Do you have any specific notable examples? In my experience, FOSS tends to take a more no-nonsense approach to things.
How does a product that defaults to its own proprietary for-profit offerings providing a better user experience?
The argument I hear most of is that people are just used to what they've used in the past, and having difficulty moving to an alternative because of that isn't indicative of the alternative offering worse UX, but rather an unwillingness to learn anything by the user.
At least with Linux the distro-specific packages install software where it should go.
On Windows you end up with 32-bit binaries in the 64-bit Program Files folder, and vise versa. You end up with files saved arbitrarily to three different application data directories, and sometimes your Documents folder, so sometimes the registry, why not? Should we put several folders full of drivers directly on the root of the C drive? Of course, where else would they go?
This is one of the biggest issues with corporate operating systems. Back in the day you booted up a computer and you got a black screen with a terminal. You had to know how things worked if you wanted to use the computer.
Today, you boot a computer and it's simple enough that anyone with eyes and fingers can operate it. People hand iPads to babies, and even they can figure out how to navigate YouTube.
People have convinced themselves that this is "using a computer", rather than being given a dumbed-down entertainment device designed specifically to exploit them.
People respond negatively when you suggest switching to Linux, because they fear they might actually have to learn something about how the Computer works, and never stop to understand that their illiteracy is the reason that the corporate operating systems they use suck so much.
If you exercise no power to change anything, they can shove as many ads as they want down your throat.
People blindly using their computer with zero understand of what they are doing absolutely matters. A computer is a powerful tool. I take the same attitude boomers take with their cars: If you can't tell me how it works, you have no business using it.
I love it when people define porn as "just some titties", and ignore all the violent hardcore shit that's defining a generation of men who don't understand sex or women.
I feel like the issue is that people expect a "Photoshop killer" to be Photoshop verbatim. Instead of focusing on making a good tool, people just constantly compare it to the commercial pack leader.
Most of the complaints I hear about GIMP are just "x isn't like Photoshop". I would take the complaints more seriously if any of the people voicing them could actually articulate what should be improved.
That's fair, but it doesn't answer any of the questions about what should be improved. "Industry standards" is a vacuous term when the standard is defined by a singular piece of software made by one company.
Sure, GIMP isn't Photoshop, and those familiar with Photoshop will have to re-learn things to use it. But what exactly needs to be changed? The developers have no chance of improving the program if the feedback is this generic.
please ( lemmy.world )
So much for Blockchain's real life use cases Englisch
Biden admits to taking drugs before the debate. ( i.imgur.com )
toxic help forum ( lemmy.world ) Englisch
Zionism is a terrorist ideology ( lemmy.ml )
Good boy ( sh.itjust.works ) Englisch