What Aspects of Open Source Projects Do You Avoid?

paulproteus writes "I'm a Debian developer and a part-time contributor to a few smaller projects. I do a lot of free software-y and open source-y things. Sometimes, though, I don't do them. I figure some other Slashdotters might have similar hang-ups — we contribute to a project, but there are parts that we really dread thinking about. So I wrote a post about having these hang-ups, and I made a place on the web to share how others can help your project. What are the parts that, in your projects, you would be relieved if someone else looked at for you?"

One thing I don't do is troublesome licenses

[carlhaagen]

In developing (I work with a company doing _mostly_ web-based applications; perl, php, asp, all that gibberish) I steer clear of projects and software with a troublesome license. I am very pro-open source, I am very pro-freedom, and I am very pro-FREE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE, so don't get the wrong idea, but I mainly steer clear of anything GPL when it comes to the point of including GPLd software in the projects I work with. Simply: it spells nothing but trouble to me. Please do discuss, debate, don't just f***ing go all nazi gpl/linux/grandma on this by modding it "troll".

Someone avoided performance optimizations

[paziek]

Someone avoided performance optimizations on openhatch.org
If you have tough time deciding if you should do those, ask slashdot - that will clear up things!

Re:irc.freenode.net

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument assumes that one is a Linux-on-the-desktop evangelist as opposed to someone who is quite content with how it is and doesn't care if the computer illiterate masses can't figure it out, and most certainly is not going to provide free tech support for them when they can't even read the fucking manual.

Re:irc.freenode.net

[ZackSchil]

The "app store" concept might help a lot in this regard.

Re:Ego

[Securityemo]

My CS undergrad program has UI design as an obligatory second year course.

Re:irc.freenode.net

[Snaller]

You could make documentation....

One of the reasons I avoid all this open source stuff is that most of it is badly documented, and quite often there is an almost hostile tone towards people "Just learn unix you scrubs" - no thank you.
If you want your stuff to be used by a lot make simple instructions and a userfriendly interface - if you just make it for your self feel free to ignore this.

Re:Ego

[acidrainx]

Exactly. I'm a professional UI developer and I used to contribute to open source software quite a bit back in the day. I don't contribute much these days mostly because of lack of free time to do so, but this was a major point of contention for me.

The biggest problem is that the programmers have trouble accepting advice for changes to the product they've poured their blood, sweat, and tears into. I've found for the most part that many open source projects are over complicated. One of the best ways to improve the usability of a product is to simplify it. You need to remove or conceal the features that are rarely used. Unfortunately, those features tend to be the hardest to implement, so the person who implemented it wants to make sure people know about it. It's not unexpected that they wouldn't be happy if you suggest that it be removed.

Re:Freedom is not binary

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, precisely. Did you actually *do* it?

You’ll get back the following:

@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.Incidentally, on my FreeBSD server at home it shows a bit more up to date code:

strings /usr/bin/ftp | grep California

@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Notice how the ftp in Windows predates the first copyright in FreeBSD. That copyright, 1985 also pre-dates the first open source version. The first open source version of BSD was Networking Release 1, which was released in 1989, and did in fact contain a 1989 copyright.

Re:irc.freenode.net

[Dorsai65]

One of the reasons I avoid all this open source stuff is that most of it is badly documented

THIS

IRC channels, wikis, blogs, mailing lists (and their archives), a set of web pages... none of these is a valid substitute for actual documentation that a user can actually find an answer in. Fine, if you feel the need to be high-tech, edgy, l33t, or whatever, make it a pdf or downloadable html pages. Do not force users to have to jump through any 'extra' hoops to try and get help with a problem they may be having. I'd also add:

• If you get some variation of the same question over and over again, you need to (better) explain it in the docs.
• If a user finds an actual bug, don't make them have to sign up for some service or other that they'll (hopefully) only need once (i.e. Bugzilla) to report it. Maybe have a [e-mail] to triage.
• CLEARLY provide SOME way to contact SOMEBODY actively involved with the project. Keep this updated if you don't want to be getting annoyed emails five years from now.
• If it's a Linux app, it would be kinda nice if it worked/looked good under ANY desktop, not just your personal favorite.

Re:Freedom is not binary

[man_of_mr_e]

While that's true, it's also galling when someone claims their software is "free" but you can't use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license [wikipedia.org]

"The term 'General Public Virus', or 'GNU Public Virus' (GPV), has a long history on the Internet, dating back to shortly after the GPL was first conceived.[3][4][5] Many BSD License advocates used the term derisively[6][7][8] in regards to the GPL's tendency to absorb BSD licensed code without allowing the original BSD work to benefit from it, while at the same time promoting itself as "freer" than other licenses."

Re:From a user perspective

[fm6]

Too true.

Hey! Unemployed tech writer here! Anybody got something juicy for me to work on? I particularly enjoy API references and programming guides.