On Dec 6, 2007 1:08 PM, Kyle Klipowicz <
kyleklip@gmail.com> wrote:
And this is precisely the unfortunate reason why the open source world
will (almost) always lag behind the commercial world of consumer
software. When developers make their bread and butter based upon if
the consumer buys, they're more likely to pay attention to and
implement the wishes of their users. Take Ableton. They actively parse
their online forums for feature requests...and then implement them
when a critical mass is reached.
There are some exceptions in the FOSS world. Ubuntu is quite user
friendly (with the support of a large endowment from a very wealthy
organization with a charter specifically devoted to bringing Linux to
the non-programmer set of the world). Firefox is giving IE a run for
it's money (although the primary codebase from FF comes from the old
commercial, closed source Netscape).
I know that Hans' statement re everyone becoming a developer is true
in theory, but in reality people who want to rapidly prototype a
project with something like Pd or Max are using these applications
precisely because they do not want to code in C.
After reading Marius' post re GEM vs. Jitter, it is painfully apparent
that the capitalist/consumer model of software engineering has a few
aspects to it that are difficult for the FOSS community to compete
with. Namely monetary and human resources and the external pressure to
meet the requests of the user in order to ensure a continuous flow of
financial support. When you code for a hobby or yourself, it is
difficult or even impossible to be bothered with these things, and
rightly so. Without compensation, there's often little scope (or time)
outside one's own projects for developers in the FOSS world. This is
unfortunate, but as I see it, true.
Question is, what can be done to change this or compete? Or should Pd
just become the thing that hobbyist programmers use, while Max takes
the stage as the "serious" tool for rapidly prototyping interactive
A/V artworks? I hope that this is not the case...
No flames meant in this mail, just compassionate thought-mulling.
~Kyle