←back to thread

Free software scares normal people

(danieldelaney.net)
917 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | 30 Oct 25 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
squeedles ◴[30 Oct 25 16:12 UTC] No.45761639[source]▶
Good article, but the reasoning is wrong. It isn't easy to make a simple interface in the same way that Pascal apologized for writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one.

Implementing the UI for one exact use case is not much trouble, but figuring out what that use case is difficult. And defending that use case from the line of people who want "that + this little extra thing", or the "I just need ..." is difficult. It takes a single strong-willed defender, or some sort of onerous management structure, to prevent the interface from quickly devolving back into the million options or schizming into other projects.

Simply put, it is a desirable state, but an unstable one.

replies(22): >>45761688 #>>45761787 #>>45761946 #>>45762556 #>>45763000 #>>45763132 #>>45763419 #>>45763515 #>>45764215 #>>45765589 #>>45766183 #>>45766281 #>>45768514 #>>45769691 #>>45771196 #>>45771307 #>>45771846 #>>45772026 #>>45773411 #>>45773951 #>>45776266 #>>45779651 #
dayvid ◴[30 Oct 25 16:15 UTC] No.45761688[source]▶
The contributors of free software tend to be power users who want to ensure their use case works. I don't think they're investing a lot of thought into the 80/20 use case for normal/majority or users or would risk hurting their workflow to make it easier for others
replies(4): >>45761808 #>>45763689 #>>45764090 #>>45774820 #
zeroq ◴[30 Oct 25 16:25 UTC] No.45761808[source]▶
> contributors of free software tend to be power users

or, simply put, nerds

it takes both a different background, approach and skillset to design ux and interface

if anything FOSS should figure out how to attract skilled artists so majority of designs and logos doesn't look so blatantly amateurish.

replies(6): >>45761885 #>>45761961 #>>45761973 #>>45763079 #>>45766506 #>>45766954 #
WD-42 ◴[30 Oct 25 16:37 UTC] No.45761973[source]▶
My guess is that, as has always been, the pool of people willing to code for free on their own time because it's fun is just much larger than the people willing to make icons for software projects on their own time because they think it's fun.
replies(4): >>45762137 #>>45762256 #>>45762872 #>>45779699 #
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[30 Oct 25 17:48 UTC] No.45762872[source]▶
Graphic designers and artists get ripped off, all the time; frequently, by nerds, who tend to do so, in a manner that insults the value of the artist's work.

It's difficult to get those kinds of creatives to donate their time (trust me on this, I'm always trying).

I'm an ex-artist, and I'm a nerd. I can definitively say that creating good designs, is at least as difficult as creating good software, but seldom makes the kind of margin that you can, from software, so misappropriation hurts artists a lot more than programmers.

replies(3): >>45763151 #>>45763230 #>>45770109 #
some_furry ◴[30 Oct 25 18:11 UTC] No.45763151[source]▶
This is a weird thread for me to read, as someone who a) works primarily with developer tooling (and not even GUI tooling, I write cryptography stuff usually!), b) is very active in a vibrant community of artists that care about nerd software projects.

I don't, as a rule, ever ask artists to contribute for free, but I still occasionally get gifted art from kind folks. (I'm more than happy to commission them for one-off work.)

Artists tragically undercharge for their labor, so I don't think the goal should be "coax them into contributing for $0" so much as "coax them into becoming an available and reliable talent pool for your community at an agreeable rate". If they're enthusiastic enough, some might do free work from time to time, but that shouldn't be the expectation.

replies(2): >>45763190 #>>45764027 #
galagawinkle489 ◴[30 Oct 25 19:11 UTC] No.45764027[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>45764131 #>>45764457 #>>45764684 #>>45764962 #
some_furry ◴[30 Oct 25 19:46 UTC] No.45764457[source]▶
> 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?"

replies(1): >>45764900 #
Dylan16807 ◴[30 Oct 25 20:25 UTC] No.45764900[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>45765175 #
some_furry ◴[30 Oct 25 20:51 UTC] No.45765175[source]▶
Because programmers consent to programming for free. That fact does not, in any way, obligate anyone else to.
replies(2): >>45765275 #>>45765961 #
Dylan16807 ◴[30 Oct 25 20:58 UTC] No.45765275[source]▶
The question/skepticism is why the programmers are consenting to this but not the artists.
replies(3): >>45765643 #>>45765697 #>>45774466 #
some_furry ◴[30 Oct 25 21:33 UTC] No.45765643{3}[source]▶
Why aten't programmers drawing furry porn?

It's really not deep.

replies(1): >>45765699 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[30 Oct 25 21:40 UTC] No.45765699{4}[source]▶
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.