|
From: | Anthony W. Youngman |
Subject: | Re: Users versus developers (was: Tempo mark alignment) |
Date: | Sun, 24 May 2009 14:41:32 +0100 |
User-agent: | Turnpike/6.05-U (<0pW6TlP4PTi4m3mvamZ+2+oCVt>) |
On May 23, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:In message <address@hidden>, Ari Torhamo <address@hidden> writesThe first option is achieved by handling everything a non-programmercan do: managing bugs, helping new users, writing the newsletter, etc.The second option is achieved in two ways: helping expand our community (and hoping this way more programmers will join on a long-term perspective), or hiring someone (with decent money) to let him learn the code and implement the feature/fix the bug you want.You don't quite seem to get Tim's point: everybody can't and doesn't need to participate every project they find useful - especially whenthey don't consume the resources of the project in question (more thanmarginally). Most people don't contribute equally to things in their life - people specialize, which is good, because they have differentlives, situations, skills and talents. It's good to encourage people and make them aware of the ways to contribute - and then leave it to them.Unfortunately, Tim's point is at odds with the philosophy of free software - which can be pretty succinctly stated as "he who writes the software makes the rules".Ummm. That's not the philosophy of free software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.htmlIndeed, projects governed by Anthony's description of the philosophy tend to die quickly or get forked and the original developer loses control over it.
Well, if somebody's writing code, they're not dead, so if they follow my philosophy then by definition they CAN'T be dead ...
And, having been involved in a project (actually one I started), then a new developer took over from me and took the project in a direction I didn't like, but it wasn't a fork. He took over the coding. The only way I could have stopped him was to do more code myself (and I didn't have time).
And while I think that Graham is often more "bad cop" than necessary (I've fallen foul of him too :-) he does have somewhat of a valid point - if you're not prepared to put in any work then why should other people put in work on your behalf?Because if those things adversely affect my use of the application, the odds are very good it adversely affects someone else's and maybe lots of someone else's use of the software. Graham's idea (I am interpolating here, he can correct me if I'm wrong) that "people should be willing to put into the project is very valid." My point was that the form of those contributions is going to vary with people's abilities.
Agreed. My main contribution in the past was proof-reading, and Graham expected me to contribute patches. Bit difficult if I'm proof-reading a hard copy and don't have a system that can make patches.
For reasons already mentioned, I'm not going to learn Scheme and I'm not going to contribute code. It is very myopic to define "helping" as "writing code" (this is a widespread problem in the FOSS community). On the other hand, I am a psychologist with some knowledge of how people interact with information and those skills might offer a way to contribute and I have tried to do that. Also, my use (and others') of the software, feedback on its usability, etc. is of utility.But at the end of the day, if you don't code, you don't have direct influence on the project. And as I know from experience, "usability" and all the other "soft" stuff is very subjective. What's usable to one person is a pain in the neck to someone else.
My example of this is "reveal codes" in WordPerfect (oh - and I hate OpenOffice because it's a copy of MS Office and I find their usability decisions make the whole thing unusable - the more WordPerfect tries to become Word-like the less usable it is). My brother had a similar experience with "unusable" emacs - he now thinks its wonderful - it hasn't changed, he has.
But at the end of the day, as I say, he who writes the code makes the rules. If you're not prepared to get your hands dirty, you are reliant on other people doing what you want, and they are free to (indeed, quite likely to) ignore you unless you're prepared to make it worth their while.
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |