this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1010 points (98.9% liked)

Firefox

18055 readers
60 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jack@monero.town 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get where you're coming from. To you a good user experience is more important than the fact that is free/libre rather than proprietary.

I however am convinced that understanding the fundamental principal, that proprietary will always eventually lead to user abuse and that free software is the opposite, is the most important thing that people need to understand. User experience comes second.

If people primarily switch to another platform because that one feels better / has visible benefits, then they will leave that better platform as soon as a new, better looking platform comes around. Totally dismissing if it's proprietary or not.

As long as people don't understand that the bad directly comes from proprietary, they will go into the mouse trap over and over again

[–] luciferofastora@discuss.online 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the contrary, I am quite ideologically sympathetic. I've always used Open / LibreOffice, I no longer use windows, never had a Mac or iPhone or anything, I argued with stakeholders for making our university project FOSS rather than proprietary, the list goes on. I've spent enough time arguing with people why they should care about FOSS.

I'm just also aware of my biases, and of the fact that most people are heavily biased by their UX. Most people don't want to spend a long time thinking to understand, they simply want to use. And in that respect, bad==proprietary doesn't universally hold up. Big companies can spend big bucks on user research, on figuring out what does and doesn't work for their target audience, on developing features that appeal to people. They also can spend big bucks on marketing and cultivating a brand image so that people start to identify with their products, deepening the attachment.

There is also an unfortunate side effect of FOSS when it comes to setting technical standards: If everyone can make their own, plenty of people will do that. Sure, many things have since been standardised, but how often has a common standard evolved as a side effect of some big corporation(s) adopting or outright developing it?

I don't need to preach to you about all the ways this sucks. The unfortunate pragmatic truth is that proprietary software is a poisoned, but quite appealing apple. The most common answer I got about FOSS is "yeah, it sounds great, but I don't care, I just want something that works for me."

Even if their proprietary system of choice got so bad to use that they'd switch to an open one, that doesn't mean they'd embrace the ideology. It just means that specific system does what they need it to. If iOS becomes unbearable, they may switch to Android, or perhaps to Windows phones, but they're still gonna install and use apps that feel good to use, regardless of whether they're FOSS.

The fight against proprietary software isn't going to be won on ideological grounds. I feel like some developers and advocates of FOSS miss that fact. If you want to be solid competition, worry about being a viable alternative first. Once people start to use a system that allows them to customise more, they may get intrigued by that liberty and become susceptible to the ideology behind, but unless they enjoy using it already, they'll never engage with it deeply enough.

[–] jack@monero.town 1 points 1 year ago

UX is important too, yes.