OtherGoals - Revision history

NeoPhyte Rep: Added link to Wiki page.

2009-12-18T01:57:26Z

Added link to Wiki page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 18 December 2009
Line 65:		Line 65:
	develop.		develop.

	Bryce		[[Bryce Harrington\|Bryce]]

	P.S. I should add to the above that I use the verb 'develop' to mean		P.S. I should add to the above that I use the verb 'develop' to mean

Sordon: Removed Spam

2006-01-25T19:29:27Z

Removed Spam

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 25 January 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	translates into more money since each user (in theory!) pays for their		translates into more money since each user (in theory!) pays for their
	copy of the software. Or it gets you bought out by Microsoft, or		copy of the software. Or it gets you bought out by Microsoft, or
	whatnot. ;-)~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/bigtitpatrol/ [[BigTitPatrol]]]~~		whatnot. ;-)
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/asstraffic/ Asstraffic]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/allinternal/ Allinternal]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/creampiesurprise/ [[CreampieSurprise]]]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/spermswap/ Spermswap]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/mrchewsasianbeaver/ [[MrChewsAsianBeaver]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/adultfreindfinder/ [[AdultFreindFinder]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/givemepink/ [[GiveMePink]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/fastsize/ [[FastSize]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/bigmouthfuls/ [[BigMouthfuls]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.hornyblog.org/tugjobs/ [[TugJobs]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.itsporn.net/asstraffic/ Asstraffic]~~
	~~[http://www.itsporn.net/allinternal/ Allinternal]~~
	~~[http://www.itsporn.net/givemepink/ [[GiveMePink]] ]~~
	~~[http://www.itsporn.net/spermswap/ Spermswap]~~


	But for an open source project, is it the case that more users equals		But for an open source project, is it the case that more users equals

Conversion script: link fix

2006-01-22T02:33:23Z

link fix

New page

I think often people assume the goal of every software application is to
get as many users as possible. For proprietary software, sure, that
translates into more money since each user (in theory!) pays for their
copy of the software. Or it gets you bought out by Microsoft, or
whatnot. ;-)[http://www.hornyblog.org/bigtitpatrol/ [[BigTitPatrol]]]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/asstraffic/ Asstraffic]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/allinternal/ Allinternal]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/creampiesurprise/ [[CreampieSurprise]]]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/spermswap/ Spermswap]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/mrchewsasianbeaver/ [[MrChewsAsianBeaver]] ]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/adultfreindfinder/ [[AdultFreindFinder]] ]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/givemepink/ [[GiveMePink]] ]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/fastsize/ [[FastSize]] ]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/bigmouthfuls/ [[BigMouthfuls]] ]
[http://www.hornyblog.org/tugjobs/ [[TugJobs]] ]
[http://www.itsporn.net/asstraffic/ Asstraffic]
[http://www.itsporn.net/allinternal/ Allinternal]
[http://www.itsporn.net/givemepink/ [[GiveMePink]] ]
[http://www.itsporn.net/spermswap/ Spermswap]

But for an open source project, is it the case that more users equals
more goodness? Are users the ultimate customers?

My feeling is that no, users are more of a means to an end. Lots of
users can translate into a larger pool to draw developers from, and of
course potential developers will consider the (potential or actual) size
of the userbase when deciding whether to bother submitting their
changes. But of course in these cases the real goal is getting more
developer activity.

Sure there can be some personal satisfaction in knowing that the
software is very widely used. Many times the desire to gain more users
is what drives developers to work hard. But careful what you wish for!
With many users comes many demands for changes. Your open source
project can feel more like an job you can't get away from and don't get
paid for! ;-)

From my experience there's four motivations for open source development
that can easily be translated into goals; one is practical, one
ideological, one educational, and one social:

First, you want good software available at a good price. For example,
this is why I got involved with Sodipodi originally. I wanted a good
drawing tool that I could tinker with to improve for my own d*mn needs.
I suspect this holds true for a lot of us. We have a job or a hobby
that needs a good tool. We want to make a good tool that'll last us and
do well by us for the remainder of our lives. If few others use it,
well then we can be special. If lots of users use it, and in doing so,
it results in a better tool for me, then well that's great too.

Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open
source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who
contribute to open source projects.

Third is to learn new things. Many open source projects started or gain
contributions from people who are doing it out of curiousity, interest,
or need to learn new skills, either for career purposes or personal
fulfilment. A large userbase (implying a widely known application) can
_maybe_ translate into recognition when interviewing, but otherwise is
not very relevant.

Fourth is a desire to work with good folk and have fun working together.
Because, really, for the developers this is a hobby, and hobbies should
be fun, especially if they're going to take up a lot of your time. For
this, the personality, friendliness, and dedication of the users and
developers is much more important than their sheer quantity.

So, for all these reasons, in a way other developers are the real
customers of the open source developers, and users are just lucky sods
that get all their benefits as a side effect! ;-)

For Inkscape, I think that we still need to grow the userbase. However
I feel that we can achieve that easily enough by just focusing on making
the code better; this is best achieved by encouraging developers to
develop.

Bryce

P.S. I should add to the above that I use the verb 'develop' to mean
more than just programming. Develop could mean a variety of activities
that improve the tool, including especially documentation, design,
application art, testing, website, and administrative work. Even just
providing feedback can be considered development work if it is done with
consideration and in an organized fashion.

195.177.212.225: removed spam

2004-11-17T10:09:39Z

removed spam

New page

I think often people assume the goal of every software application is to
get as many users as possible. For proprietary software, sure, that
translates into more money since each user (in theory!) pays for their
copy of the software. Or it gets you bought out by Microsoft, or
whatnot. ;-)

But for an open source project, is it the case that more users equals
more goodness? Are users the ultimate customers?

My feeling is that no, users are more of a means to an end. Lots of
users can translate into a larger pool to draw developers from, and of
course potential developers will consider the (potential or actual) size
of the userbase when deciding whether to bother submitting their
changes. But of course in these cases the real goal is getting more
developer activity.

Sure there can be some personal satisfaction in knowing that the
software is very widely used. Many times the desire to gain more users
is what drives developers to work hard. But careful what you wish for!
With many users comes many demands for changes. Your open source
project can feel more like an job you can't get away from and don't get
paid for! ;-)

From my experience there's four motivations for open source development
that can easily be translated into goals; one is practical, one
idealogical, one educational, and one social:

First, you want good software available at a good price. For example,
this is why I got involved with Sodipodi originally. I wanted a good
drawing tool that I could tinker with to improve for my own d*mn needs.
I suspect this holds true for a lot of us. We have a job or a hobby
that needs a good tool. We want to make a good tool that'll last us and
do well by us for the remainder of our lives. If few others use it,
well then we can be special. If lots of users use it, and in doing so,
it results in a better tool for me, then well that's great too.

Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open
source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who
contribute to open source projects.

Third is to learn new things. Many open source projects started or gain
contributions from people who are doing it out of curiousity, interest,
or need to learn new skills, either for career purposes or personal
fulfilment. A large userbase (implying a widely known application) can
_maybe_ translate into recognition when interviewing, but otherwise is
not very relevant.

Fourth is a desire to work with good folk and have fun working together.
Because, really, for the developers this is a hobby, and hobbies should
be fun, especially if they're going to take up a lot of your time. For
this, the personality, friendliness, and dedication of the users and
developers is much more important than their sheer quantity.

So, for all these reasons, in a way other developers are the real
customers of the open source developers, and users are just lucky sods
that get all their benefits as a side effect! ;-)

For Inkscape, I think that we still need to grow the userbase. However
I feel that we can achieve that easily enough by just focusing on making
the code better; this is best achieved by encouraging developers to
develop.

Bryce

P.S. I should add to the above that I use the verb 'develop' to mean
more than just programming. Develop could mean a variety of activities
that improve the tool, including especially documentation, design,
application art, testing, website, and administrative work. Even just
providing feedback can be considered development work if it is done with
consideration and in an organized fashion.

195.177.212.225: un spam

2004-11-04T08:11:15Z

un spam

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 4 November 2004
Line 38:		Line 38:
	source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open		source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
	standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large		standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
	userbase is kind of an objective, but [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-viagra Generic Viagra] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-propecia Generic Propecia] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-glucophage Generic Glucophage] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-lipitor Generic Lipitor] again it's slanted in favor of		userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
	developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who		developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who
	contribute to open source projects.		contribute to open source projects.

209.158.113.3: *

2004-11-04T02:00:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:00, 4 November 2004
Line 38:		Line 38:
	source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open		source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
	standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large		standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
	userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of		userbase is kind of an objective, but [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-viagra Generic Viagra] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-propecia Generic Propecia] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-glucophage Generic Glucophage] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-lipitor Generic Lipitor] again it's slanted in favor of
	developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who		developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who
	contribute to open source projects.		contribute to open source projects.

195.177.212.225: un spam

2004-11-03T10:32:50Z

un spam

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 3 November 2004
Line 37:		Line 37:
	Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open		Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open
	source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open		source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
	standards is ~~[http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-prevacid Generic Prevacid] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-protonix Generic Protonix] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-ranitidine Generic Ranitidine]~~ important, for example. For this motivation, a large		standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
	userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of		userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
	developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who		developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who

209.158.113.3: *

2004-11-03T02:58:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 3 November 2004
Line 37:		Line 37:
	Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open		Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open
	source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open		source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
	standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large		standards is [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-prevacid Generic Prevacid] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-protonix Generic Protonix] [http://www.dotmoment.com/generic-ranitidine Generic Ranitidine] important, for example. For this motivation, a large
	userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of		userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
	developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who		developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who

Simarilius: Removing spam

2004-08-16T20:56:40Z

Removing spam

New page

I think often people assume the goal of every software application is to
get as many users as possible. For proprietary software, sure, that
translates into more money since each user (in theory!) pays for their
copy of the software. Or it gets you bought out by Microsoft, or
whatnot. ;-)

But for an open source project, is it the case that more users equals
more goodness? Are users the ultimate customers?

My feeling is that no, users are more of a means to an end. Lots of
users can translate into a larger pool to draw developers from, and of
course potential developers will consider the (potential or actual) size
of the userbase when deciding whether to bother submitting their
changes. But of course in these cases the real goal is getting more
developer activity.

Sure there can be some personal satisfaction in knowing that the
software is very widely used. Many times the desire to gain more users
is what drives developers to work hard. But careful what you wish for!
With many users comes many demands for changes. Your open source
project can feel more like an job you can't get away from and don't get
paid for! ;-)

From my experience there's four motivations for open source development
that can easily be translated into goals; one is practical, one
idealogical, one educational, and one social:

First, you want good software available at a good price. For example,
this is why I got involved with Sodipodi originally. I wanted a good
drawing tool that I could tinker with to improve for my own d*mn needs.
I suspect this holds true for a lot of us. We have a job or a hobby
that needs a good tool. We want to make a good tool that'll last us and
do well by us for the remainder of our lives. If few others use it,
well then we can be special. If lots of users use it, and in doing so,
it results in a better tool for me, then well that's great too.

Second is the desire to make the world, or more specifically the open
source community, better. This is why adhering to and improving open
standards is important, for example. For this motivation, a large
userbase is kind of an objective, but again it's slanted in favor of
developers since by definition the "open source community" is people who
contribute to open source projects.

Third is to learn new things. Many open source projects started or gain
contributions from people who are doing it out of curiousity, interest,
or need to learn new skills, either for career purposes or personal
fulfilment. A large userbase (implying a widely known application) can
_maybe_ translate into recognition when interviewing, but otherwise is
not very relevant.

Fourth is a desire to work with good folk and have fun working together.
Because, really, for the developers this is a hobby, and hobbies should
be fun, especially if they're going to take up a lot of your time. For
this, the personality, friendliness, and dedication of the users and
developers is much more important than their sheer quantity.

So, for all these reasons, in a way other developers are the real
customers of the open source developers, and users are just lucky sods
that get all their benefits as a side effect! ;-)

For Inkscape, I think that we still need to grow the userbase. However
I feel that we can achieve that easily enough by just focusing on making
the code better; this is best achieved by encouraging developers to
develop.

Bryce

P.S. I should add to the above that I use the verb 'develop' to mean
more than just programming. Develop could mean a variety of activities
that improve the tool, including especially documentation, design,
application art, testing, website, and administrative work. Even just
providing feedback can be considered development work if it is done with
consideration and in an organized fashion.