Why are open source alternatives so bad? [video]
youtube.comOpen source is a programmer thing. And the blunt truth is that being a programmer doesn't mean you are particularly good at "design".
And design by a committee of programmers often isn't any real improvement. Just as an example, this is how you end up with a local desktop GUI running through the network stack.
In automotive terms, open source is kinda like a Russian military vehicle.
It's cheap and it may get you where you need to go but it can seem kinda industrial and unrefined, the gas mileage is poor and it's not really a joy to drive.
And consequently, you don't see too many of these on the highway.
> In automotive terms, open source is kinda like a Russian military vehicle.
The father of a highs school buddy had an old open top Soviet military jeep. He parked it in the streets.
He once told me it didn't have a key for the ignition. I asked if he wasn't worried about it getting stolen, seeing as it was open top and no keys needed to start it.
"Oh not at all. If they can figure out how to start it, they deserve it".
Apparently there was a 15 step ritual or something like that needed to get it to fire up.
He parked it in the streets.
*Parked* is probably where it was most comfortable.
Apparently there was a 15 step ritual or something like that needed to get it to fire up.
Kinda like trying to coax the graphics to match the max. resolution of a wide screen monitor with an open source OS.
And then if you do any updates you may be greeted with the opportunity to try it all over again.
https://freelinuxtutorials.com/configuring-ubuntu-linux-for-...
I wonder: why can't the open source alternatives just make a direct copy the original UI? I mean, if the feature isn't available, that's fine. But a consistent UI would at least increase engagement, reduce confusion, etc.