Piestar

I am sure everyone by now has heard the phrase “The customer is always right” at some point in their lives.  The actual meaning though gets lost in translation a lot of the time and it is often taken to mean “The customer is allowed to be a dick” – which they aren’t*.  What it actually means is, “The customers opinion is always valid”.

The point of this is to try to keep your customers happy, and to listen to their concerns.  If a customer is not happy with something about your service or product no decent business would just tell them to ‘piss off’, instead they would try their best to address the customers concern and to try to prevent such occurances in the future.  For example if you sold a spade which the handle kept coming off you’d either replace the item or refund the customers money and, but more importantly, you’d try to identify the cause of the problem.

While often customer complaints are a one-off and usually end there, what is important is to keep a lookout for repeated complaints as they indicate a systemic problem.  For example in a restaurant if a certain dish gets sent back regularly you wouldn’t say that the customers have no taste, instead you’d look into what is in it and how it is made in an attempt to solve the issue entirely.

Customers vs FOSS

Take this blog from Preston Gralla for example.  He says that installing software that is not in the repo’s is too difficult and is holding back Linux adoption.  Not a new statement in the slightest, and one that I both agree with and am sure I have even said before.

It’s not even like he’s being an angry shouter like a lot of us embittered haters have become, he’s clearly following the ‘make every second paragraph praise’ approach which is required (as an offering to the Holy GNU) when writing any article that dares be critical of Linux.  Not that it helped him at all anyway.

He is a ‘customer’ of Ubuntu, just as I am and just as thousands of other people who no doubt share the same view are.  And while many people are about to say something pithy like “Linx doesn’t want you”, may I remind you of Ubuntu Bug #1 – Microsoft has majority marketshare – implying that Ubuntu actually wants customers.

Yet this guy says something that, to him, is an impediment to him using Ubuntu and immediately gets his head bitten off by a horde of angry Linux users who then post massive amounts of comments saying how he is wrong, calling him a shill, claiming he’s getting paid by MS, claiming that the site is fundamentally biased (despite it being home to the infamous SJVN) and generally denying that the problem he outlines could possibly exist, and it’s only because he’s either stupid, or being paid that he can come to such a conclusion.

The following two questions then get raised: Will this torrent of abuse somehow make him change his mind about his claim and realise that the problem he has suddenly isn’t a problem anymore?  And more importantly will he be more disposed to trying and promoting Linux after recieving those responses than before?

Or consider if you went into a bar and ordered a drink, and the drink tasted like cleaning fluid (or otherwise nasty) and you pointed this out to the bartender.  If he (and the other patrons) proceeded to call you an idiot moron you would simply not ever go back and tell all your friends about the bad experience (welcome to my blog!) rather than go ‘you’re right I am a moron’.

The customers complaints are always valid.  Calling them a moron and denying they have a complaint does solve the problem – you no longer have them as a customer.

Installing Software In Linux Sucks

Besides, he’s right.  It’s amusing that the community that touts ‘choice’ as it’s primary selling point presents the argument that he should just wait until the distro updates the repository, rather than be able to easily use new software straight off the bat.

When I was trying Linux I had endless issues with the software in the repo’s being massively out of date, and what do you expect?  You have tens of thousands of apps to track and keep up to date and it’s not even like the iPhone or Android app stores in that developers don’t necessarily submit new versions requiring the repo maintainers to find out when there has been an update (good luck with that).

In an ideal world the repo’s would be all you need (and communism would actually work) but in reality the system of repositorys needs to be supplemented by a system of manual installation in the cases where the software is out of date or simply unavailable.  And the brutal truth is Linux falls flat on it’s face here.

Manual Installation

Welcome to the quagmire that is manual software installation in Linux.  As soon as you’re outside the walled garden of vendor approved obsolete versions of software to be found in the repositories then you’re largely out of luck.

How often have you seen Microsoft being berated for making it’s own ’standards’ for things like word documents and protocols?  How many Linux evangelists have you seem complain that .docx and .doc are not compatible?  Yet these very same evangelists will argue ’till they are blue in the face that somehow multiple incompatible package formats and standard breaking distros is somehow a ‘good thing’ – usually under the guise of ‘choice’.

Hell, I’ve even written a post bashing the Windows software installation method and since this is technically an anti-Linux (and thus visited largely by Windows users) blog I should be getting angry posts saying how I am wrong, and an idiot, yet all I got was agreements and clarifications!  Yet if you say something as BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS as Linux needs a standardized package format you’ll get flamed to a crisp.

The Dead Parrot Horse

I am flogging a dead horse with my point but I think it deserves to be made (and flogged).  Being critical of Linux always reminds me of the Dead Parrot Sketch.  The community is largely unable to accept any** criticism as valid, no matter how obvious or problematic, with the first approach to user complaints to be to deny they exist, then to call the complainer an idiot troll.

This is what is holding Linux back from going mainstream – it’s the fact that the community simply doesn’t care about the needs or issues of the people they are trying to foist Linux upon.

The claims of ‘community development’ are a massive lie in that aside from posting the occasional bug reports (which you can do with closed source) anyone with a problem is abused and faces North Korean levels of censorship***.  You either take what the Linux cult gives you and be quiet, or you simply don’t use it.  Trying to contribute improvements and suggestions just gets you into trouble.

If you’re happy with Linux, sure use it.  If you’re not don’t even bother – it’s simply not worth it.

* Not if I am working there they aren’t

** I think one of the sources of my Ubuntuforums ban was due to an argument where I was trying to propose double clickable .deb files.

*** Preston, try to have the discussion on your blog post on a Linux forum (Ubuntuforums is a good choice) and see how fast the admins delete your post then ban you.

99 comments

Everyone’s favorite troll got me thinking again about the GPL and it’s claims of freedom and I think I have worked out another thing that makes me so uneasy about it.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing something under the GPL.  If you are committed to freedom then you’ll accept that people should have the freedom to use whatever license they please.  What is problematic is the popular view that somehow releasing your software under the GPL is somehow ‘ethical’, with some people even suggesting it should be a legal requirement for all software.

If you believe the revisionists they would tell you that ‘free’ is the natural state of software until companies (mainly Microsoft) came in and ruined everything by ‘closing’ the software and charging money, snatching software utopia out of the worlds hands in the process.

But the problem is this: Why is software the only thing covered by these fundamental freedoms?

Books, Software, Movies and Music are all technically the same thing, they are an infinitely reproducible product based upon human endeavour, differing from standard creations (such as making a chair) in that making 1,000,000 is almost as easy as making 10.  Only the first one took the time to make.

The ‘rights’ outlined in the GPL are not just the right to the source code – that is tangential to the issue.  The main ‘rights’ are for free modification and redistribution – If I receive any GPL’d software I am free to edit it and give it away for no cost.  The claims that ‘you can sell GPL’d software’ as a counter to a claim that it creates an unworkable business model are intellectually dishonest since you can only sell it once – after that you’ll be competing with free.

If I were to buy a new book by Iain Banks, should I have the right to edit, make copies and then give those copies away?  Should I demand the original document rather than the printed version as by not being able to do the above easily with a physical book my ‘freedoms’ are being compromised?  If I was to make this argument to most people who support the GPL as a vehicle for software progress I would be laughed at, but it is fundamentally the same thing.

The argument could be made that books are for entertainment, but education largely comes in book form.  Also there are no clear cut lines between media anymore.  If I draw a sapceship on paper, do you have the ‘freedom’ to take it and give it away?  What about if I make a 3D rendering of it?  What if I make the 3D rendering display as a runtime exe?  What if I make it interactive and flyable?  At what point do your ‘fundamental rights’ kick in and allow you to do whatever you want with it?

The belief is that if the GPL was enforced today then the world would be better off, and while true this fails to consider the future.  If these ‘freedoms’ applied to the world of literature then there would be a wealth of works suddenly made available for low or zero cost.  What would then happen though is the individuals who before were creating a livelihood on the sales of their creation would suddenly have no income and be forced to find other avenues for money and while some may be able to monetize their fame most others would not.  As a result you would get people like Stephen King working as shelf stackers in supermarkets rather than doing what they do well and sure, he can write in the evenings and weekends but he would only write a fraction of what he could under the previous system.

The ‘freedom’ model essentially pulls the rug out from under the system of rewarding artists that has worked for hundreds of years.  People claim that you can ’sell support’ and that it is just as profitable, but that is blatantly not true in many cases – only certain software can be made profitable.

I want a system where individuals with talent are able to do nothing but exercise that talent, rather than a system where they have to work mundane jobs to simply make a living and are only allowed to create greatness in the evenings and weekends.

44 comments

Around 17% of all traffic that reaches this blog is on the keyword ‘Gimp Sucks’.  Just throwing that out there.

I love the self delusion of the Gimp developers.  Look at their site under ‘contribute’:

“GIMP is Free Software and a part of the GNU Project. In the free software world, there is generally no distinction between users and developers. As in a friendly neighbourhood, everybody pitches in to help their neighbors. Please consider the time you give in assistance to others as payment.”

I’ve always thought there was a massive distinction between artists and developers.  I think what they meant to say is ‘unless you are a programmer we won’t listen to you or cater to your needs’.

Here’s a conversation I have over and over again:

Linux Zealot: You should use Linux, Windows sucks and is for morons.
Me: I need stuff which you don’t get on Linux like Photoshop
Linux Zealot: Use Gimp, it’s better than Photoshop plus it’s free!
Me: Gimp sucks, (insert pages of things that it can’t do here)
Linux Zealot: If you don’t like it don’t use it, stop complaining it’s free!

So to the people pushing Linux (and Gimp) onto users, you have two choices:

1. Shut up and stop promoting it (and calling people idiots for not using it) or…
2. Cater for the needs and desires of your userbase and own up to and address the flaws.

You can’t claim it’s better as well as telling people to not complain as it’s free.  As soon as you say it’s better and evangelise on this basis and it’s not actually better it just makes you a liar.  And if you evangelise on the basis that it’s better and people say it isn’t then their opinions are valid and should be listened to.  Also, telling people to ‘fix it yourself’ does not count.

As soon as you tell them they are, in fact, wrong and it is better* – as the Gimp** supporters love to do – then you have crossed the boundary between lies and self delusion.  Enjor your stay, the Ubuntuforums are first on the left.

* The usual excuse is ‘you are thinking in the ‘Microsoft’ way.  If you’d tried Emacs/VI/Latex before Word you’d find it just as easy’.  Or just plain old WorksForMe(tm).

** Oh, and the name is still embarassing, offensive and exclusionary.

72 comments

In a post over at Jerkface Playhouse he points out that with Google having it’s own browser (Chrome), and the Firefox deal about to expire, will Google continue to pay for their position as default search?

I think the answer would have to be a resounding Yes, because imagine if they didn’t and Microsoft then got Bing as default search* on Firefox?  I really hope it happens just because the fallout in the FOSS community would be hilarious** – can you even get Chrome on Linux yet?  Anyway I don’t think Google would allow this to happen so I am saying that the deal will probably be renewed.

* Firefox gets 85% of it’s cash from Google.  They’d really have no choice but to take Microsoft’s money unless someone really unlikely like Yahoo bought in.

** I would be laughing for weeks if this happened.  I wouldn’t even change the default. 

1 comment