby, as in Linux or Free/OpenBSd, etc, etc, etc. Freedom to decide that even Windows users should enjoy a little bit of freedom. I'm glad that Richard Stallman had the personal integrity to avoid your contradictory position. |
| herzeleid Aug 28, 2008 11:04 PM EDT |
> Freedom to decide that even Windows users should enjoy a little bit of freedom. Nobody here has ever said that windows users should be denied a sample of what's been available to linux users OTOH the FOSS developer community need not feel obligated to spend valuable time and energy trying to make the microsoft windows experience as wonderful as possible, at the expense of FOSS operating systems. For a lot of us, microsoft really never enters our thoughts except as an occasional annoyance. Now, a little taste of FOSS goodness for the windows crowd every now and then is fine, but let's not lose sight of our main focus: The viability and long term survival of linux. |
| dinotrac Aug 28, 2008 11:11 PM EDT |
>OTOH the FOSS developer community need not feel obligated to spend valuable time and energy Have you paid no attention whatsoever over the last 10 years or so? Hello GNOME, mono, mozilla, a bazillion linux distributions, etc,etc,etc. The FOSS developer community seems pretty good at going it's own way. Who in the hell are you to tell somebody else what their main focus should be? |
| herzeleid Aug 28, 2008 11:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:Have you paid no attention whatsoever over the last 10 years or so?Yes, I've been working in IT and using linux full time on the desktop. your point? Quoting:The FOSS developer community seems pretty good at going it's own way. Who in the hell are you to tell somebody else what their main focus should be?Who am I? I'm a linux user - and last time I checked, we had a right to our views. |
| gus3 Aug 29, 2008 12:10 AM EDT |
Freedom 0: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." Without condition with regard to platform. In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software. EDIT: This applies to GPL'd software. I assumed that was the case, but later re-reading indicated I should clarify. |
| azerthoth Aug 29, 2008 1:30 AM EDT |
Express your views yes, tell someone what should or should not be their purpose or primary priority not a chance. Complaining that a FOSS developer, or some other individual skilled enough to port a FOSS project to a different platform does not in any way alter your choices or freedoms. No one is forcing them to support it, if they do, it is by their own choice. By denigrating or otherwise whining about them excersizing their freedoms your only emphasizing your hypocrisy. The long term viability and survival of linux, if you'll pardon the heresy, is secondary. If you turn your back on the underlying values then it is nothing, you take the FOSS development model and turn it into a proprietary development model, the code may be free but the coder is not. Seems a pretty good example of hypocrisy to me. But hey, who am I, just a guy expressing his views on his understanding of Open Source. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 29, 2008 2:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software. Gnome Hearts purposely does not run on Windows. I've decided right from the get go that it would be a waste of my time. Am I breaking freedom 0? Of course not. Freedom 0 means that you get to choose. I choose to not make Gnome Hearts work on Windows. Someone else may choose to port Gnome Hearts to Windows. That's their prerogative. I can choose not to accept the port into the main Gnome Hearts trunk. That's my prerogative. |
| jezuch Aug 29, 2008 2:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:Am I breaking freedom 0? I guess the question is did you deliberately broke the code so that it refuses to run/compile or Windows, or just that you didn't bother to port it? |
| gus3 Aug 29, 2008 2:36 AM EDT |
@Sander: My only question following is this: If someone makes a patch to get Gnome Hearts to run on Windows, and then you update the source code, are you purposely breaking the patch? |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 29, 2008 3:45 AM EDT |
@jezuch & gus: That's irrelevant. I have the freedom to purposely break Windows support if I want to (Note: I didn't do that in reality. Gnome Hearts is simply too closely tied to GTK and Gnome). I can include something like the following tidbit and still be FOSS:#include <glib.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
#ifdef G_OS_WIN32
return 1;
#endif
...
}The only thing that would be against freedom 0 is if my license said "You may not run this program on Windows". That would be breaking freedom 0 which would make my code non-FOSS. What my code actually does is irrelevant. The four freedoms are about the license that the code is under, not about the code itself or what it does. |
| dinotrac Aug 29, 2008 4:50 AM EDT |
Sander - I disagree. Adding code for the specific purpose of preventing people from running your software under Windows, say, under Cygwin, is counter to the very idea of free software. It makes you Microsoft without the monopoly, at least from an ethical standpoint. You can do it, and nobody can stop you, but expending effort to limit free use of your software certainly moves you off the moral high ground in any discussion of software freedom. Simply refusing to support Windows is a different thing. You don't have to -- ethically, morally, etc -- have to expend a single iota of effort supporting any specific platform, Linux, OSX, and *BSD included. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 29, 2008 7:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:Adding code for the specific purpose of preventing people from running your software under Windows, say, under Cygwin, is counter to the very idea of free software. It makes you Microsoft without the monopoly, at least from an ethical standpoint. It may not be ethical, but nothing says I can't do it with FOSS. It's not addressed by freedom 0-3 and not addressed by the GPL (pick your version). |
| dinotrac Aug 29, 2008 8:31 AM EDT |
Sander - No, nothing says you can't do it. And, being free software, the source code is available to anybody who cares to "undo" it. The beauty of the GPL is that even ethically challenged developers are bound by its terms. I guess that stands to reason -- if everybody shared RMS's ingrained values, there would be no need for the license. |
| gus3 Aug 29, 2008 11:24 AM EDT |
Thank you dinotrac. I was going to say "no better than Microsoft's iterative shafting of the .DOC format," but decided to wait for an answer first. |
| jdixon Aug 29, 2008 12:07 PM EDT |
> I have the freedom to purposely break Windows support if I want to ... Yes, you do. But as Dino and Gus note, you lose your moral position when you do. Now, if the above code merely ties into a section which pops up a message saying "Sorry, Windows is not supported at this time, please contact me if you are interested in adding Windows support", then that's another matter. |
| dumper4311 Aug 29, 2008 12:59 PM EDT |
@Sander: >"It may not be ethical, but nothing says I can't do it with FOSS." You see, here's where the hypocrisy part azerthoth mentioned starts. The GPLv3 does say you can't do that with FOSS - at least in one specific case. Remember the Tivoization issue? The specifics are a bit different (specific hardware, not specific software platforms) but the ISSUE is IDENTICAL. How is it wrong for Tivo to lock people out of their devices, but ok for you to lock people out of their chosen platforms? YES, I understand that "they could take the code and modify it to [blah, blah, blah . . ] , but the same argument stands for the TiVo code. How you use the code is your choice, how you use the box is based on the design of that box. Why doesn't the same standard apply to Windows? If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards. Once again, "it's free only if we approve of how you use it" seems to be the definition of "freedom" you'd espouse. @Dino: I believe Sander may share RMS' ingrained values - proprietary is bad, and should be illegal, if I'm paraphrasing correctly. This is the slippery slope down which the FSF, RMS, and now Sander have started sliding. Whether it's via license, modified code, or refusal to play nicely with the other children, the sentiment is the same. Enforcing your definition of "freedom" on others is no better than TiVo, Microsoft, Adobe, or any of the other "evil" players in this game. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 30, 2008 5:30 AM EDT |
@dumper: It's not exactly the same as Tivo. My example would be valid under GPLv3. What Tivo did isn't according to GPLv3 (though it barely skimmed GPLv2). |
| azerthoth Aug 30, 2008 1:19 PM EDT |
I'm curious as to that logic Sander, in a nutshell I see from you and Tivo, "Here is the code and you may play with it, but you can't use it because we instituted a blocker" Mind you, I see nothing wrong with Tivo's application as they did share the functional code and then put in a hardware block. But we have all had that discussion ad nauseum before. |
| dumper4311 Aug 30, 2008 5:33 PM EDT |
@Sander: I understand, and you're correct, it technically meets the GPLv3 requirements. But if you'll re-read the 1st paragraph in my last post, I've already covered that fact, and I believe you're rationalizing to justify the stand you've taken. That's an ugly substitute for reason. Again: If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards. Funny how when proprietary interests restrict their own products or code, "the community" is all over them about it, but when "we" advocate those same tactics, it's suddenly ok. How is what you're advocating any different than a proprietary interest requiring Internet Exploder 6 to run, regardless of legitimate technical issues? |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 31, 2008 5:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm curious as to that logic Sander Easy. Tivo prevents you from running your modified Tivo code on the original platform. My example lets you run your modified version without any problem. Quoting:But if you'll re-read the 1st paragraph in my last post, I've already covered that fact, and I believe you're rationalizing to justify the stand you've taken. No need to rationalize anything here. I'm merely playing devil's advocate. Gus3 above wrote: Quoting:In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software. I disagreed with that and think I've proven it though my examples. Those examples have now outlived it's usefulness. I don't feel like debating the ethics of the GPL. I merely wanted to point out a flaw in Gus3's reasoning. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!