> Re: IIS: MS spent as much effort on the UI as they did on the actual product. This is very different than FOSS.
But, why would they? The "obscure" configuration file has its benefits. Easily synchronised over multiple servers, easy to back up your entire configuration, easy to grep for a specific settings that's somewhere in there. Apache even comes with a tool that checks your syntax for you, so no need to break your server. And hey, if it really doesn't work? cp httpd.conf_backup httpd.conf and you're back in business.
For a server product, I'd actually want them to spend more time on the product than on the UI. Servers are usually operated by people who know about computers, so there really is no need for something that is "easy", especially if that means you have to dig down deep for a specific setting (over multiple servers, can be a pain...)
You could argue that IIS is not only marketed to professionals, it can even be operated by laymen! I would say that's a downside. This means dumbing down the UI for the beginner's sake.
On the other hand, for desktop products, I agree with the statement. FOSS needs more and better UI people.
> Again, writers, proofreaders and editors want to get paid for their work.
You go by the assumption that FOSS developers do not get paid for their work. This is not true. Sure, there are lots of volunteers, but loads of people get paid to contribute to open source software. A couple of examples: Java (Sun/IBM), Linux (Linus gets paid!), Apple just open sourced Grand Central Dispatch, Guido the python guy is employed, Qt is open source, a bunch of Google code is open source, Red Hat employees get paid, etc.
I think the focus is less market driven, so there's less need for a finished product-in-a-box like Windows 7 or Adobe Photoshop. Since the software is constantly being developed, bugfixed and upgraded, the tech writers are writing against a moving target.
In cases where there is a finished product, for example a specific Ubuntu or RedHat version, you will find there is ample documentation, both "official" and community provided.
> Mostly free software is exploiting programs to give their work away for free
I think you meant to say "programmers", and I wholeheartedly disagree. No-one is being exploited. We're not talking forced labor here. See above, lots of programmers are getting paid to do FOSS. Loads more are happy to volunteer their time and expertise, for fame, for gratitude or because they wanted a feature in the software they're using and it's not in there yet.
Designers, editors and proofreaders don't not "fall" for it, as you say. There is nothing to fall for. Either you give something back to the community for letting you use the software for free, or you don't. Your choice. I guess the mindset of the aforementioned groups is different from programmers.
