FOSS Is Not Free if It's Not Free From Complexity 523
A reader writes:"This article argues that freedom from complexity is an essential part of the first FOSS freedom - the freedom to run a program. Freedom to run means nothing if the exercise of such right excludes people who do not possess high technical knowledge or advanced skills sets. Without the guarantee of "ease of use", the freedom to run FOSS for most users is a hollow promise. " (My own bias ensues here): I think that there are some valuable points in here; what good is a good if it cannot be used, but OTOH this argument seems simplistic.
MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL (Score:2, Interesting)
All too often, the people "open sourcing" their software are the same ones who have this elitist attitude of "if you don't have enough time to gather reams of knowledge, don't bother hoping to understand the source". Honestly -- how many of you would be capable of knowing where to add code to GIMP if you wanted to add your own image manipulation/comparison algorithm?
For me, even though I know C++, most C++ FOSS source code might as well be in binary. Once I wanted to adapt an open source word processor to suit my needs, and there's no way I would ever hope to do with an existing FOSS program.
Just because you're free to doesn't mean you can.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this author has a strange meaning of the word "free". "Free" has nothing to do with the credentials of the user - if they want to use the software they're free to learn how to.
Re:Simplistic? (Score:3, Interesting)
What the fuck is a FOSS?
... seriously, though, part of the complexity comes from using your own terms and vocabulary that the average software user wouldn't understand.
Re:Simplistic? (Score:2, Interesting)
simple reason of fuelling fodder in opposition the growth of linux
and related OPEN SOURCE groups. It is merely splitting hairs here.
A majority of current software on all platforms is complex.
My father is perplexed each time his Scanner/Fax won't scan or
fax for him under WindowsXP. And the resulting error message popup
is close to being useless as well.
Retail software is designed to be simple minded, however still
remaining complex under the hood. Any pop-up dialogues do not
give relavent hints as to what went wrong, or what it is
actually doing - let alone the generic error messages generated
in Windows when something does go wrong. This would appear complex
to any non-tech savvy user as well. I don't see the differences
between the free OS & apps, versus the retail boxed OS & apps.
My experience is that once a linux workstation is assembled,
and everything is configured, it works rather well. My father
can handle it, and he comments on how some applications are
more friendly.
I've used about a dozen different Linux distro's over the
last 10 years+ and there have only been a couple of apps which
fit the category of being unusable/over-complex.
I hope that when people read these type of articles that they
take it with a grain of salt, and compare it to their daily
experiences with their currently installed non-linux OS on
their PC's.
The 450 users in my department would give good testimony of
the daily quirks, confusing pop-up messages, and troubles
with their high powered mainstream machines( running windows).
Where's the difference here?
Re:Agree on principle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously. The SuSE RPM database is excellent, and with online repositories you don't need to carry around CDs.
For example, Snes9x is part of SuSE: http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/prof
Need to get roms?
You can install the easy-to-install Limewire RPM from Limewire's site (installing me "click on the 'download' link", and then press the "Install in YaST" link on the embedded RPM browser that shows up in your web browser. Limewire's icon will show up under the "Internet" category in your KDE menu.
How is this not far easier than on Windows?
All you have to do is go to YaST, search for "SNES", and install it. No hunting out which-is-the-right file, no worrying about stuff you can't install;
It's all managed by RPM, via GUI, and all the packages you could ever want are avaliable. The worst thing you'll ever have to do is learn to add an additional RPM source, and there are step-by-step screenshot guides that show you how to do that. These guides are generally easier to use than the step-by-step guides which show you how to install a wireless router, or a printer (on Windows; printing on SUSE is dead easy).
It's not a problem with FOSS; ease of use is up to the distro makers. I don't expect Gentoo or Slackware to be easy for noobs; that's not why they are there. Use Mandrake or SuSE (especially SuSE). I've converted my relatives to SuSE, and they don't mind a bit.
Complexity and Freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's take GIMP, for example. It is free, and easy to install, but the ease of use ends there as it bears very very little similarity to other graphics editors of similar calibur such as Photoshop, Illustrator, or (my personal favorite) Paint Shop Pro. Now, it is possible to learn and become proficient with GIMP, I have had to and I can appreciate the software, but users hate to click and see nothing happen.
GIMP is an exception to the rules, however, as I have found most open-source software to be relatively intuitive and easy to use. Albeit, much of that software asks a little more of its users than the equivalent Windows software, but not much. Using the command line, or having a cursory knowledge of what one is doing is not an unreasonable demand for a user.
In fact, I would be more prone to saying that it is far more unreasonable to demand that software developers make software that anyone can use without any prior knowledge of the software. There are very few devices, electronic or otherwise, that require no prior knowledge on their use on the part of the user, and software shouldn't be expected to be the exception.
There is also a certain amount of freedom that comes from complexity. A number of my open source applications offer me a wealth of options that their closed-source counterparts lack. This adds to complexity, but I am rewarded for my efforts to learn by saved time and effort, and specific control over what I'm doing.
I understand the point the author is trying to make, but I think they are being very short-sighted. Applications such as Word and Excel are very complex, it's just that most users are ignorant to the complexity, and the applications are made to be tolerant of their ignorance. Someone who is familiar with page formatting on more advanced systems, however, tends to find applications like Word (and it's "auto-formatting") very frustrating.
I suppose the point that I'm trying to make is this: If you don't have the prior knowledge necessary to use a piece of software, that is in no way the fault of the developer. If you want to do something, do the work necessary.
Equivocation (Score:2, Interesting)
The two senses used here are:
1)the freedom to DO something that one wants.
2) the lack of presence of something that one does not want.
and don't forget
3) A product which is distributed at no financial cost.
These three meanings constitute three very different concepts, they just happen to be tied up in a single word.
In the case of "free" software, non-techies often think of the word in the third sense (oh...i don't have to pay for it? then why is suse charging 70 bucks for it?). Usually the techies think of the word in the first sense (aha, I can do whatever I want with it, including look at the code, change it, and redistribute it). One word is used, but two meanings are invoked.
Adding the word "truly" to the front of the word "free" does not clarify its meaning in any way whatsoever.
FOSS is what it is, and various senses of the word "free" apply to it in various contexts.
Ease of use (or, more accurately, ease-of-learning-how-to-use-without-reading-much) is a feature. Some free software has it, and some free software does not. This feature does not make it any more free in the first or third sense of the word, but it might make it more free in the second sense of the word (free from barriers to adoption). This does not make it "truly" free, it just makes it more free in a completely different way.
I might add: if something is available to you at no financial cost, and all you are doing is complaining that it isn't exactly like the stuff you already know how to use, don't be surprised when the response from the providers is less than positive.
Ease of Use and Quality Software are Mutually... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Today, I consider quality software to be very flexible and to allow for extensive CLI interfaces as well as highly intricate GUI interfaces. Think of combining tools like KDE Konsole, Enlightenment 0.7 Desktop, GNU Screen, LVM, and Xen virtualization.
2. When I was a new PC user (circa 1994) I considered quality software to be exclusively GUI based, object oriented (even though I didn't really know what that meant at the time), statically linked binaries (just a single executable with everything built in and no lib dependencies or "DLL Hell"), and everything had to be a metaphor to real world objects.
3. Mr. Middle Management considers quality software to be what all other Mr. Middle Managers use. Regardless of whether the program actually works well or works at all, if all the others have it, then he's got to have it too.
4. Mr. Joe User believes that quality software is something that "just works" from his point of view. It might be the most inefficient, spyware-ridden piece of crap, but if it allows him to do task X with little or no effort, then it's "quality" as far as he's concerned and he doesn't want to know about better ways even if they will help him save money, and get the most out of his computer.
So the problem isn't with FOSS. The problem lies with the users. Unless you're willing to work harder to get the most out of your computing experience, you will probably shy away from FOSS. Besides, who says that FOSS is primarily trying to get more mindshare? FOSS doesn't exist to be popular. It exists to do a job and do it well. In many cases, doing a job well is something that only professionals and hobbyists can do. (Ugh, I hate the term "hobbyist" because it belittles the importance of these advanced users) And this will never change.
Re:Office is key (Score:3, Interesting)
While I can agree with email and browsing, I always wonder if Office apps are ever used that much in the home. I can see it being a factor in somebody's decision to buy a PC, but a few months down the line how often is Office fired up? How many people write letters that can't be written in Wordpad? Maybe people will want to use Excel (probably in order to look at thier finances) but how many people will go from the wanting to stage to the regularly using stage? Powerpoint? What use is that in the home? Access? You could catalogue all your CDs like you've wanted to for years, but are you really going to put in the effort? And then there's the "I can take my work home" argument with Office, yes, you could take your work home, but do you really want to?
Before the internet "came along" how many home computers were little more than games machines or paper weights?
Re:XP does not require a driver hunt. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Calling out Troll Keith Russell. (Score:3, Interesting)
I said that Trustworthy Computing was a response to security failures, not that TC was "about" security. TC was really about marketing and stalling for time until Longhorn.
I merely compared XP SP2 to XP base. What makes you think that was a general recommendation?
The only thing anybody could come up with was additional stencil sets in Visio Professional. Do you recall something more substantial than that?
If you can show me, book, chapter, and verse, where in the Bible God retired and named Fred von Lohmann his successor, I will surely recant, as the word of the EFF is now Absolute Truth.
I don't see anything in that post that exonerates Microsoft. If you read outside the italicized type, you'll see that I accuse Microsoft and other companies of acquiescing to Big Media's demands. If we apply your standards to your assertion, you've just exonerated Big Media.
The exact quote is: "Video drivers have moved to user mode in Vista (and praise be for that!)" I was praising Microsoft for a correct design decision. Moving video drivers from user to kernel space in Win2000 and XP destabilized the OS, introducing problems that didn't exist when video drivers were in user space in NT4. Of course, to a paranoid, frothing-at-the-mouth zealot, praising Microsoft makes me a blasphemer.
I'm going to repost that link verbatim. I challenge anyone on this planet who has a faint grasp of the English language to find any loathing in the following statement: "The nature of Open Source means that the Linux 'community' is both the users and the distro maintainers. Poor Dell* is stuck in the middle. *: I can't believe I just used 'poor Dell' in a sentence."
The GPL can only tell you how to share source code. If you want a religion, find a church.