Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 10, 2004 01:43 AM
Let's say I am running some software that has usability problems.
If that software is Open Source, then I or someone else can improve the software, and fix the usability problems.
But if that software is closed source, then all I can do is cross my fingers and hope that the publisher will fix the problems, rather than make them worse.
In other words, given the choice between an application that is somewhat more usable, and an Open Source alternative, I will choose the Open Source alternative, because the Freedom that I gain will eventually also give me the best usability.
Let's look at some examples...
Over the years, the Linux kernel has become faster, and more usable, Mozilla has become faster and more usable, Apache has become faster and more usable, and so on. In fact, I can't think of an Open Source product that reached maturity, and then went backwards in terms of usability.
On the other hand...
When Microsoft made changes to DOS that caused Geoworks to break, I lost the use of Geoworks. I couldn't fix it, and Microsoft had driven Geoworks out of business.
When Microsoft made changes to the Windows API that cause AmiPro to break, I lost the use of AmiPro, my favorite word processor. I couldn't fix it, and when Lotus eventually came out with a replacement, WordPro, it was not as good.
When Microsoft added links to the Windows file system, they didn't change the Windows 3.1 file manager to match. Thus I lost the use of my favorite file manager. Sure, Windows Explorer had advantages, but it didn't have the feature I considered most important, namely, side-by-side directory listings.
When Microsoft changed to an MDI interface in Word 95, I lost the ability to view multiple documents in different windows. In effect, Word had gone backwords to a Windows-1.0-style interface. Now, five years later (and too late for me), Word 2000 has gone back to an SDI-only interface, and other people are upset about that. Contrast that to Mozilla, which added a tabbed interface, yet still allows you to have multiple Windows open as well.
Windows Internet Explorer has stagnated for five years, while other browsers have added modern features, improved standards support, and so on. But no one can do anything about it except hope that Microsoft will eventuall improve IE.
Microsoft propaganda notwithstanding, most of my friends consider Windows ME and XP to be a step backwards in usability from Windows 95/98. But they can't do anything about it. They also can't continue to use Windows 95/98, because Microsoft won't fix any new security holes that crop up, nor can they work together to fix the security holes for themselves, because Windows isn't Open Source.
And when DRM and Palladium are integrated into Windows, it may make Microsoft and the RIAA happy, but it will be a step backwards in usability for Windows users.
In conclusion...
Open Source tends to guarantee continuous improvement in usability. If one developer tries to introduce a change that reduces usability, then other developers will reject that change, and introduce better changes.
But with closed source, as often as a product might improve, that product can also stagnate, go backwards, or stop working altogether, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The Freedom of Open Source guarantees me usability over the long run., whereas a closed source product that is usable today might not be tomorrow.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Usability versus Freedom
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2004 01:43 AMIf that software is Open Source, then I or someone else can improve the software, and fix the usability problems.
But if that software is closed source, then all I can do is cross my fingers and hope that the publisher will fix the problems, rather than make them worse.
In other words, given the choice between an application that is somewhat more usable, and an Open Source alternative, I will choose the Open Source alternative, because the Freedom that I gain will eventually also give me the best usability.
Let's look at some examples...
Over the years, the Linux kernel has become faster, and more usable, Mozilla has become faster and more usable, Apache has become faster and more usable, and so on. In fact, I can't think of an Open Source product that reached maturity, and then went backwards in terms of usability.
On the other hand...
When Microsoft made changes to DOS that caused Geoworks to break, I lost the use of Geoworks. I couldn't fix it, and Microsoft had driven Geoworks out of business.
When Microsoft made changes to the Windows API that cause AmiPro to break, I lost the use of AmiPro, my favorite word processor. I couldn't fix it, and when Lotus eventually came out with a replacement, WordPro, it was not as good.
When Microsoft added links to the Windows file system, they didn't change the Windows 3.1 file manager to match. Thus I lost the use of my favorite file manager. Sure, Windows Explorer had advantages, but it didn't have the feature I considered most important, namely, side-by-side directory listings.
When Microsoft changed to an MDI interface in Word 95, I lost the ability to view multiple documents in different windows. In effect, Word had gone backwords to a Windows-1.0-style interface. Now, five years later (and too late for me), Word 2000 has gone back to an SDI-only interface, and other people are upset about that. Contrast that to Mozilla, which added a tabbed interface, yet still allows you to have multiple Windows open as well.
Windows Internet Explorer has stagnated for five years, while other browsers have added modern features, improved standards support, and so on. But no one can do anything about it except hope that Microsoft will eventuall improve IE.
Microsoft propaganda notwithstanding, most of my friends consider Windows ME and XP to be a step backwards in usability from Windows 95/98. But they can't do anything about it. They also can't continue to use Windows 95/98, because Microsoft won't fix any new security holes that crop up, nor can they work together to fix the security holes for themselves, because Windows isn't Open Source.
And when DRM and Palladium are integrated into Windows, it may make Microsoft and the RIAA happy, but it will be a step backwards in usability for Windows users.
In conclusion...
Open Source tends to guarantee continuous improvement in usability. If one developer tries to introduce a change that reduces usability, then other developers will reject that change, and introduce better changes.
But with closed source, as often as a product might improve, that product can also stagnate, go backwards, or stop working altogether, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The Freedom of Open Source guarantees me usability over the long run., whereas a closed source product that is usable today might not be tomorrow.
#