On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:01:21PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 24 iul 20, 10:58:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > It's as if they were copying the disruptive antipatterns of proprietary > > software companies. But we don't need those antipatterns in the free > > software context, do we? > > One person's bug is another's feature. It took me a while to understand. Until I got it, I think. I think was too cryptic. I wasn't talking about antipatterns in the UI design (although in a way, they are part of it) but about a more abstract level: building on a "lower layer" (say, file system abstraction, for example) and, when something seems missing, slap some quick design on top (to continue the example: gvfs, for the Gnome case). Either it sticks, then continue Rube-Goldberging on top of it, or it doesn't, then leave it, moribund, on the wayside, along with the poor sods who dared to make use of it [1]. In a commercial context, where a captive user base is the main goal, it makes sense to establish a "mind frame" through which your users see the world. Your competitors will have to copy you, because their potential customers, having been primed by you, will expect the same treatment there, chains and handcuffs included. This is the kind of antipattern I was referring to. Cheers [1] Who of you is using the Gnome emblems and other "file metadata"? Have you ever tried migrating one disk with that stuff? I've got a couple of quick-n-dirty Perl+C thingies for my main customer for that case. I *definitely know* why I steer clear of that stuff myself! -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature