Just look, for instance, at FPGAs: almost all the tooling is proprietary, very expensive, and very buggy too. Or look at PCB design: Altium seems to be the standard here still, despite Kicad having made huge advances and by most accounts being as good or even better. It took decades (Kicad started in 1992) for the FOSS alternatives here to really catch on much, and only really because PCBs became cheap enough for hobbyists to design and construct their own (mainly because of Chinese PCB companies), and because CERN contributed some resources.
I'm not sure what the deal is with engineers hating collaboratively-developed and freely-available software, but it's a real thing in my experience. It's like someone told them that FOSS is "socialism" and they just reflexively dismiss or hate it.
Most of the incredibly well used robust open source packages are sponsored by large tech companies. The embedded space just hasn't had that kind of sponsorship.
Anyone who sincerely thinks GIMP can replace Photoshop or is otherwise good will never understand why professionals eschew open source software when there's work that needs doing.
One of the reasons chefs rarely have anything to do with cookbooks they write past the initial set of recipes is because it’s really hard to see things from an inexpert perspective. People ask us things like “how long do I cook [something] and we often have no idea how to answer that question. Knowing how much that can change depending on the heat source, initial ingredient temperature, how long it’s been unrefrigerated, the water content of the pieces you’ve got, the shape of the pieces, etc etc etc, we just say “uh, until it’s done?” But it takes a lot of skill and experience to realize when most things you need to cook are done, so recipe developers and cookbook writers do a ton of testing to figure out about how long it takes to get you 80% of the way there and then give some simple ways to approximately gauge doneness in that context. If they’d learn a few simple things that “aren’t that hard”, they’d have precise, bang-on results like I do, every time. But unless you cook the same things so the time, you’d need to repeat that across all of the different cooking scenarios that require specialized knowledge. Chefs run into that because people want us to tell them how to cook things all the time, so the skill gap is apparent, and we see the value in someone who knows how to address that. It was never really shown to me like that as a developer, so I see why so many get stuck in the “come on, it’s not that hard” mindset, generally.
Interface design is conceptually harder, because you need to really consider many skill levels that have different needs. The answer isn’t developers reading some article to “make nicer looking interfaces” or “dumb things down”— which we’ll just piss people off in the end and many of them will be developers assuming it’s an interface designer’s fault. The answer is to deliberately enfranchise designers into the FOSS process to figure out who would benefit from the software, and make an interface that can serve everyone’s needs: inexpert and advanced users alike, if that make sense. You do not have remove advanced functionality to make it useful to non-developer users.
So the first step is to put aside the dev nerd machismo for a minute and recognize that designers serve a crucial purpose that isn’t “dumbing things down” or “making things look nice” and that most developers have no idea how to do it themselves. Once that’s a thing, figuring out how to enfranchise designers into FOSS will be the next step.
Having said that, no one owes anyone anything. If Emacs wants to be a power tool, let it. I don't expect a construction crane to be safe and easy for me to operate.
Everyone takes many of the interfaces they use for granted. I certainly do-- I regularly take my phone's simple, clean mail client for granted despite my first mail client being mutt, but it's really, really clean and gives far more features than mutt ever could. (And a phone is one of the few places I would not prefer using vim style editing.) Having had hundreds of discussions with dozens of developers about interface design, I can assure you that they are no different. It's just that developers often have competing needs in software projects, so it turns into a point of contention. In a regular development organization, the product manager or whoever has the final say. In FOSS projects, the maintainers do. If they're not keenly aware of how much more valuable a good, expertly defined interface brings to a piece of software, they're going to make a worse piece of software, unnecessarily. I've served in both roles professionally and have seen these issues from both sides, many times. An organization controlled by designers would probably be even worse.
So with the amount of shit I've had slung at me when acting as a software designer, I think what I wrote is a pretty measured addition to a conversation that is very important to me. I see most end-user-facing FOSS software getting absolutely no adoption among non-technical users because it sucks for them to use, and I see a lot of developers not entirely sure why that is and coming up with a bunch of folk explanations like "commercial software has advertising" or "their version is dumbed down and looks pretty and end users are dumb and refuse to read docs." I've got important insight into the real reasons why, and as someone that's probably contributed 10k hours of my time to writing FOSS code (admittedly, some of it was paid,) I think I'm entirely justified in sharing it. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear why, but even if you're not interested in explaining why, I respect your stance on the matter.
I apologize if I bothered you with my wording or even just the what I was expressing (seriously), generally, but I failed to bring attention to these ideas presenting them meekly. The Mastodon situation is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to prevent. Not only did Mastodon repel a giant influx of users with it's usability problems-- big and small-- it gave many, if not most of those users the impression that FOSS software is weird, confusing, and exclusively for nerds, and that's the sort of thing that's going to keep open source alternatives alternative instead of having commercial alternatives to the default, free option.
> Everyone takes many of the interfaces they use for granted.
For example, I've seen many people in the HN comments over the years cite the HN interface as evidence that interfaces are better without designers involved, or something similar. In reality, HN has some of the best interface design out there. It does exactly what it needs to do, simply and intuitively, is much easier to visually orient yourself and navigate than a paged forum discussion, despite being compact it's completely obvious where individual elements begin and end using implied lines, type hierarchy, and gestalt rather than adding a bunch of boxes and lines, works great on multiple screen sizes, needs nearly no documentation beyond policy docs... it's a brilliant, clean, polished interface. It even keenly takes its audience into account-- many end users would be fatigued by the loooong lines of text when you fully expand the window and generally prefer a limited width for text blocks, but users that look at a computer text all day long prefer the flexibility of stretching out the lines horizontally to reduce the vertical footprint and get more on their screen at once. That doesn't just happen-- it was deliberately designed that way. Good interface design is very different from good branding and identity design, or similar-- it should be invisible. The choices should seem natural, or even obvious... but how many sites were set up like HN before HN did it? Compare it to Slashdot, the gold standard when HN got up-and-running. HN is incomparably cleaner and more focused on its core use case, even though it has fewer features and visible controls, which is usually what developers lament the lack of. HN is a great mix between newsgroup/email chain type visuals worked into a forum format, and I hadn't seen anyone else doing that. Many of the interfaces we use that look obviously designed and function poorly were either made by purely visual designers, or developers trying to make something look "designed" and using inspo from dribbbbble or whatever. Beautiful looking is quite distinct from optimally usable, and interface designers generally concentrate almost entirely on the latter.