Have to say, I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by Troy. KDE, like many other open-source projects, doesn't really need users at all, whether they are poisonous or not. What we need are contributors: that's the life-blood of our community, what keeps KDE growing and evolving. To the extent that users can and do become contributors, I will grant that we need a userbase as a pool of potential future contributors. But I am simply baffled by any argument that we "need" to have a large number of people that never do more than use KDE. Why do we need them?
I don't really understand Rafael's argument, because all of the people he describes in his post are highly valuable contributors to the KDE project. Of course we need such contributors; we all agree on that. When I say we don't need users, I am talking by definition about people who do not contribute to KDE: they do not report bugs, they do not write documentation, they do not translate, they do not promote...they simply use our software.
Now, I have nothing against users, although this post probably sounds pretty harsh. Other than the vocal poisonous minority gnashing their teeth on the dot and elsewhere, they do us no harm. I'm happy to see lots of people using our software, and I hope they find it useful and enjoyable. But in terms of what we *need* for the continued vitality of the project?
We need contributors, not users. We need contributors like Microsoft and Apple need customers.
Syndicate Blogs
What a terrible attitude to have.
I know this is way past the point of anyone caring (or anyone reading this), but I just wanted to mention how depressing this blog post was to me.
I have used linux and FOSS software on my primary desktop at home for over 5 years now, and have thoroughly enjoyed the freedom from restrictive licenses, the ability to tinker, and the sense of community. Your post, stating that an open source project "doesn't really need users at all, whether they are poisonous or not" is so spiteful and dismissive. I am sorry that I just happened to simply use your software; before seeing this post and others like it, I simply enjoyed using it.
Apparently from your viewpoint I was just using your software and doing no harm. You don't need me, and could probably care less if I use your software or not. I am a meaningless entity in your eyes, a totally useless user providing nothing that you *need*.
For the first time in years I have seriously considered the viability of open-source projects if this is the type of attitude that is going to prevail eventually of the developers. I guess I'd rather be a customer and be subject to a restrictive EULA than be a worthless user; at least as a customer I'm appreciated somewhere, sometime (i.e. they want to keep me as a repeat customer).
Of course you don't really care. I'm just a "user". I have filed bug reports, and I have promoted the software, but I won't continue to do either of these things if I have to add the caveat to new users, "oh by the way, if you don't contribute in some way to the project, you're a useless user, and developers will openly scoff at you."
The choice now seems to be: buy some software (often included with a new computer) and be a customer who is valued, or use FOSS software like KDE, but make sure you contribute (and never criticize) or be viewed as worthless.
I'll likely switch to another FOSS project before I jump ship to a proprietary option, but I wanted to state how much your post depressed me. At least MS or Apple would never call their users poisonous.
Contemptible and foolish attitude
As a programmer, I cannot begin to understand how confused and utterly lost you need to be to say a thing like this:
"KDE, like many other open-source projects, doesn't really need users at all, whether they are poisonous or not."
Isn't KDE supposed to be a front end? A windowing system? A system people need to use? If you have no users, what is it for?
Linux was always just a toy, and when it tries to be something more, it too often fails horribly. After reading your post, it becomes painfully clear why.
The open source software which succeeds is software which is useful, which is responsive to its users, which remains useful over time. There are precious few of these. Mozilla Firefox is one.
A lot of people have been misled by KDE and other open source tools, and are turning away from linux as a result.
The situation has gotten so bad that even though its offered for free, people still prefer to buy a machine with Windows on it. Not because Windows is more mainstream and supported, but because the SOFTWARE that runs on it IS USEFUL TO THEM.
FYI, this post is being linked to from here: http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/kde-fork-dot-zero.html
What is the intrinsic value of userless software?
As a longtime KDE "user", I had to register to make this comment.
What is the intrinsic value of any userless software project? What is the point of working so bloody hard on something that you don't care (indeed, prefer) isn't actually "used"?
I'm not buying the damage control, either. Jason said his piece succinctly, and several others have posted, trying to soothe, massage, and spin the message. But the post is what it is.
We don't need users.
I *think* Jason is severely frustrated by the utterly absurd criticisms lobbed recently at the very hard working KDE4 crew, lately, of all things, over what order KDE4 was listed in the OpenSuSE DVD, of all silly things.
Still, I'm reading... "We don't need users, poisonous or not..."
Sorry. I wouldn't know code if it was a snake and bit me. I've evangelized KDE for years at my company, though, and so far, starting with people who'd never HEARD of Linux, 2 people contribute to OpenSuSE KDE, one writes KDE games for children, one is coding a massive Bible project written in QT just for KDE, and a co-worker's niece is going to be doing some nice Summer of Code work. Unfortunately for the project, though, I've probably gotten 50 or 60 people over the years to simply, quietly, and happily enjoy (leach) off of your group's unparalleled work.
So, I guess in the end, I've ended up as a liability. I haven't directly contributed, so I'm "just a user", and the amount of coders I've introduced to the project through my rather nice connections is vastly outweighed by the amount of unskilled "users" who simply use your software
In all of my years of using Linux, I've read some pretty bad posts. I've survived the Gentoo boards. But this is probably the first one that ever made me check my CD case to make sure my Windows XP install CD was still there
I may despise nearly everything they ethically stand for, but Microsoft sure as hell needs "users"
KDE4 -- vs -- KDE 3.5.x
There are many, many problems with KDE 4. The major problem is that it is a radical departure from the standard desktop that people have gotten use to. Actually KDE 4 uses an OLD idea first developed by Microsoft during Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 Windows For Workgroups (Windows 3.11 WFW) and that idea is the concept of Windows within Windows . Regardless of what you want to call it -- be it "containers", "windows" or some other word of your choosing -- the Plasma idea is highly dependent upon the Windows within Windows concept. People were not keen about it when M$ introduced it in Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 WFW and was one of the reasons why M$ went with the "New Desktop" look in Win '95 and all subsequent versions. People have gotten use to the concept of a "Desktop". KDE 4 MAY be a giant leap forward, but right now it is still very much a work in progress which was and has been over promoted, over hyped, yet under performed.. and in the process upset many, many USERS . I have no idea why the KDE devels can't make it so those who want a plain ol' vanilla Desktop upon which they can then put app icons from which they can then launch said apps can't have that plain ol' Desktop. Why does EVERYTHING have to be in a "container .. including the "Ol' Skool" look?!? Supposedly that is the ol' school Desktop, but it too is within a cursed "container' that can then be shrunk down to an icon... on the Desktop!!!
The way that the release and inclusion of KDE 4 in various distros has been handled is an outrage to many, many users. I am absolutely sure that KDE 4 will be widely adopted -- and imitated over and over -- but the way it has been introduced... well lets say you got what was coming to you, now you need to find various ways to repair the self inflicted damage.
dichotomies
there's an interesting either/or going on in this thread: passive users versus contributors.
everyone in this thread has valid points thus far, imho: without contributors it doesn't matter how many users there are. period. the flip side is that a user base helps to accrue contributors.
so one really wants *both*, but the reason is that it provides the ultimate value to the project: contributors. so, again, we come back to contributors being the value here, and then back to users being a source of them (by many avenues: recruitment, market demand, word of mouth promotion, etc)
so it's not really a question about "users *or* developers". the question is: "what happens when people start chasing away contributors?" in the case of KDE, and the free software desktop in generally actually, the word "start" is misleading: it's been happening for many, many years. ever wonder why, for example, the founding individual behind KDE doesn't work on KDE (only Qt) now? i can give quite a (sad) roll call of such individuals.
when there's a *choice* forced upon the project between people (users or contributors!) and the health of the contributing community, then one needs to choose, something KDE (and much of the free software desktop) has *not* been doing, to the detriment of the contributing community.
and the choice is really just about users who are indeed poisonous. Alex asks for people to stop referring to others as being poisonous, well .. the vast majority aren't, but some are and they are (and have been for years) laying waste to those who contribute.
so while discussing all this, please keep in mind that it isn't about all users or all contributors .. it's about all people who have less than "nothing" to add, it's about those who actively work at the destruction of the contributing community. usually they do so unwittingly, without understanding and often with hopes of actually improving things. which is why reasoning with such people is really not useful. the rest of the community needs to route around such people, cut them out of the discussion entirely if need be, so that we can get back to doing what we want to:
enjoy interacting with others, both contributors and "just" users.
the principle to keep in mind, however, is what i think this blog entry was trying to get at: that which erodes the contributing community is not in the best interest of anyone, including those who are not direct contributors.
There's one last way that
There's one last way that simply using KDE helps it: sponsorship. If KDE wasn't being used by a lot of people, would TT have opened Qt? NO! If KDE wasn't being used by a lot of people, would any company sponsor it's development? NO!
Sorry, but I have to
//edit: Your clarification sounds much more like something I would have expected.
Sorry, but I have to register for a comment ...
I had been KDE User for years and I am very disappointed when reading this attitude. I am reporting bugs from time to time and spending some money each year on KDE projects that made (after my opinion) a good work. I try to encourage other people to try and use KDE, but I am not feeling like a "contributor". I am also not sure, if it makes sense after all to create a border between these groups of USERS. At least you are saying that old woman next door is not a welcome user, because she is just using it? If this is the new attitude of KDE, I am not anymore on the train.
What's currently up with some developers? There are lot of people that are not happy with the current direction. Not only in the dot, but also in general linux distribution forums. Most times it is not just the "big picture" they are not happy with, but small details. For example, a lot of people are complaing about not beeing able to move widgets in the panel. Or to have editing files to change the order of the favorites in the kickstart panel. Setting all this users on the same level as some trolls is the best way to get rid of lots of users... and at least for me (and hopefull most other KDE developers) they are part of the community.
It something like saying: "I hate children, but it would be nice, if they would pay someday for me!". This question is not by age, but after experience level. Bug triages might make out of users contributors. A pledge will bring money from users that never make any contribution at all. Don't think that contributors are falling from heaven weaking up one day saying "I will help KDE!". Most of the uses them for a while before ... how to you think they will react when reading such an post? Become more active? Won't bet ...
"There are lot of people
"There are lot of people that are not happy with the current direction. Not only in the dot, but also in general linux distribution forums. Most times it is not just the "big picture" they are not happy with, but small details. For example, a lot of people are complaing about not beeing able to move widgets in the panel. Or to have editing files to change the order of the favorites in the kickstart panel."
Do you mean people are unhappy with the direction of KDE 4 in general, the big picture, or are they mainly unhappy with the small details?
From what I can see many people miss small details and missing features and regressions vs KDE 3.5.9. What is 'up' with some contributors at the moment is that there is a small but vocal group of non-contributors who take this set of small details and interpret it as evidence that KDE 4 is seriously going in the wrong direction, even inventing explanations ("Plasma is taking away our icons and forcing us to work differently" "KDE only cares about eye candy and wacky features now"). This interpretation is false but the effort of countering it repeatedly and the demoralising effect it has have upset some contributors. They are not against all users, just the scaremongers and the-sky-is-falling types.
Who is a contributor
If you actively participate by reporting bugs from time to time and even spending money on certain KDE projects then there is no doubt that you are indeed a contributor.
In order to contribute, it's not necessary to invest large amounts of time and become an expert in some area, or even blog on KDE. Small contributions by a large number of different people just as well make a difference.
So no, don't label yourself as "only" a user just because you're not being involved with KDE's development process itself - we do certainly need people like you. Nobody is expected to do more than they feel is suited.
users are contributors
Hi Jason,
I am very disappointed by this attitude. I have been a avid KDE fan all along making very little contribution except to promote it to few other friends ( more users!). With the advent of KDE 4 I have now started making bug reports. The change has been slow.
What better example than Firefox to illustrate the power of users ? It was the mass effect that has made such a change in the way most web developers now try to design standards based websites. If it was just a few thousand devolopers using Firefox do you think Firefox would have had any impact ?
I understand that inspite of such a great effort by you guys there has been some unjustifiable bashing. But hey that's what happens when you promote a radical new idea even if it happens to be very good. Patience bears fruit.
Karthik