"In our work-from-home world, #Jitsi provides video conferencing. Open source may not be for everyone but these open source projects just might be perfect for your organization." https://www.infoworld.com/article/3533999/zeek-and-jitsi-2-open-source-projects-we-need-now.html

@schestowitz WTF? "Open source may not be for everyone". Er, that's precisely who it's made for. Everyone.

Follow

@lightweight I think people who say things like that have a picture in their head that looks like IRC clients and 1990s era GNU/Linux desktops ;) They're using "open source" to mean "hobby software with bad UX". If you pointed out that apps like Firefox and Wire are open source, they'd probably be surprised.
@schestowitz

@strypey @lightweight @schestowitz Who it's made for and who it manages to be made for are two different things.

Let's not pretend there are *no* issues with free software UX. It's not *only* marketing that drives people into the embrace of proprietary software.

There is free software out there where the UX is up to par or even beyond proprietary software. And there is free software that is ... just not.

There's hobby software with bad UX for sure, but there's also enterprise software with bad UX. On the proprietary side too, but it's easier for proprietary software to find the money to file down the sharp edges of the UX.

@clacke @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey I suspect what they're referring to is the hosting & support costs.

Small companies might not be able to afford the infrastructure, and big companies might find it cheaper to make support someone else's problem.

If the stars align, companies self-host and support their own infrastructure.

From most companies' perspective, the benefit of "open source" is a pooling of resources that works out cheaper, & maybe a PR boost. Ideology isn't a factor.

@clacke @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey

this is hilarious

suggesting that the man whose tootstream is a veritable firehose of free software advocacy is a little soft on his promotion of it

the "not for everybody" looks like nothing so much as an attempt at the soft-sell, like "I know you might get tired of me mansplaing this to you 24/7/365 and that's ok"

@clacke @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey

occasionally someone else I don't follow roll out an 'I use Arch' troll

or I'll read people complaining bitterly about 'fossbros'

and it cuts. I think it might be too cruel, or too broad. I try not to feed it.

then I see this selfawarewolves-level 'hey man you got to fossbro *harder*' and, as an advocate myself I just have to shake my damn head

@clacke @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey

anyway, that's a quote from Asay, not Schestowitz, who has not historically been a huge Asay fan

incidentally, as of last Ohio Linux Fest at least, Amber Graner--who is awesome--was working with the community around the other project mentioned there, Zeek

@deejoe @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey Are there huge Asay fans? He's the personification of the kind of extractive VC-funded open source we're slowly starting to learn to avoid.

> the "not for everybody" looks like nothing so much as an attempt at the soft-sell

For those of us who care about as a issue, not an optional extra, it comes across as a bit like "being free to express yourself is not for everybody". As points out, not caring about a fundamental right because you're not personally using it rights now, is short-sighted and anti-social.

@deejoe @clacke @lightweight @schestowitz

@clacke @lightweight @schestowitz @strypey I really think that UX has gotten worse across the board in the last 10 years.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!