FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Studio User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-07-2009, 03:57 AM
Karlheinz Noise
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

Hey, all. I guess I've helped open up a can of worms here. Sorry about that. I do want to reply, but I should preface this by saying that this is not any sort of personal criticism against UbuStu or any of the people involved in the distro. I'm only starting to code, and I'm only beginning to understand the hard work and headaches that are involved in something like UbuStu, so a big THANK YOU to all that make it happen.
Now, to the replies...
> Also I read that we should look at the MACintosh to see how it> works, because everyone in the industry use it for years, and it is solid> etc...
If you're making an A/V distro, it makes sense that you should know what most A/V users use, and why they use them. Simple, really. And why they use those tools really boils down to two things: ease of use, and stability... which are intimately related.
> Well This is a little bit disturbing indeed, because, normally there are> very few inputs to the DEV team. very few ideas and test cases etc. But i> see a lot of people complaining. And this nobody can deny. Peple come and> just complain, instead of describing the error or the feature etc.
If a user is complaining, it means that you're not doing your job as a programmer - simple as that. To everyone's credit, the usual response is not "shut up," but "give me more details." Anyone who's been on this list for a while knows that I started out being a total asshat (yes, even more than now), but calmed down when I actually received help. That's usually the way it goes, and ignoring the complainers will just lead to more complaining.
> So instead of flaming the linux geeks about the suposed "easy of use" and> the features needed I propose to make a list of ideas and features to bring> to Ubuntustudio.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I've given some general opinions, so I'll get more specific:
- UbuStu should ideally run perfectly on install, without having to know about any config file editing or command-line use whatsoever. If a user has to take their hand off the mouse, you've failed.
- A/V is unfortunately not very open source at the moment, so should allow for easy installation of stuff that is not open. Obviously it wouldn't be included in the distro, but at some point in the setup non-open programs should be made available. One obvious example is to install Wine and auto-config it to use VST's out of the box.
- Documentation should be easily available, possibly as a seperate listing in the UbuStu launch menu. It should be trivial to RTFM.
- With the exception of non-distributable programs (i.e. stuff that's not open), everything should be available without an internet connection. (Many folks use audio programs in a computer in their practice space; even if not, it avoids the numerous problems with wireless cards and Linux.)
- System requirements, details of which programs are installed by default, and links to individual programs' documentation/forums/mailing lists, should be exactly one click away from the index page on the website... not buried somewhere in the wiki where the average user won't find it. (What's your web backend? I know from experience that there are a lot of web designers who want to beef up their resumes, so this is one area where you should be able to get a fair amount of help.)
- Ouside of UbuStu, or any specific distro: The development of a standard for LADSPA GUI programming. Perhaps something like the Java VM for audio GUI's. The success of VST's had a lot to do with being able to control the plugin's look and feel, and in that regard, everything Linux is at least ten years behind the curve.
- Greater outreach to people who devlop on non-Linux systems. The folks over at Smartelectronix have developed a ton of VST's for free, and many have shared source code. Their plugins are also consistently high in quality, some surpassing commercial plugins. (Listen to the Asynth filters if you don't believe me.) People like that would be outstanding to have on the Linux team.
- I'm actually becoming enamored of the W3C approach to audio standards. I know that the developers of UbuStu, Studio64, ArtistX, etc. are in pretty close contact, but how much do you guys actually share code? Have you considered teaming up to form a Linux audio standards body? Would there be any chance at all of a cross-platform audio standard like there is for web standards? (Yeah, I know it's not likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?)
> The bottom line is that, by its very nature, F/OSS developers> have _no_ responsibility to the end-user community, whatever that may> be. None! Zarro! Zilch!! Open Source is developed in the context of> a gift economy.
This statement really surprises me, as it would also surprise businesses like Sun or IBM (or even Microsoft, who are trying to get into the open source game). Even Richard Stallman doesn't like "open" to be confused with "non-commercial."
Leaving that aside, if you're not writing software for the end-user community, why are you even writing software in the first place? Who's supposed to use it, our future Martian overlords or something?
Simply put, software that provides a bad end-user experience is bad software. End of story.
> Often F/OSS software is> written by geeks, for geeks, which is why some packages seem to be> perpetually in a state of flux, or poorly documented.
That's true in some cases, but it ignores something that should be obvious: Idiot-proofing your software makes a programmer's life easier, not harder.
- The simpler a piece of software is to use, the less you'll get lusers asking inane questions on forums and mailing lists.
- It's pretty hard to tell people to RTFM if there's no F-ing manual to read.
- The more non-geeks you have, the bigger a user base you have, which means more varied hardware and more configurations. Thus, a wider base of systems to track bugs, test hardware compatibilities, etc. Provided you have an easy system to handle them, lusers are the best testers you could ever ask for.
- Even lusers have SOME knowledge, and if welcomed can probably contribute in some miniscule way.
It would be a terrible shame if "open source" became just one step away from "abandonware." Fortunately, though that may have been true at one point, it's not true now.
> But if we advertise a product as "easy and so on", then we only copy> closed source marketing.
No offense, but I find this way of thinking to be completely ludicrous.
Ease of use is not based on "marketing," it's based on sound design. I'm not saying Linux should be "marketed" as easy to use; I'm saying it should actually be easy to use. Software that has a good UI is simply better than software that doesn't.
This is really obvious in the audio world. Ableton Live doesn't do anything that you can't do in Acid (which predated it by years), but its user interface makes it easier to use in a live situation, and that's the only reason why people use it. Its success is due ONLY to its user interface. That should be a lesson to all programmers, open source or not.
As a final note: I've used Mac, Windows, and Linux now for a number of years. I can say with a good degree of certainty that Mac is the easiest system to use (provided you're rich). Windows is a distant second, with Linux being a close third (and thankfully catching up).
I can also say that if Linux programmers adopt Apple's design philosophy, then it will take over the planet. No question. The reason I'm writing these rants is that I'd really like to see that happen.
This is especially true in music software. There has never been a better time for Linux audio to truly make a mark on the public consciousness. Even giants like Avid/Digidesign are going down the tubes financially speaking, giving Linux a chance to step up to the plate. I'm really hoping we don't blow this opportunity.
...Okay, sorry for the long rant. Obviously I think too much about these things. Have a good day, everyone.
- Karlheinz.
Get gifts for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now.
--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-07-2009, 04:27 AM
Brian David
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Karlheinz Noise <khzmusik@hotmail.com> wrote:






Hey, all. I guess I've helped open up a can of worms here. Sorry about that. I do want to reply, but I should preface this by saying that this is not any sort of personal criticism against UbuStu or any of the people involved in the distro. I'm only starting to code, and I'm only beginning to understand the hard work and headaches that are involved in something like UbuStu, so a big THANK YOU to all that make it happen.

Now, to the replies...*SNIP*

Just a quick note, Karlheinz.* There IS a Linux standard for plug-in GUIs.* It is called LV2 (http://lv2plug.in/)** It is fairly new, but seems to be promising.* I've used some LV2 plug-ins, and they're pretty cool.

--
-Brian David

--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-07-2009, 04:54 AM
Det
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

Karlheinz Noise schrieb:
> - UbuStu should ideally run perfectly on install,

Well, indeed that is a perfect general objective.

But seldom people outside of development can estimate
what this means when they compare their one program
downloaded and installed in windows to a whole
OS + n programms combined in a distribution.

There are some many different loosely coupled
sources involved in something like UbuStu.

> ...without having to know
> about any config file editing or command-line use whatsoever. If a user
> has to take their hand off the mouse, you've failed.

Well, here I am a bit ambivalent.
I am perhaps a bit biased as being a developer myself
and having grown up on unix systems.
But I much too often found it much easier to 'state'
things on a command line and directly 'command' the system
instead having to click through a bunch of forms.

It feels a bit against the Unix philosophy to graphically
represent anything. Much too often I feel restricted and tied
by having to use the one and only GUI for tasks.

Linux is about providing freedom for power users.
Reflecting that in a GUI is a really, really hard task.
Too easy some people can feel restricted by having to
do things in this or the other way, the sorting of tabs
and panels a.s.o.; too easy other people can feel overwhelmed
by the mass of shown options.

>> The bottom line is that, by its very nature, F/OSS developers
>> have _no_ responsibility to the end-user community, whatever that may
>> be. None! Zarro! Zilch!! Open Source is developed in the context of
>> a gift economy.
>
> This statement really surprises me, as it would also surprise businesses
> like Sun or IBM (or even Microsoft, who are trying to get into the open
> source game). Even Richard Stallman doesn't like "open" to be confused
> with "non-commercial."

Well, your're right for the "open". But the term has the "F" in it.


> Simply put, software that provides a bad end-user experience is bad
> software. End of story.

Right.

>> Often F/OSS software is
>> written by geeks, for geeks, which is why some packages seem to be
>> perpetually in a state of flux, or poorly documented.
>
> That's true in some cases, but it ignores something that should be
> obvious: Idiot-proofing your software makes a programmer's life easier,
> not harder.

That's on one hand really true, I can say as a developer.

OTOH it is indeed NOT true. To get a software to the point that
it is idiot-proofed is a VERY hard task, as you must not fix it
for one idiot but the complete set of it. And every idiot is
very creative in his own to find way to misunderstand and misuse
the system.

So deploying a software that 'does its job' if you use it right
is less harder than the task to design it 'fool-proofed', in terms
of time and resources.

> - Even lusers have SOME knowledge, and if welcomed can probably
> contribute in some miniscule way.

Especially in UbuStu context, as the linux "lusers" may be
skilled "artists".

> As a final note: I've used Mac, Windows, and Linux now for a number of
> years. I can say with a good degree of certainty that Mac is the easiest
> system to use (provided you're rich). Windows is a distant second, with
> Linux being a close third (and thankfully catching up).

That is easy to say forgetting that Mac, Windows and Linux work
on very different basic situations.

The Mac power is mostly based on fixed and known hardware,
smaller and dedicated set of software.
Windows is second because it looses here. Very different hardware,
much too much sources of software trying to run on it.
Both are supported by commercial organisations behind it,
with a deep interest in monetising.
Linux lacks all of that. It has to work on different hardware,
whose providers often don't support Linux like Windows.
Linux has very different software sources which have to be
integrated in the distros.
The software is often not supported by commercial organisations
in the background.

So the UbuStu community (not only the distributor, but the
create of every single software integrated in it) is more
a losely coupled bunch of people than one closely working
group. The resources are limited.
As long as we do not have an organistation with commercial
interest dedicated to backing the development of UbuStu
as a 'product', we will have a totally different situation,
which has to be considered when complaining here.

Beside that, I agree with most other things you said.


KR
Det

--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-07-2009, 02:35 PM
"Henry W. Peters"
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

As a person who is more interested in using binary driven hardware as a
tool (rather than an end in it self)... I am very encouraged about the
prospects of (say) Linux to be able to participate meaningfully in this
efforts, thanks to Mr. K. Noise & this kind & quality of discussion
(all), & the constructive & critical perspective it offers! Nice
layout of thoughts... & (mostly) my sentiments, exactly.

Henry
P.s., I kind of hope the 'nick' sticks: "UbuStu" (perhaps it has been
used before, but this is the first time I have noticed it(?).

Karlheinz Noise wrote:
> Hey, all. I guess I've helped open up a can of worms here. Sorry about
> that. I do want to reply, but I should preface this by saying that
> this is not any sort of personal criticism against UbuStu or any of
> the people involved in the distro. I'm only starting to code, and I'm
> only beginning to understand the hard work and headaches that are
> involved in something like UbuStu, so a big THANK YOU to all that make
> it happen.
>
> Now, to the replies...
>
>
> <http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=xbox+games&scope=cashback&form=MSHYCB&pub l=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_Shopping_Giftsforthem_c ashback_1x1>


--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Brian David
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Henry W. Peters <hwpeters@jamadots.com> wrote:

As a person who is more interested in using binary driven hardware as a

tool (rather than an end in it self)... I am very encouraged about the

prospects of (say) Linux to be able to participate meaningfully in this

efforts, thanks to Mr. K. Noise & this kind & quality of discussion

(all), & the constructive & critical perspective it offers! *Nice

layout of thoughts... & (mostly) my sentiments, exactly.



Henry

P.s., I kind of hope the 'nick' sticks: "UbuStu" (perhaps it has been

used before, but this is the first time I have noticed it(?).



Karlheinz Noise wrote:

> Hey, all. I guess I've helped open up a can of worms here. Sorry about

> that. I do want to reply, but I should preface this by saying that

> this is not any sort of personal criticism against UbuStu or any of

> the people involved in the distro. I'm only starting to code, and I'm

> only beginning to understand the hard work and headaches that are

> involved in something like UbuStu, so a big THANK YOU to all that make

> it happen.

>

> Now, to the replies...

>

>

> <http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=xbox+games&scope=cashback&form=MSHYCB&pub l=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_Shopping_Giftsforthem_c ashback_1x1>




>The Mac power is mostly based on fixed and known hardware,

>smaller and dedicated set of software.

That is very good point that definitely needs to be considered if one is to compare Linux to Mac (or compare anything to Mac, really).* And I would disagree that Linux is behind Windows in user experience.* As many on this list have pointed, Windows is very hard to use and maintain, we've just all gotten used to it.* Ubuntu is easily a better end-user experience, in my book.


There also seems to be a false dichotomy going on here in terms of usability versus flexibility.* A lot of commentators appear to worry that pushing for a more user-friendly experience will somehow limit the flexibility available to the advanced Linux user.* Why would that be the case?* I think that for most of us who would like improved out-of-the-box experience, what that translates to is just a series of default settings that aren't necessarily going to run the system at its best, but will just work right away.* Then there should be a well designed series of GUIs to tweak the settings for optimal performance.* This doesn't mean that power users can't tweak their systems the way they always have.


Take the Add Software menu in Ubuntu.* That's a lovely GUI that allows a beginner to very easily install new software.* This doesn't stop anyone from opening up a terminal and using apt-get, though.

--


-Brian David

--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-07-2009, 03:57 PM
Lindsay Haisley
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 23:57 -0500, Karlheinz Noise wrote:

> > Also I read that we should look at the MACintosh to see how it
> > works, because everyone in the industry use it for years, and it is
> solid
> > etc...
>
>
> If you're making an A/V distro, it makes sense that you should know
> what most A/V users use, and why they use them. Simple, really. And
> why they use those tools really boils down to two things: ease of use,
> and stability... which are intimately related.
>
>
> > Well This is a little bit disturbing indeed, because, normally there are
> > very few inputs to the DEV team. very few ideas and test cases etc. But i
> > see a lot of people complaining. And this nobody can deny. Peple come and
> > just complain, instead of describing the error or the feature etc.
>
> If a user is complaining, it means that you're not doing your job as a
> programmer - simple as that. To everyone's credit, the usual response
> is not "shut up," but "give me more details."

Some people, and even one of my educated and computer-literate IT
colleagues, don't get the difference between a bug report (or beta test
report) and a complaint. Getting these people past the point of just
saying "such-and-such doesn't work" and leaving it at that is often a
matter of education, and sometimes it ain't easy :-)

> - A/V is unfortunately not very open source at the moment, so should
> allow for easy installation of stuff that is not open.

I heard someone once describe working with multimedia programming as a
patent-infringement minefield. Every step has to be made very
carefully!

> > The bottom line is that, by its very nature, F/OSS developers
> > have _no_ responsibility to the end-user community, whatever that may
> > be. None! Zarro! Zilch!! Open Source is developed in the context of
> > a gift economy.
>
> This statement really surprises me, as it would also surprise
> businesses like Sun or IBM (or even Microsoft, who are trying to get
> into the open source game).

Yes, it may well be in the interest of the likes of IBM and Sun to get
into Open Source. Enlightened self interest is an effective motivator,
and these companies seem to get it with regard to the advantages of
F/OSS software and how a thriving F/OSS community is important to the
rest of their business. The bottom line is still that the GPL and other
legal trappings of F/OSS software don't imply a responsibility to the
end user, and in fact just about all F/OSS packages contain a legal
clause, quoted below, stating this fact in clear legalese.

This in no way negates what I said. If there is no contractual
relationship between maker and consumer, express or implied by the
exchange of consideration for purchase, then there is no obligation
other than to do no harm.

I recommend, if you haven't read it, Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and
the Bazaar" - the full book, not just the essay of the same name.

> Leaving that aside, if you're not writing software for the end-user
> community, why are you even writing software in the first place? Who's
> supposed to use it, our future Martian overlords or something?

Actually, some F/OSS software seems to be written for the benefit of
other developers. The community of people around a F/OSS project can
get very in-grown. The result is that the people involved are more in
touch with what's clever and goes over well with their colleagues than
with the end-user experience. Their work may be more along the lines of
proof-of-concept, or some such.

There are a lot of programmers who aren't particularly socially skilled,
and making the conceptual leap to look at and evaluate their work from
the perspective of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the
underlying software technology isn't always easy.

This doesn't mean that they're not developing valid F/OSS software, nor
that their work is inherently of no value. Very often such work is akin
to what's called "pure research" in the natural sciences - science with
no, or very little practical application.

Commercial software development is driven by market dynamics. If you
make it and it's not good, or not as good as the competition, or not
properly marketed, it's a dead duck. F/OSS software developers _may_
look at end-user satisfaction as a goal, but there are no guarantees,
and no requirement that they do. Just about every F/OSS package out
there contains the words:

"THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS"
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR
CORRECTION."

> > Often F/OSS software is
> > written by geeks, for geeks, which is why some packages seem to be
> > perpetually in a state of flux, or poorly documented.
>
> That's true in some cases, but it ignores something that should be
> obvious: Idiot-proofing your software makes a programmer's life
> easier, not harder.

This is logical, and indeed should be obvious. Writing good
documentation should do the same thing. Somehow, however, there seems
often to be an inverse relationship between the ability to do good,
creative programming and the ability to write decent documentation for
it. The same can be said about designing an intuitive user interface,
or even intuitive APIs.

> - It's pretty hard to tell people to RTFM if there's no F-ing manual
> to read.

Yep!

> ...Okay, sorry for the long rant. Obviously I think too much about
> these things. Have a good day, everyone.

No apologies necessary, at least from my perspective :-)

--
Lindsay Haisley |"Fighting against human | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | creativity is like | available at
512-259-1190 | trying to eradicate |<http://pubkeys.fmp.com>
http://www.fmp.com | dandelions" |
| (Pamela Jones) |



--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 
Old 12-08-2009, 06:47 AM
Robert Klaar
 
Default Ubuntu-Studio-users Digest, Vol 32, Issue 7

One thing on the subjekt of standardise things that I would like to see is a easy-acces compatible-hardware list, Maybe on the ubuntu studio homepage. As of now all of this is spread across lists and forums and damned hard to find to those not involved. I recently bought a new computer and tried to look around for these stuff and I think I managed to put together something quite nice, just a few major problems like that it freezes on network overload and that I still don't know weither my firewire card works or not. .)


A list like this would get a more standardised platform for the US-user, I think.
//Paco

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Lindsay Haisley <fmouse@fmp.com> wrote:

On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 23:57 -0500, Karlheinz Noise wrote:



> > Also I read that we should look at the MACintosh to see how it

> > works, because everyone in the industry use it for years, and it is

> solid

> > etc...

>

>

> If you're making an A/V distro, it makes sense that you should know

> what most A/V users use, and why they use them. Simple, really. And

> why they use those tools really boils down to two things: ease of use,

> and stability... which are intimately related.

>

>

> > Well This is a little bit disturbing indeed, because, normally there are

> > very few inputs to the DEV team. very few ideas and test cases etc. But i

> > see a lot of people complaining. And this nobody can deny. Peple come and

> > just complain, instead of describing the error or the feature etc.

>

> If a user is complaining, it means that you're not doing your job as a

> programmer - simple as that. To everyone's credit, the usual response

> is not "shut up," but "give me more details."



Some people, and even one of my educated and computer-literate IT

colleagues, don't get the difference between a bug report (or beta test

report) and a complaint. *Getting these people past the point of just

saying "such-and-such doesn't work" and leaving it at that is often a

matter of education, and sometimes it ain't easy :-)



> - A/V is unfortunately not very open source at the moment, so should

> allow for easy installation of stuff that is not open.



I heard someone once describe working with multimedia programming as a

patent-infringement minefield. *Every step has to be made very

carefully!



> > The bottom line is that, by its very nature, F/OSS developers

> > have _no_ responsibility to the end-user community, whatever that may

> > be. None! Zarro! Zilch!! Open Source is developed in the context of

> > a gift economy.

>

> This statement really surprises me, as it would also surprise

> businesses like Sun or IBM (or even Microsoft, who are trying to get

> into the open source game).



Yes, it may well be in the interest of the likes of IBM and Sun to get

into Open Source. *Enlightened self interest is an effective motivator,

and these companies seem to get it with regard to the advantages of

F/OSS software and how a thriving F/OSS community is important to the

rest of their business. *The bottom line is still that the GPL and other

legal trappings of F/OSS software don't imply a responsibility to the

end user, and in fact just about all F/OSS packages contain a legal

clause, quoted below, stating this fact in clear legalese.



This in no way negates what I said. *If there is no contractual

relationship between maker and consumer, express or implied by the

exchange of consideration for purchase, then there is no obligation

other than to do no harm.



I recommend, if you haven't read it, Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and

the Bazaar" - the full book, not just the essay of the same name.



> Leaving that aside, if you're not writing software for the end-user

> community, why are you even writing software in the first place? Who's

> supposed to use it, our future Martian overlords or something?



Actually, some F/OSS software seems to be written for the benefit of

other developers. *The community of people around a F/OSS project can

get very in-grown. *The result is that the people involved are more in

touch with what's clever and goes over well with their colleagues than

with the end-user experience. *Their work may be more along the lines of

proof-of-concept, or some such.



There are a lot of programmers who aren't particularly socially skilled,

and making the conceptual leap to look at and evaluate their work from

the perspective of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the

underlying software technology isn't always easy.



This doesn't mean that they're not developing valid F/OSS software, nor

that their work is inherently of no value. *Very often such work is akin

to what's called "pure research" in the natural sciences - science with

no, or very little practical application.



Commercial software development is driven by market dynamics. *If you

make it and it's not good, or not as good as the competition, or not

properly marketed, it's a dead duck. *F/OSS software developers _may_

look at end-user satisfaction as a goal, but there are no guarantees,

and no requirement that they do. *Just about every F/OSS package out

there contains the words:



"THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS"

WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,

BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND

FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. *THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND

PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. *SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE

DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR

CORRECTION."



> > Often F/OSS software is

> > written by geeks, for geeks, which is why some packages seem to be

> > perpetually in a state of flux, or poorly documented.

>

> That's true in some cases, but it ignores something that should be

> obvious: Idiot-proofing your software makes a programmer's life

> easier, not harder.



This is logical, and indeed should be obvious. *Writing good

documentation should do the same thing. *Somehow, however, there seems

often to be an inverse relationship between the ability to do good,

creative programming and the ability to write decent documentation for

it. *The same can be said about designing an intuitive user interface,

or even intuitive APIs.



> - It's pretty hard to tell people to RTFM if there's no F-ing manual

> to read.



Yep!



> ...Okay, sorry for the long rant. Obviously I think too much about

> these things. Have a good day, everyone.



No apologies necessary, at least from my perspective :-)



--

Lindsay Haisley * * * |"Fighting against human | * * PGP public key

FMP Computer Services | * creativity is like * | * * *available at

512-259-1190 * * * * *| * trying to eradicate *|<http://pubkeys.fmp.com>

http://www.fmp.com * *| * * * dandelions" * * *|

* * * * * * * * * * *| * * (Pamela Jones) * * |







--

Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list

Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users



--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org