-
Website
http://blog.bitquabit.com/ -
Original page
http://blog.bitquabit.com/2009/06/30/one-which-i-say-open-source-software-sucks/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Sincerely,
Peter Timerson from software development
In fact even though I'm on a closed source system, most of the applications I use are in fact open source. And I'm not using these applications because I'm too cheap to get commercial alternatives, these apps work very well, have good UIs, and fill all my needs. I think some applications may have more rough edges on Linux, but there are plenty of applications which are quite mature and have very nice UIs.
Not the reasoning, or the explanation, but the prickish attitude.
It doesn't matter if you wrote it in your free time as a gesture of goodwill toward humanity. If it sucks, it sucks. (And we're going to tell other people it sucks, so they don't make the mistake of using it.)
I don't. I'd like to see the wealth of amazing open source software brought to the public, so that people begin to understand what open source is as a choice and make a more conscious decision about what they buy. Isn't it about being "open" to everyone? To get to that point, you need to get those people to adopt it. You need to hit a critical mass, and the main blocker to adoption rates amongst more mainstream users is a poorly-designed interface.
A UI is not about graphic design, it's about workflow. A good UI helps you get things done. It's not about removing the functionality; it's about masking it - keeping the rarer options out of your way until you need them - to let you get on with your job. That's what you're using a UI for in the first place, right? To accomplish something. If it's easy to do, you can get it out of the way and focus on the next task.
Now remember, I'm talking specifically about desktop apps here. The large-scale apps aimed to replace existing proprietary set-ups (OpenOffice, Firefox, Ubuntu) are the ones that need to focus on this the most, but it wouldn't hurt if smaller dev's took this message to heart.
-m
Open source software is unintuitive because usability, more than any other dimension of software, demands fast feedback and unified vision among the implementation team. That is impossible to achieve over email and IRC channels - it requires physical proximity to the other team members. The usability of Firefox is a consequence of collocation.
Software in general can be a clusterfuck. Companies want to know that they can have 24/7 support from people who spend all their time and energy on the product. IBM sells open source WITH support, and people buy it for a reason.
Inkscape and GIMP are not leaders in their field like Apache and Eclipse. If they were companies would buy them from companies providing extra support on top of the open source product.
'nuf said.
"Usability" is expensive. No-one does it for nothing - only sponsored OSS can make it
work - and even in sponsored OSS-land the cost is counted. Even proprietary OSS
doesn't want to pay, the dancing bear syndrome gives enough enthusiasm to work till
the next release.
Back end software has moved to open source faster because what matters there is technical ability.
Front end software will follow, it will just take longer because monopolies have the edge over under-educated users. Slowly, with the help of the netbook market, open source solutions are being made more widely available to users. They're beginning to cotton on already.
Standard Freetard argument. "Open source would be sooo successful if only Bill Gate$ and Mi¢ro$hit WinBlows weren't all monopolistic and stuff."
Sorry, but open source is FREE. Microsoft costs $$$, as you can't possibly refrain from pointing out at every possible opportunity. But think about it. Even in a very unfair marketplace, if one thing is free and an equally good thing costs money, people are going to choose the free one. You can download it, install it, try it out, all for no charge. After a few people discover it, it will spread like wildfire as they tell their friends about this great free alternative.
But in the end, this doesn't happen with open source. Why not? Because it's not equally good.
There are software products that are better than open source software. You can say the same about open source software being better than the proprietary counter parts. I tend to lean more towards open source because i love the idea of many of these developers working hard to give me something for free and open. We have seen time and time again how bad proprietary software is... ( flash for example).
Open Source software is better for the world. but what do i know.. i'm just a liberal pansy atheist ...
As it stands many software projects concentrate too much on the software making than on the experience shaping. It probably stems from the fact that decision makers are usually not well versed in UX and UI design and its implications. When they want software built, they ask a software designer (system architect?) to make it happen, and those too usually lack in common UX sense. In open-source, those decision makers are often the software designers themselves themselves, so there is not much difference.
There is some highly-usable open-source software. Mozilla Firefox comes to mind, also wordpress (which as far as code is concerned its a mess). Several Linux distros have made significant progress (though are not there yet). The point is that effort is being made - once you recognize the importance of user experience and have the means to improve in that respect, then you will achieve usability. I would imagine though that it's easier to recruit top-notch UX experts to a commercial project than an open-source one.
(By the way, why would a shop advertise that they use mainly free software, especially to their competitors? In the public sector desktop free software is gaining ground.)
“open-source software is, incontrovertibly, a total usability clusterfuck.”
Absolutely, but when I think of “end-user-software-as-product” I think of Microsoft, Adobe and, eh, Maya, and those are usability clusterfucks too. Apple, a company that’s for those who actively seek usability, have some horrible products as well (I'm not a big fan iTunes).
When I think of usability, I also think about having to deal with upgrades, prices, anti-piracy–measures and junk like that. I see a lot of people arguing the benefits of running old versions, and in some cases, they have to (for example, if they’re still on a PPC). Many are prefering XP over Vista. With free software this is far less common.
Sure, navigating the goatse trollfest that is the hacker community is often painful but once you’ve learned your way around freshmeat.net or your local apt-repository you’re set for life.
I’ve used free software for everything I do for the last ten years—music, short movies, book layout, images and design. (Some might not share my tastes or choices, but I would’ve chosen the same colors, margins and fonts even with proprietary software, so my (lack of) skill is moot.)
It was an investment learning to deal with makefiles, tarballs and debs but it has sure paid off. Everytime I overhear someone saying “Upgraded to CS4 yet?” “Naw, I can’t afford it.” I take a breath of relief knowing that they’re pry my dirty GNU hippie software from my cold dead hands. Or, well, they could just apt-get it themselves.
And, er, that's about it.
Beyond that, you actually give some good examples of open-source that companies DO use (SQL and Apache, which are everywhere). I work for SAIC on a government site, and I'm using Eclipse to write Java. We also use MySQL for databases, and GNOME on our Linux boxes, and I'm typing this comment on Firefox (which is approved for use by the DoD).
I think there are a lot of reasons companies don't use -certain- open-source software packages. I haven't done the research myself, but I think there's at least some element of trust that companies that are risking financial profits are unwilling to give. The cost of software is less the bigger you are, because your overall revenue is so great. You even pay for support and maintenance, which a lot of open-source doesn't provide, so why not spend the cash and get the "industry-standard"?
You are just talking out of your arse. The Mozilla corp. is not an ordinary company, it's a hybrid organisation, a 100% subsidary of the Mozilla Foundation, which is a public benefit organisation, all the money Mozilla makes has to be reinvested to advance the mission. Do you want to know, what the mission is? It's not to making money but to improving the way people everywhere experience the Internet, it's encouraging choice, innovation and opportunity online. The Mozilla Manifesto: http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html
Imagine that, it's not about the GoogleSearch clicks, we've worked on Mozilla before that! We have seen the 95% IE dominance, we know how important choice on the internet is. 40% of the Mozilla code is contributed by volunteers, it simply wouldn't be possible for Mozilla to compete with Google, Apple and Microsoft and actually win, if they were a closed source company. I know I would not contribute my time to fill the pockets of stockholders or the CEO. And it would be nice if you could show some gratitude while you browse the web with Safari, Chrome, IE8, Firefox or any other browser of *your choice*.
Oh, and closed source software sucks as well, but then, ninety percent of everything is crud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
- FileZilla
- Firefox
- VLC
- Thunderbird
- Miro
and less userfriendly, but very stable:
- Yes, Linux, Apache, post-fix, MySQL, PHP, PHPMyAdmin etc.
I don't care how many open-source software packages are unusable. The user-friendly applications have brought enough joy to the world to make up for the bad ones.