Comment on World Without Corporations
nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Eh. One thing proprietary software has going for it is clear design goals and the leadership to create a cohesive UX. Open source projects tend to be a grab bag of tools that work well for developers.
Not saying I don’t love FOSS, but there’s definitely stuff that proprietary software does better in a practical sense, whatever else your opinion of it.
That is not a feature of proprietary software. That is a feature of an organisation. It only makes sense to make software for a profit in an organisation, so that’s why there’s so many of those. FOSS also has a lot of organisations, which are also pretty often used btw, but they are not required.
Not having to rely on an approval by any entity is a big thing for people fucking around with stuff. And fucking around with stuff makes one good at that stuff.
I don’t disagree that it is a feature of organizations, but if you’re talking about creating a product that has been designed around a common philosophy and UX, that is diametrically opposed to fucking around with stuff. There’s a place for that and it does improve people’s skills, I also don’t disagree there. All I’m saying is there exists a tendency for software produced by organizations to adhere to a UX philosophy.
Yeah, I got a bit too into my own head. I do agree with that.
As someone who uses Gnome familly applications daily, I have to disagree with the notion that bad UX is fundamental to FOSS software. The gnome apps and shell all follow the same set of UX guidelines and feel quite cohesive as a result. I can definetly see where you get the idea of bad UX in foss though (looking at you, GIMP and Libreoffice)
I’m not saying it’s fundamental, sorry, I should have specified. You’re exactly right, GNOME is driven by it’s Foundation and so there is leadership in place to make sure that the software ends up as a cohesive whole. Software projects that don’t, or that create one after the fact, tend to be a lot less so.
There’s a very good reasons why people and organisations will pay for proprietary software when there is a free alternative available. I’ve used FOSS word processors before, for example, and they’re okay, but nothing like what Microsoft Office can do. Same with video editing.
There’s a very good reasons why people and organisations will pay for proprietary software when there is a free alternative available.
Yup… risk transfer
Also just making their employees more productive.
Foss struggles to get dev time. If everything was foss, we could coordinate easier.
Counterpoint - if everything was FOSS it would be absolute chaos with no direction, conflicting goals, incomplete projects, and limited oversight.
Everybody likes forking…
I am a designer with 20 years of experience. I’ve tried contributing to FOSS, but the developers are incredibly stubborn and work purely guided by their own assumptions. Hence the horrible UX on so much FOSS. There are more than enough design people that would love to contribute, but are met with nothing but ridicule and insults.
Time for yet another fork
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 1 year ago
Pathetic. Blender too hard for you, huh? You want a designer to make it simple and easy for you, huh? You are just like the “I would use Linux but the terminal is so difficult” people.
nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
If you’re going to be an asshole about it, pick something other than Blender. That is one of the best examples of how organizations produce cohesive software that adheres to design standards with the express purpose of making it user friendly. User friendly is not the same as easy. It means ‘respect the user’, not ‘fisher price’.
You’re espousing the exact attitude that drives people away from contributing to FOSS software to solve problems so please crawl into a deep hole and spam neofetch on your Arch Thinkpad, cretin.