seems like every projects wants you to fork ans submit changes

I think that's just how software devs tend to work: a main "trunk" of code, from which they branch off for a feature or change, then when they're done writing the new code, merge it back into the trunk. That's the mode we're used to, the only tool we know for managing parallel code development.

How else would we do things? Or rather: how would you do things? This isn't a rhetorical question: I genuinely admit I don't know how you'd prefer to operate, or what you mean by punching in and out.

If you're asking for specific tasks, projects may have an issue tracker of some form where you can find stuff other people found, but other than that, FOSS often is a "see something that needs fixing, go and fix it" thing. Particularly if the devs themselves don't notice a problem, because they know what that confusing icon means or how that tool works, they won't create a task they don't even know needs doing. Even if they know something is bad, they might not know how to make it better.

If you're using or trying to use a program and notice something has been done poorly, is too complex for an entry-level user, whatever it is you think could or should be improved, talk to the people making it, or look for a contribution guide.

Even if you can't contribute code, it might be helpful to share your skills and knowledge by opening issues, explaining specific problems and offering ways to solve them.

The UX designers I knew had a bit of a circular problem: the poor UX put them off too much to develop that passion for FOSS that drives devs to work on it for free. They'd first have to puzzle out what things are supposed to do and how they're supposed to go about achieving whatever they're looking to do, basically reverse-engineering user flows that were never properly engineered.

I don't have a solution for this and I don't know if they're representative, but acknowledging the importance of UX is a start for sure.

Absolute statements are never fully accurate, including this one.

Honestly, computer literacy in general. Even back when I was in university, basic comprehension of how computers work was lacking even among IT students. Not as egregious as the various user horror stories you'll probably have heard, but bad enough.

I admit that our software dev 1 teacher starting the first lecure by opening a terminal, viming together a basic Java Hello World without explanation, then compiling and running it wasn't a great start for anyone except the lucky few that knew enough to not be deterred.

But the general idea what files are should be common knowledge, the "hacker" impression of the command line should be demystified a little, and the distinction between monitor, computer and hard drive... actually, maybe we should leave that one out for the sake of entertainment.

The only way to meaningfully compete with freeware is a feature advantage: if your revenue can sponsor developers to focus on polishing and improving your system beyond the free alternatives, there will be a market of people willing to pay for (immediately*) better products.

It's what keeps Excel a step ahead of Calc: between a rather clunky UX and frankly awful documentation for some features and functions, Libre just doesn't quite have the same maturity. It's good enough for the majority of use cases, okay for some more and I'm really only aware of one feature I miss (Power Query or equivalent) or haven't found. But it's not as polished, and for some, that alone is reason enough to stick with paid products.

Conversely, it's why more people are starting to move off of Windows: between user experience improvements, smoother installation, the spreading realisation that most stuff happens in browsers anyways and Proton making a lot of gaming a lot more accessible, Windows is losing that edge in features. If the list of anti-features and drawbacks grows large enough, the familiarity alone just doesn't hold people any more.

You can compete with free competition, but that requires an eye on the market. And performance-impeding spyware just isn't must-have for everyone.

*as opposed to supporting open source devs to the point where they could focus on their software, hopefully leading to better products some time later, which is less gratifying and less reliable than paying for a project you get right now

I wish my real name was Lucifer :(

But also, I wanted to look up the history of BBS and had to spell out "bulletin board" to get the right results from DDG, so maybe what you learned thirty+ years ago just isn't common sense among people that weren't even on the internet when that market collapsed.

(I myself didn’t see the heyday either; I learned those lessons in games and on forum boards in the aughts and tens.)

Anyone who doesn't post their rants via curl is a poser

Naja, der Artikel ist aber etwas unehrlich:

1. Er erläutert, dass es für die Mehrheit keinen Unterschied macht
2. Er erläutert, dass Hersteller auch die Minderheit bedienen wollen
3. Er erläutert, dass Hersteller Kosten sparen, indem sie Produkte gleich für beide Gruppen auslegen statt separate Produkte für die anzubieten, denen es eh egal ist
4. Er nennt diese Entscheidung der Firmen, die niemanden beeinträchtigt, dann "Diktatur der Minderheit"

Da kann er gerne von komplexen Systemen und unvorhergesehenen Effekten reden: Dass Hersteller um mehr Profit zu machen ihr Angebot inklusiver gestalten ist die harmloseste Ausprägung des Kapitalismus. Es als "Diktatur" zu bezeichnen, als ob Juden und Moslems unseren Konzernen ihre religiösen Standards aufzwingen würden, ist eine böswillige Verunglimpfung.

Es hilft auch definitiv nicht, dass der Autor mit einem Beispiel eröffnet, in dem er bewusst jemandem was anbietet, von dem er erwartet, dass dieser es gar nicht annehmen könne, und irritiert war, dass seine Provokation nicht klappt, weil die blöde Limonade ja doch Koscher ist.

Dazu vergleicht er die Dynamik mit Verbrechen (Verbrecher können ja auch legale Dinge tun, aber Ehrliche begegen keine Verbrechen), was einfach geschmacklos ist. Auch wenn die "Richtung" der Dynamik hier anders wäre, ist der Vergleich doch etwas geschmacklos.

Und dann setzt noch eine Anekdote obendrauf, wie er einen Freund ausgetrickst und zum Rauchen gebracht hat, weil man ja sonst nicht im Raucherteil des Restaurants sitzen dürfe.

Ich weiß nicht, ob später in dem Artikel noch stichhaltige Punkte kommen, aber wenn jemand "Freunde" belügt, davon stolz erzählt, und sich über Inklusivität aufregt weil sie seinem Trolling einen Strich durch die Rechnung macht, fällt es mir irgendwann schwer, den Rest ernstzunehmen.

That's bold and spiteful to do so on X-Twitter. I wish people stopped using it, but I gotta admit that a progressive democrat posting pro-small-business political statements on the Nazi Website is a bit of a one-finger-salute.

He's basically living off his savings and donations

No god is gonna set foot down here if they wanna keep it

It's also, possibly one of the few talking points that forces acknowledgement that those independent, unaffiliated, and unregistered voters exist and whose interests might matter towards the outcome of policy and/or elections.

On its own, it doesn't quite force the second half of that acknowledgement: The missing part is the "or else".

So far, the most charitable interpretation, if we disregard corruption for a moment, is that the party elite doesn't really see those interests because they have been too far removed from these voters for too long, if they've ever known it at all. Humble beginnings don't mean shit if you haven't lived humbly for the last few decades any more. So even in the best case, these people will struggle to actually comprehend. They also know that voters are faced with the choice between them and Republicans and can count on a chunk of people to vote just to avert the worst result. And they themselves aren't affected that badly by a potential defeat.

This disconnect is clearly visible in the shocked reactions to the "insurgency" of progressive politicians winning primaries: They don't know or don't want to admit what appeal those upstarts have that they don't, but at least they now realise that these other groups exist and matter.

Hence, "both sides bad" on its own is a criticism without a solution. It incites fatalism without rallying support for an alternative. Voting in primaries can have an effect, and if people genuinely don't want to vote D just to stop R in the general election, they should vote for some third party. Agreeing on a progressive candidate would help, but even without agreement, it would signal support for breaking out from that game of two.

(This also matters beyond the pure democratic mechanism: signalling that support can help other unhappy people to see that they're not alone and encourage them to join whatever form of resistance may emerge in their area. Even if votes might not change anything directly, they're a communication tool.)

A Roman satirist once remarked on the fact that the people were all too excited to celebrate a failed coup, but would have been just as excited to hail the new emperor. To paraphrase, they have given up oversight, and those whose votes once decided over offices and command of armies now only hope for "bread and circuses" (stable grain supply and public entertainment, basically). The full meaning is more complex, but the part that's relevant to me here is his contempt for the non-voters whose complacency led to a situation where they can no longer hope for more than bare necessities and a bit of distraction.

In that sense: Vote. Don't cede ground to those who want you to not vote. A voice that doesn't speak isn't heard. Even a "wasted" vote is better than silence.