Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by workedintheory 1804 days ago
The actual issue is a bit different than what is perceived.

This comes down to the actual definition of community.

Our priority is the contributor community and the user community as a WHOLE.

Of those complaining on Github and online, not a single one of them have contributed a single line of code to the project. Not even one.

Their complaints and concerns are also not very representative of the actual user community (1.2% of users are running Linux, while the overwhelming majority of complaints were from Linux users).

So, in addition to the contributor community and the user community as a whole, I do not see any other community.

There is this nebulous broader FOSS community that is often referred to. A group demanding to impose their version of idealogical purity on the project, yet not contributing a line of code.

But if they are not contributors and not representative of the actual user community... why should the project be forced to cater to the demands of 1.2% of the user base at the cost of convenience to the other 98.8% of users?

How absolutely insane would it be for any other software project to be beholden to 1.2% of their actual users?

Don't get me wrong, we are extremely committed to FOSS, and our motivations are actually quite ideological - we believe every creator deserves equal/free access to professional quality software.

The difference is our ideology is not the same as this very vocal minority that is primarily anti-corporate and whose demands limit capabilities for the overwhelming majority of users.

1 comments

Thanks for replying, Daniel, but your team seems to have a major culture issue regardless and I think the defensive and somewhat random/rambling tone of your comment clearly reflects that.

I run OSX/Tenacity, not a Linux user looking for idealogical purity - just a long-time user that sees a lot of red flags on the wall with your acquisitions. Your comments in the musescore-downloader project after the legal threat were simultaneously the first red flag I was made aware of and the first time I had heard of the "Muse Group".

For a director of strategy, your strategy and how you deal with the users and fans of the software/good will you've purchased seems less than ideal to this outside observer. Good will was generated by a long-term interaction between the community and the open-source project and you've managed to squander it and apparently continue to do so.

Again, which community are you talking about, exactly?

I only know of two - the contributor community and the actual user community.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I'm not part of your user community because I don't fit in your box and dislike the things your company has been doing. Honestly, I'm surprised that someone with your position in your organization has no idea how to communicate with people that use your software.

Regardless, this has cemented my transition to Tenacity and I'll be recommending to everyone in my circle to move on from Audacity. I hope one day you'll see how you and your company are poisoning the well, but I don't hold out a ton of hope that your company isn't suffering from a seriously rotten culture and inability to admit mistakes.

Anyways, in the unlikely event that anyone is actually reading this thread, marcan's comment [1] and the legal thread [2] was my first intro to the terrible way that Muse handles acquisitions and I haven't seen anything that suggests the company is handling things any better.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27005385 [2] https://archive.is/w8O3L