A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install.
But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused.
Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of great open-source software out there and overall I think I'm happier with it than I would be with modern Windows (let alone MacOS; whether I'm happier than I was with Windows pre-10 is a tougher question). But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world.
> A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain")
That was only a problem for extension developers. Users weren't really impacted as developers built new versions of popular extensions.
> and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for.
No one ever asked for the iphone/smartphones, yet people buy them instead of dumb phones. My firefox has evolved a bit over the year if I look at former screenshots, but everything happened so gradually it has never been a problem for users.
And all kind of software do, not only FOSS.
> Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install.
There are so many apps available through the software repos and flatpak packages that users who aren't into building a software from source shouldn't even feel concerned.
> But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused.
Prioritization is happening everywhere, in proprietary software too. Dev teams work with finite time and resource constraints.
PRs welcome is a bonus, not a con.
> But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world.
Mostly only when they are paid for it. And some proprietary dev also don't implement stuff they don't like. I don't think you can generalize, this behavior is not based on the choice of license.
Some FOSS projects also do work on some features if users raise a bounty for it.
Sure, I agree. That's basically all I'm saying. FOSS gets rid of the tracking and dark patterns but it's still not what I'd call user-focused. It's like in proprietary software the decisions are made based on what the developer wants, and in FOSS it's made based on what the developer wants. But in theory with FOSS there could be people out there who are taking the opportunity of freedom from profit-driven orientation to actually figure out what users want and do that with the same level of drive that proprietary companies apply to seek profit. But it doesn't happen. It's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd call truly user-focused.
I know what you're saying; sometimes open source is presented as the answer to all the user-hostile decay that the platform owners introduce, but you must prove yourself worthy through study and sacrifice. If you want to build your own system, great, but if you want to share the joys with others you cannot attract them with an austere religion.
Hobbyist developers develop software because it solves a need they have first, and they have fun doing that. If they don't have any fun or interest to do it, they lose motivation. Hobbyist developers are the primary users of the app they develop usually.
Commercial FOSS developers do have to take users into account and I think they do but they also have to seek profit.
I don't think there is another way unless government starts employing developers to develop FOSS software based on tax payers wishes.
I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but it's all just another way of saying "Yes, FOSS is also not user-focused." I'm not saying FOSS is "supposed" to be anything else, I'm just saying that if you want user-focused software, you won't really get it by switching from profit-driven software to FOSS. You might get closer in some ways and further in others.
Government employing developers would be just another form of doing it for pay. There is another way, which is the same way that various other kinds of charitable things happen: through a desire to meet the needs of others rather than having "fun" or "interest" for the person doing the action. There are people who donate their time and energy to do things like give food to the homeless, clean up trash, or whatever. Obviously they derive some kind of satisfaction from it but I think many people who do these kinds of things wouldn't say they do it because it's "fun"; they do it because they think it meets a need that other people have. There could be software like that, but there isn't much of it.
The same way there isn't much people giving food to the homeless or clean up trash compared to the general population size.
You are looking for a unicorn imho. Having said that hobbyist developers, regardless if they do FOSS or freeware, are likely to make stuff that is in line with your particular needs because more often than not people have common needs. They may not agree or have time to implement every single feature you want but in a sense this is use-focused if not user-focused.
A great example is Firefox, which decided to break all extensions for developer-focused reasons (i.e., "too hard to maintain") and continues to make baffling UI changes that no one asked for. Another obvious example is the mere existence of various open-source software that is only distributed in source form, making it totally inaccessible to users who just want to click and install.
But mostly you just see it when you file a Github issue and a contributor/developer responds with something like "Sorry, that's not my priority right now". You see it when people reply with "PRs welcome". There is still a widespread mentality in the FOSS world that people who want features should be willing to somehow do at least part of the work themselves to make it happen. That's not user-focused.
Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of great open-source software out there and overall I think I'm happier with it than I would be with modern Windows (let alone MacOS; whether I'm happier than I was with Windows pre-10 is a tougher question). But basically what I mean is there are developers out there writing proprietary software who will implement features they actively dislike because they are told that users want them; that mindset is not so prevalent in the open source world.