I love open-source software, and it's been essential to my needs over the years. I've used GIMP when I couldn't afford Photoshop. Scribus when I needed to design a book for college, and OpenOffice for the Linux netbook that got me through post-grad. I owe open-source software a lot, and it's too important to hold it to a lower standard than the closed-source for-profit stuff.
You might think that's unfair, because we have the impression that all open-source software is made by scrappy loners in their bedrooms. To some extent, this is true, which is part of the reason I try to donate to FOSS projects . However, the big open-source projects with millions of users aren't just fun bedroom projects anymore, which means they need to work as well as the closed-source software they aim to replace.
Stop pretending busted UX is "fine because it's free"
Open-source projects are often backed by talented coders, but I guess talented UX professionals don't like to work for free (or for donations), because, compared to commercial closed-source software, FOSS interfaces are generally bare-bones and sometimes barely functional.
A part of the problem is that, in some cases, the look and feel of this software isn't the result of unified guidance, and lots of people are working on small parts of the elephant without the big picture. If there is even a big picture. Some tools are convoluted to use, hard to find, menus lack logic, and to be proficient you just have to learn all the oddities of the app.
I think it's fine to criticize usability issues in FOSS, and if you're an advocate for it and want more people to adopt open-source software, then it has to be good to use. Otherwise, all the good work that's gone on under the hood might as well be for nothing.
Not every missing feature is a "philosophical stance"—sometimes it's just missing
There's a difference between a deliberately limited scope, and software that's unfinished. If your open-source software is released as a beta, or has a feature roadmap and a clear picture of what's coming—that's obviously fine. Sometimes, it really is a case of a commercial competitor having feature bloat and a FOSS app trimming the fat, but using missing features as some sort of "skill filter" is not okay in my book.
The "patches welcome" defense is killing constructive criticism
There's something called "patches welcome" culture in the open source development world which basically means that when someone reports a bug or makes a feature request, you're told that patches are welcome. In other words, you can fix the bug or code the feature yourself. Can't code? Well then don't make requests.
Lucas Gouveia/How-To Geek | Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
There are obvious problems with this, because the users of an application are a source of valuable information for developers. But, some FOSS software creators seem to see this as a "for coders, by coders" community. That's not an issue in and of itself, but if you want your software to be used by people in the mainstream, or to compete with some commercial app, then you can't be dismissive in this way.
Funnily enough, in the rising age of " vibe coding " using AI, I wonder how long patches will actually be welcome.
Corporate-backed projects expose just how low the bar has gotten
Sometimes FOSS software gets corporate backing and resources, with or without a problematic takeover. Take Audacity as an example. I loved this audio editor and used it to record my band's first demo as a teenager, but when Audacity was acquired by the Muse Group in 2021, there were concerns about telemetry and that the software, despite still being FOSS, was now effectively spyware . I can't comment on how true that is or whether the current version of Audacity is, but you can't argue with the uptick in updates focusing on features and better usability. Bringing it in line with closed-source modern DAWs.
I'm certainly not in favor of this sort of takeover and corporatization of FOSS projects, but it does highlight how less sexy problems are let slide in some open software projects without a clear form of stewardship.
Open source thrives when it demands excellence
I have to reiterate that I don't think the person who makes a useful utility and releases it for free, and doesn't have the time, money, or desire to maintain it should be criticized in any way if their software is a little spotty. These people should be celebrated. However, when your software starts to seriously compete with billion-dollar companies, and people come to rely on them, you can't stick to the garage coder mindset.
Even when you're doing something for fun, or for your own education, or for any of the reasons people contribute code to FOSS projects, it's both necessary and justifiable to hold those contributions to the same standards as the software you compete with. Perhaps more imporrtantly, it's to the benefit of a FOSS project to treat its users as if they're paying customers, and stop being dismissive of their feedback.
