Free software scares normal people

Why should they work for pay on free software? Nobody expects to be paid to work on the software itself. Yet artists expect to be treated differently.

If it is your job, then go do it as a job. But we all have jobs. Free software is what we do in our free time. Artists don't seem to have this distinction. They expect to be paid to do a hobby.

It's just more common for artists to do small commission work on the side of a real job. 30 dollars for something is basically a donation or tip in my view, and the community can crowd fund for it the same way bug bounties work I think?

> Yet artists expect to be treated differently.

Because it's a different job!

Your post is like asking, "Why is breathing free but food costs money?"

You know that (some) people get paid to work on free software, right?

Either you're implying that people should code for free, or your analogy is so vague as to be useless.

Yeah it's a different job but they're both jobs. Why should one be free and one not be free?

Doing a pro graphic design treatment is lot more than just "drawing a few pictures," and picking a color palette.

It usually involves developing a design language for the app, or sometimes, for the whole organization (if, like the one I do a lot of work for, it's really all about one app). That's a big deal.

Logo design is also a much more difficult task than people think. A good logo can be insanely valuable. The one we use for the app I've done a lot of work on, was a quick "one-off," by a guy who ended up running design for a major software house. It was a princely gift.

Because programmers consent to programming for free. That fact does not, in any way, obligate anyone else to.

The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.

> Doing a pro graphic design treatment is lot more than just "drawing a few pictures," and picking a color palette.

Are you quoting someone? Yeah it's a real job, and so is programming. I don't think anyone in this conversation is being dismissive about either job.

Why aten't programmers drawing furry porn?

It's really not deep.

I suspect some of this is due to the fact that the programmers consenting to do free work already have well-paying jobs, so they have the freedom and time to pursue coding as a hobby for fun as well. Graphic designers and UX designers are already having a hard time getting hired for their specific skills and getting paid well for it, so I imagine it's insulting to be asked to do it for free on top of that.

That said, I don't think it's as simple as that. Coding is a kind of puzzle-solving that's very self-reinforcing and addictive for a certain type of person. Coders can't help plugging away at a problem even if they're not at the computer. Drawing, on the other hand, requires a lot more drudgery to get good, for most people anyway, and likely isn't as addictive.

I dispute that claim but it doesn't answer the question. When you have multiple people involved in the community of an open source project, what makes them decide where to contribute, and what makes them decide if they'll use marketable skills for free or not? I think it's an interesting thing to look into.

Programming is a big deal too.

It’s not like graphic design is harder than programming.

I’d rather have crappy graphics than pay designers instead of programmers for free oss.

Wouldn’t designers consent to designing for free?

This seems like a self selection problem. It’s not about forcing people to work for free. It’s about finding designers willing to work for free (just like everyone else on the project).

You'd be surprised, then, to know that a lot of programmers think graphic design is easy (see the other comment, in this thread), and can often be quite dismissive of the vocation.

As a programmer, working with a good graphic designer can be very frustrating, as they can demand that I make changes that seem ridiculous, to me, but, after the product ships, makes all the difference. I've never actually gotten used to it.

That's also why it's so difficult to get a "full monty" treatment, from a designer, donating their time.

> see the other comment

Which other comment?

If you mean the one saying it's not harder than programming, that's not calling it easy.

It can be a lot harder. Programming, these days, isn't always that hard.

Very different skillset. There was a comment about how ghastly a lot of software-developed graphical assets can be.

Tasteful creativity does not grow on trees.

"can be" makes it a very different statement. Either one "can be" a lot harder than the other, depending on the task. The statement above is about typical difficulty.

And even if they're wrong about which one is typically harder, they weren't saying it was easy, and weren't saying it was significantly easier than programming.

I believe it's more nuanced than that. Artists, like programmers, aren't uniformly trained or skilled. An enterprise CRUD developer asks different questions and proposes different answers compared to an embedded systems dev or a compiler engineer.

Visual art is millennia older and has found many more niches, so, besides there being a very clear history and sensibility for what is actually fundamental vs industry smoke and mirrors, for every artist you encounter, the likelihood that their goals and interests happen to coincide with "improve the experience of this software" is proportionately lower than in development roles. Calling it drudgery isn't accurate because artists do get the bug for solving repetitive drawing problems and sinking hours into rendering out little details, but the basic motive for it is also likely to be "draw my OCs kissing", with no context of collaboration with anyone else or building a particular career path. The intersection between personal motives and commerce filters a lot of people out of the art pool, and the particular motives of software filters them a second time. The artists with leftover free time may use it for personal indulgences.

Conversely, it's implicit that if you're employed as a developer, that there is someone else that you are talking to who depends on your code and its precise operation, and the job itself is collaborative, with many hands potentially touching the same code and every aspect of it discussed to death. You want to solve a certain issue that hasn't yet been tackled, so you write the first attempt. Then someone else comes along and tries to improve on it. And because of that, the shape of the work and how you approach it remains similar across many kinds of roles, even as the technical details shift. As a result, you end up with a healthy amount of free-time software that is made to a professional standard simply because someone wanted a thing solved so they picked up a hammer.

Programming well requires taste and creativity. A different type, but no less rare than taste and creativity in "arty" fields.

Exactly. It's amazing how we, as programmers, can demand that others recognize that, for us, but we, ourselves, refuse to give the same respect, in regards to other fields.

The same can be said for any vocation that generates a product. An expertly-crafted duck decoy can have the same level of experience and skill, as a database abstraction.

I have had the privilege to work with some of the top creatives, as well as scientists and engineers, in the world, and have seen the difference.

> It usually involves developing a design language for the app, or sometimes, for the whole organization (if, like the one I do a lot of work for, it's really all about one app). That's a big deal.

> Logo design is also a much more difficult task than people think. A good logo can be insanely valuable. The one we use for the app I've done a lot of work on, was a quick "one-off," by a guy who ended up running design for a major software house. It was a princely gift.

A lot of developers also tend to invest quite an insane amount of work into their preferred open-source project and they do know how complicated their work is, and also how insane the value is that they provide for free.

So, where is the difference?

Open source/Free software communities are comprised of programmers. People love to help their communities. Sometimes a community contains some artists, but this condition is rare. e.g., Inkscape have some good picture when user open it.

There isn't any.

That's my point.