Excuses

[Modplanman]

http://somethingmild.blogspot.com/20...s-excuses.html

Stop using crap excuses to justify below par software. Excuses like "but the developers only do it for themselves!!!111" and "Learn to code or shut up!" or "developers don't need users" are idiotic, shallow and do more to harm FOSS software and its image than anything else.

What do you think?

As a bit of background, I've been using Linux since shortly after Christmas when I first got my new PC. So far - I've liked it, and I wish I could ditch Windows completely if it weren't for those pesky old annoyances like games and that occasional bit of software or incompatibility that might hold you back.

Sadly, there's several epidemics in regards to the attitudes of both users and developers (case in point: KDE4) that hold FOSS back, break the ideals of it etc.

Every OS has its fanboys and their ilk, but these have been especially annoying. Especially in how they just breed pointlessness in many respects.

P.S. I do hope this is the relevant place to put it.

As an extra clarification for what I mean:

When the user has made a complaint, with our resorting to slurs and the like, they have mostly lived up to their side. Developers would be entitled to ask for more info like specs and so on. My point is that when it becomes a first excuse used to dismiss a valid complaint, which I've seen several times before, both from developers and users who jump on the bandwagon so to speak.

I should clarify. This is NOT about when an assumption of a user being an idiot, flaming, trolling etc, this about when it's a valid complaint or point, but is then told that whatever they've said can only stand if they can code.

I like Linux. I like the development model. This is not me being a windows-tard, I know full well they aren't paid and I always appreciate their work, and am in fact moderately interested in becoming a developer. This is about excuses and ego, not about price or licenses.

E2: I am not making a case for any particular side. I am pointing out the most common excuses that get used to remove responsibility, pushing for balance on both sides (although the focus is heavily on developers on this occasion), and hope to push for removal of these common, unhelpful excuses when used against perfectly valid complaints and criticisms.

[Methuselah]

'Code it' or shut up is actually valid in a sense.

FOSS grew out of the need to have software that you are free to change.
It does not mean that someone is out there guaranteeing you free software that does exactly what you want.
It does mean that, since the code is available, you can personally fix anything that you find deficient.

So FOSS really grew as a developer culture.
Obviously, in a such a scenario you won't have people grumbling about software faults and not doing anything about it.
The 'freedom' in FOSS relates more to what you can do rather than what you don't spend.

As the ecology grew, users who are not developers came into the picture.
Such users can be valuable in testing and giving feedback. However when they behave as if they are owed something (which they aren't) they might get a caustic response from the 'hackers'.

I think people sometimes need a reorientation when using 'free' software.
It is not the same rights/responsibilities as when you license something from microsoft.

[eldragon]

actually the code or shutup argument is only valid when said to someone complaining without a valid excuse or without doing anything about the problem.

you could always contribute in some other areas.
bug reports
brainstorm
forum support
gui art

those come to mind, and im sure there must be other areas. id rather have a no-programmer than a bad programmer anytime.

[Methuselah]

I posted also on the blog.
I think people (especially those from windows backgrounds) sometimes think of the free software community as a microsoft that works at no cost and whose developers are more accessible to be cursed at.
That attitude is not the right one.

[Modplanman]

'Code it' or shut up is actually valid in a sense.

FOSS grew out of the need to have software that you are free to change.
It does not mean that someone is out there guaranteeing you free software that does exactly what you want.
It does mean that, since the code is available, you can personally fix anything that you find deficient.

So FOSS really grew as a developer culture.
Obviously, in a such a scenario you won't have people grumbling about software faults and not doing anything about it.
The 'freedom' in FOSS relates more to what you can do rather than what you don't spend.

As the ecology grew, users who are not developers came into the picture.
Such users can be valuable in testing and giving feedback. However when they behave as if they are owed something (which they aren't) they might get a caustic response from the 'hackers'.

I think people sometimes need a reorientation when using 'free' software.
It is not the same rights/responsibilities as when you license something from microsoft.

The problem with that logic is:

a) It relies on the idea that most users will inevitably become developers.

b) it goes against obviously public, for end user benefit projects. The best example would probably be desktop projects like KDE and GNOME, along with projects like Ubuntu, especially with marketing slogans like "It just works" that scream that you don't have to be a developer to use it or even take part.

c) The fact that it's used as an excuse to waiver responsibility when valid criticism does come up. You cannot expect every user to know or have the time to submit a bug report or get on mailing lists and wait till their problem is solved.

Learn to code or shut up completely goes against any ideals of valid interaction and movement between user and contributor by upping the expectation required to contribute in the first place, whether valid complaint or not, and waivers responsibility of finding, knowing or taking into account possible bugs and complaints, even when bug reports aren't filed.

FOSS ideals don't just apply to developer culture. They apply to user culture too, as they involve the ideal of greater interaction between the people who get their hands on and use software, which should apply to everyone if we are going to properly promote any idea of Free as in speech, not as in beer.

These arguments are also undercut by the very existence of the likes of distributions like Ubuntu, along with the general push of FOSS of trying to get it into the mainstream, often trying to scream they're ready for ordinary every day use, which when using arguments like "code up or shut up" go completely against this and only serve to alienate people, whether technical or not. While FOSS is supposed to be about lowering the barrier of entry, this only serves to heighten it again.

As soon as any project gets any wider use, to the point where, especially the likes of what happened to KDE, you gain dependent users, you also gain responsibility. Responsibility to make sure you don't **** up other peoples systems simply because you felt like testing a feature or something else, responsibility that when you release software for other people to use, that, whether they be developers or not, that software actually be usable, and if not, it be clearly said so so that others may not have systems ****** up. It doesn't matter whether you are paid or not. What matters is that people depend on you. Every day there are people who depend on each other, and then come through for each other, without having to be paid or selling you a restrictive licence. Part of any idea of community is responsibility, which should go the same for the people who the community has to rely on, in this case, developers who put out the software.

Wavering responsibility to someone else when they make a valid complaint does no good for anyone, development or use wise. FOSS actually depends on responsibility, both on the user and developer side. When the users do their side (make criticism, file bug report, etc) and the developers don't keep up to their side, then the community, and subsequently the FOSS ideals, break down.

[Vorian Grey]

I don't think it would hurt either the users or the developers to be nicer to each other and more understanding towards the problems each face. Each side has valid points.

However, I do have to side with the developers. They are not getting paid for this, most of them anyway. They do a remarkable job in that they do this in their spare time to help people. If users want better they should be willing to help in some way.

[Modplanman]

I don't think it would hurt either the users or the developers to be nicer to each other and more understanding towards the problems each face. Each side has valid points.

However, I do have to side with the developers. They are not getting paid for this, most of them anyway. They do a remarkable job in that they do this in their spare time to help people. If users want better they should be willing to help in some way.

My point is not that users can be idiotic or insulting. My point is that too often I've seen an excuse like that, even when valid complaints are made.

When the user has made a complaint, with our resorting to slurs and the like, they have mostly lived up to their side. Developers would be entitled to ask for more info like specs and so on. My point is that when it becomes a first excuse used to dismiss a valid complaint, which I've seen several times before, both from developers and users who jump on the bandwagon so to speak.

I should clarify. This is NOT about when an assumption of a user being an idiot, flaming, trolling etc, this about when it's a valid complaint or point, but is then told that whatever they've said can only stand if they can code.

I would very much like some feedback on the othere excuses I pointed out, and also for people not just to roll out the "developers aren't paid". I already addressed that in the original post, unless someone has something I haven't already considered or addressed. both here and in the original blog post.

Thanks for all the feedback guys. Appreciate it. Have updated the original post with some clarification.

[Methuselah]

The problem with that logic is:

a) It relies on the idea that most users will inevitably become developers.

b) it goes against obviously public, for end user benefit projects. The best example would probably be desktop projects like KDE and GNOME, along with projects like Ubuntu, especially with marketing slogans like "It just works" that scream that you don't have to be a developer to use it or even take part.

c) The fact that it's used as an excuse to waiver responsibility when valid criticism does come up. You cannot expect every user to know or have the time to submit a bug report or get on mailing lists and wait till their problem is solved.

Learn to code or shut up completely goes against any ideals of valid interaction and movement between user and contributor by upping the expectation required to contribute in the first place, whether valid complaint or not, and waivers responsibility of finding, knowing or taking into account possible bugs and complaints, even when bug reports aren't filed.

FOSS ideals don't just apply to developer culture. They apply to user culture too, as they involve the ideal of greater interaction between the people who get their hands on and use software, which should apply to everyone if we are going to properly promote any idea of Free as in speech, not as in beer.

These arguments are also undercut by the very existence of the likes of distributions like Ubuntu, along with the general push of FOSS of trying to get it into the mainstream, often trying to scream they're ready for ordinary every day use, which when using arguments like "code up or shut up" go completely against this and only serve to alienate people, whether technical or not. While FOSS is supposed to be about lowering the barrier of entry, this only serves to heighten it again.

As soon as any project gets any wider use, to the point where, especially the likes of what happened to KDE, you gain dependent users, you also gain responsibility. Responsibility to make sure you don't **** up other peoples systems simply because you felt like testing a feature or something else, responsibility that when you release software for other people to use, that, whether they be developers or not, that software actually be usable, and if not, it be clearly said so so that others may not have systems ****** up.

Wavering responsibility to someone else when they make a valid complaint does no good for anyone, development or use wise.

I actually don't agree with a blind mainstream push.

In any event, I am certain most FOSS projects have some legalese warning you that they take no responsibility for what happens to your system as a result of using the software.

If there is no such warning displayed prominently, the warning is implicit in the license used whether it be GPL or BSD.

Hell, the Microsoft license, for which you pay, stipulates total indemnification of Microsoft in the event of problems.

Distribution specific marketing slogans aside (who puts much stock in marketing slogans anyway), linux is a community developed project.
Many core developers really take pride in their pet projects and do listen to user feedback but they are under no obligation at all.
In the end YOU have to report it, fix it, pay someone to fix it or hope someone fixes it.

A user who simply complains is of absolutely no use.
They do have the right to complain, free speech eh!
They just shouldn't expect to be coddled as a result.
The recommendation to use something else is probably the most practical one.

[Modplanman]

Most of the legalese will pertain to personal usage and extreme cases which they can't always be held responsible for because of the inherent problems in predicting the kind of scenarios they encapsulate.

However, if something is a direct result of negligence, ignorance and general not caring and wavering of responsibility, then yes, they can be held accountable a as far as I know, and anything that says otherwise, especially if it's not displayed prominently, could probably be considered illegal.

Marketing slogans hold huge stok. Why? Because they're the thing that sell it to you in the first place. They're things that are supposed to tell you what a product is, what it does, etc. If you sell something above and beyond it's worth, then yes, that also can become illegal. CoD3, when that was released in the UK, was forced to change its advertising because it was considered unrepresentative as it used CG footage that was beyond the game, yet was presented as if it was the game. Marketing and advertising are most often the first indications of what people will know and see of something, and therefore has responsibility to not completely mislead, unless in cases where something is obviously fantasy and is only there to reinforce a point rather than acting as an actually claim (for example, ads for Sure deodorant I think it was that showed people running through walls and the like after using it, and the famous dancing transformer-ish car).

Again, I'm not saying this is an excuse for users to act rude or insulting. My point is, as part of a community, it isn't just users responsibility to code up and shut up, it is the developers seeing as they actually are the ones who know how to code in the first place, they put the software out for public consumption in the first place, and as part of a community, no different than how people keep saying users should live up to their responsibility of polite discourse amongst others already mentioned, but also the shared responsibility of developers to listen to those (within balance, as I explained in the original blog post) and provide usable software.

I am not making a case for any particular side. I am pointing out the most common excuses that get used to remove responsibility, pushing for balance on both sides (although the focus is heavily on developers on this occasion), and hope to push for removal of these common, unhelpful excuses when used against perfectly valid complaints and criticisms.

[Methuselah]

Marketing slogans hold huge stok. Why? Because they're the thing that sell it to you in the first place. They're things that are supposed to tell you what a product is, what it does, etc. If you sell something above and beyond it's worth, then yes, that also can become illegal. CoD3, when that was released in the UK, was forced to change its advertising because it was considered unrepresentative as it used CG footage that was beyond the game, yet was presented as if it was the game. Marketing and advertising are most often the first indications of what people will know and see of something, and therefore has responsibility to not completely mislead, unless in cases where something is obviously fantasy and is only there to reinforce a point rather than acting as an actualy claim (for example, ads for Sure deoderent I think it was that showed people running through walls and the like after using it, and the famous dancing transformer-ish car).

Marketing hyperbole is a common thing.
Everyone knows to reduce marketing claims by several degrees.
So I don't take people seriously who behave as if they are easily fooled.
Besides that, I don't see any outlandish claims on the Ubuntu website.

Again, I'm not saying this is an excuse for users to act rude or insulting. My point is, as part of a community, it isn't just users reposonsibility to code up and shut up, it is the developers seeing as they actually are the ones who know how to code in the first place, they put the software out for public consumption in the first place, adn as part of a community, no different than how people keep saying users should live up to their responsibility of polite discourse amongst others already mentioned, but also the shared responsibility of developers to listen to those (within balance, as I explained in the original blog post) and provide usable software.

Not only the program is there for public consumption but the CODE is.
If they simply provided binaries the implication would be that they intend to personally satisfy all user whims.
However, the publishing of the source is an appeal for assistance.
It is also an act of empowerment that makes it possible for anyone to improve the software.

People who view FOSS developers' as a resource at their disposal have the wrong view.
A minority might have paid jobs in which case they answer to who is paying them.
There are often some core devs who founded the project but the majority are probably users that also have the ability to code and are fixing their own annoyances.

Then you have individuals who complain about the software and also complain about being told to use something else.
What do they want to achieve?
How are they helping?