[miki123211]

Attitudes like these is why non-developers don't want to use open source software.

These concerns may not matter to you, the developer, but they absolutely matter to end-users.

If your prospective user can't find the setup.exe they just downloaded, they won't be able to use your software. If your conversion and onboarding sucks, they'll get confused and try the commercial offering instead. If you don't gather analytics and A/B test, you won't even know this is happening. If you're not the first result on Google, they'll try the commercial app first.

Users want apps that work consistently on all their devices and look the same on both desktop and mobile, keep their data when they spill coffee on the laptop, and let them share content on Slack with people who don't have the app installed. Open source doesn't have good answers to these problems, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot even further.

[satvikpendem]

This presupposes that the OSS creator even wants users in the first place, which might not always be the case as it could be personal software; and that these users actually want these features, as many do not want analytics, ads, and A/B tests in your app.

[janalsncm]

I guess in the same way that one might presuppose a boat wants water?

If a piece of software doesn’t have users and the developers don’t care about the papercuts they are delivering, I would argue what they have created is more of an art project than a utility.

[notarobot123]

Science research without obvious practical application can still be important and valuable.

Art works without popular appeal can become highly treasured by some.

Open source software doesn't have to be ambitious to be worthwhile and useful. It can be artful, utilitarian or a artifact of play. Commercial standards shouldn't be the only measure of good software.

[satvikpendem]

It's more like building your own boat then someone else coming along and saying it'll never compete with a cruise ship because it doesn't have a water slide and endless buffet; sometimes, things in the same category can serve wholly different purposes.

[2ndorderthought]

If my user cannot install software in their own computer then I do not want their money. They have issues they need to work out on their own and they might be better off saving their money.

[rustcleaner]

>Attitudes like these is why non-developers don't want to use open source software.

Good! It's not for them! They can stay paypigs on subscription because they can't git gud!

[MarcelOlsz]

I'm a seasoned developer and I frequently come across OSS projects where I spend half an hour or more in "how the fuck do I actually use this"-land. A lot of developers need to take the mindset of writing the documentation for their non-tech grandma from the ground up.

[kelnos]

Or they can just, y'know, not do that. Because they don't owe you, or anyone, anything.

[MarcelOlsz]

Of course, but presumably if you're launching something you want people to adopt it so spend some time on documentation.

[kelnos]

Don't presume that. People release OSS for all sorts of reasons, and you cannot assume anything. You also are not owed or entitled anything. If a maintainer wants to do something, they will. If they don't, then they won't, even if that thing might net them more users. It's not for you to decide, or even gripe about.

[sharts]

LLMs to the rescue

[MarcelOlsz]

It's the principle.