Some prominent GNOME users have made the shocking discovery that people generally don’t work without some kind of incentive.  This quote from one of the editorials cracks me up:

the software is released out there to be consumed by [innocent] people. So in both cases, there is some responsibility on what the user would expect out of a given application and in the case of Gnome, there are a few millions of users that developers should take into account. If these developers really don’t want user feedback, they should close down their bugzilla, stop offering their software freely (only use it for their own needs), stop sending press releases out and stop asking for donations on their front page. It’s as simple as that.

In other words, the fact that you give your work away for free isn’t good enough, if people actually like your work you have to change it to suit them.

I’m not one of those jackasses who’s going to say “if you want a feature, code it yourself”.  Not all users can or want to be hackers, especially as more and more Free/Open Source software hits the mainstream.  But there’s a simple solution:  find a hacker (programmer), and pay her/him to implement the features you want.  You get the feature you wanted, the hacker gets some extra cash, and the whole community gets the new feature for free.  Everybody wins.

I don’t understand why the concept of bounties for features never caught on in the Open Source world.  If anybody wants some feature implemented in a FOSS application, and they don’t mind spending a little money to get it, they’re welcome to contact me.

View All

11 Comments

  1. Time for you to set up a webpage advertising your services.

    1. That’s what I’m thinking…

      1. cool, a hired gun!

        hey, what is a FOSS application?

  2. your bounty idea is a cool one

    1. There used to be at least one site that was dedicated to just that, but it went under, sadly…

      1. why am i imagining an ebay listing “One additional feature for FOSS. Guaranteed debugged. I only accept Paypal.” 😛

  3. the phrase…

    “the software is out there to be consumed by [innocent] people” is interesting..

    Isn’t it closer to the truth.. (I assume that you are referring to freeware) that this stuff is offered up as a possible free gift???

    I mean.. isn’t this the same as people offering free food to the public, and then having someone say “well, I don’t really like the taste of this.. why are they giving this out if some of us aren’t going to like the taste…”

    sheesh… I download freeware and try it out.. and if it doesn’t work for me.. I go look for other stuff… Is that such a hassle???

    1. Re: the phrase…

      Nonetheless, this is how a lot of people think… it’s the logic of entitlement… some people think that ANY service, once it becomes sufficiently popular, should be regulated and made answerable to The People…

      Hate to swing back into politics with this, but it’s not that far removed from the line of thinking that says if companies offer their employees health insurance, then they MUST cover certain procedures…

      1. Re: the phrase…

        if companies offer their employees health insurance, then they MUST cover certain procedures…

        While I do not agree with the “moocher logic” mentioned earlier, that last point relates to a somewhat different issue. In the US, it is often prohibitively expensive to purchase health insurance separately from a plan sponsored by your employer. Not to mention that the cost of the “built-in” company-sponsored insurance is still being paid for, in part, with money that could be going toward your salary, no matter what. So, most people who’s employers offer health insurance are stuck with what their company’s plan offers. So it may not be unreasonable to treat health insurance like a public utility and demand that it meet certain basic requirements.

      2. Re: the phrase…

        yeah.. I’m opposed to such attitudes in principle.. although in the face of historical incidences of prejudice (and an internal belief in the importance of equality).. I can sometimes see the reasoning behind such views…

        Let me put it this way.. If companies offer health insurance–then they should offer it on a playing field that is equal for all of their employees.. i.e. they shouldn’t be able to do things like “well, whites can get health insurance, but blacks can’t or women can get it, but men can’t..” etc etc…

        Taking this into account.. if you are going to offer health insurance that is going to cover things like birth control–then there should be relatively equal options available for each sex…

        In producing software–the situation is somewhat analogous.. although not 100% since there isn’t an entirely equivalent relationship (in importance) between things like “features” of a software program and treatments for keeping you alive….

        Still.. I do agree that, given reasonable equivalence in treatments offered by any one plan to all individuals, that such plans should not be compelled to cover every possible treatment..

        i.e. just because you may want to drink and smoke and do intravenous drugs and have indiscrimate sex with strangers, does not mean that companies must have health insurance plans that automatically cover all possible necessary treatments of these things…

        of course.. usually this kind of problem is fixed by the different levels of support/cost of health insurance plans that are offered… for example–the health insurance for us grad students has a total liability limit.. after you exhaust that.. tough shit for you.. (which is okay by me.. since I do subscribe to certain levels of “triage”–that resources are limited in general.. and that often expending these resources all on just a few people might actually lead to greater deaths when they aren’t available for a far greater number of more minor injuries …

        Does this make sense?

        On a grand scale–I’m all for guaranteed health insurance for everyone–but I’m also hard-nosed enough to believe that you can specify limits on this health insurance–for example–free immunizations for all–free preventative check-ups for people each year–following the idea that an ounce of prevention..

        and if this can be done by private companies.. great.. but too often, these companies are not willing to step up to the plate–when they can instead just try to go for big profits from a smaller group of people… (This is what I see in the case of places like Texas vs Wisconsin… in Texas.. there is no state health insurance.. and the number of uncovered people by any insurance is huge…. and very costly to overall, because of the amount of catastrophic problems that arise… whereas in Wisconsin–we have basic “Badger care” which isn’t super–doctors treat you like shit, because they only get paid the real cost of their treatments plus a small profit (like 2-5%).. which they hate, because they could be making like 20-30% profit on you if you had private insurance… but this does solve a whole lot of problems earlier on… )

        and once I get rich enough to become part of the middle class again.. I am not going to have a problem paying enough taxes to support this system…

        Is it abused.. yes.. and I think that there might be ways to prevent this that are relatively inexpensive…but I’m open for suggestions..

Comments are closed.