‘I develop for myself’, trolls, criticism
So, I read the Drive-by Mockups post by Nikolaj Hald Nielsen which is about the new amarok mockups that can be found at kde-look. So, I found out that some people consider the [Amarok] developers to be “quite strange” and stubborn.
One of the reasons for justifying the claim was that the sentence Nikolaj wrote “The truth is that we are aiming squarely at ourselves, as we are some of the biggest music fans out there…” was found to be “extremely arrogant” by one of the visitors.
It reminded me of when I said something similar on my blog – that I develop Lancelot for myself. And I am aware that this type of comment sounds strange, and a bit arrogant, but it is not. So, I’m passing what I wrote as a reply on Nikolaj’s blog here:
I’m sorry if I was the one who started the ‘I develop for myself’ wave of responses (some time ago concerning Lancelot) but you have to understand the developers to understand what that means.
We do what we do because we like to do it. I don’t know any free/libre software developer that develops things he/she doesn’t use (I did for some time [Kamion], and then I got bored and started developing L).
So we are developing for ourselves. And the good thing is that most of the time, what suits us, suits the users as well.
Sometimes you get criticized, and if the user proposes the solution to his discomfort, and you like the solution, you implement it. If the solution is completely opposite and clashes with everything you stand for, you give the polite answer describing why you don’t want to make that happen.
And, then, there are trolls that are just able to say ‘this is ****’, ‘you’re a bunch of ****’ or something similar.
What would you feel if someone, without specifying any specific reason, starts bashing something you have been dedicated to for a couple of years? You could ignore it. You could ignore it a couple or more times. But, eventually, you will have to snap and vent yourself through a reply.
So, be happy, be polite and with a smile in your heart and on your face, and the world will be a much nicer place to live in. (yes, that’s an order 
)
Develop for the users or don’t waste your time writing free software. Go write code in some proprietary project and at least make some cash on the abomination. Free software needs developers that will listen to it’s users, the \do it for myself\ motto is funny, because if proprietary software wants people to buy it they must write for the user.. yet in free software the developers won’t do that.. Sounds like a negative to me in terms of software quality.
Comment by Jxn — 13 December 2008 @ 16:36
I could not agree with you more. I started working on the kopete project a while back with the msn plugin and I was frustrated that kopete msn did not have the features of the official client implemented correctly. Same with kmess except I preferred kopete. So I set out to fixed them for myself. Then I worked with the msn kopete team to incorporate what I had done. While the first implementation of the p2p lib we developed really was a hack, it got the job done. I have since developed a complete library that performs all the features of the official client’s p2p features and have submitted that to one of the developer I worked with back then. However, I just got bored of it all and have moved on. The only problem is that neither kmess or kopete have implemented the p2p code correctly. Hence, I am frustrated once more. So you probably know what I am doing in my spare time right now then…
Comment by CodingSlave — 13 December 2008 @ 16:37
@Jxn: Yes and the free/libre software model ‘sounds very negative’ because ‘everybody can see the code, and therefore it is a security breach’. Things in the free world work in mysterious ways
BTW, developing for myself is not in contradiction with ‘listening to users’ – that is the whole point of my today’s post. Read it again, carefully.
@CodingSlave: How many guesses do I have?
Comment by Ivan Čukić — 13 December 2008 @ 16:45
Nicely written. sums it up great!
Comment by Linus — 13 December 2008 @ 17:05
Some do not understand that others do programming because they like it, it’s an art and programmers like their work to be useful not just to themselves, but also to others. So i do programming (a certain program) for myself – because I like it.
But some people expect from Free Software programmers to do programming mostly because of others, in this case it’s a kind of not paid job. But i do not want it to be a job – it’s an art.
Sorry, for bad English
Comment by Victor — 13 December 2008 @ 17:54
@Victor: I completely agree, and like any other form of art, it is self-expression
Comment by Ivan Čukić — 13 December 2008 @ 19:37
@Ivan Čukić: And here we have a conflict of interests: the program is a product of my self-expression, but others are trying to enforce their view on your art, and…
Comment by Victor — 13 December 2008 @ 21:53
I dont understand how almost everyone reads those mockups as “Amarok2 replacements”?
Those mockups reason ain’t idea to give critism for Amarok developers about Amarok2, but to give suggestions for A-class videoplayer (even that says only a “mediaplayer”) like Amarok2.
Only readers takes it as “What Amarok2 should be” because it says the ideas has taken from Amarok2 player too.
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Analog%2BDVB+TV+Recorder+for+KDE4?content=94534
This is one mockup idea for same player, it is not about MUSIC player, but a videoplayer. That mockup is done for Kaffeine kind player, what can play music too. And suddenly now “kaffeine” is “Amarok2 is so bad bad”.
Comment by Fri13 — 13 December 2008 @ 22:40
This is my concern regarding persons who write for themselves: if they at some point decide to let the project wither and they are the only developer then those who rely on it are screwed if no one takes over the project, something that does happen.
But since the only renumeration the developer gets is their own personal satisfaction it’s hard to complain if his vision doesn’t match ours or he decides to move on.
Comment by bill — 13 December 2008 @ 23:08
Agreed:
If you don’t like it, write your own!
Comment by Blauzahl — 14 December 2008 @ 00:54
Your point is well made and I agree, most open source projects are centered around the use-cases of their developers.
But I think it is wrong to generalize this property to all open source projects. There are projects that mainly focus on the needs of regular software user, whose use-cases may be quite far from the use-cases of the developers. And I think it is possible to develop such software without being a paid developer, in a “pure” open source way, just by the challenge of developing something that is the best software for the ordinary users. A good example of this was Firefox.
Perhaps it would be possible to avoid such trolling by clearly communicating what the target user group of the project is. Basically, if you are building a sports car make sure people looking for a jeep know you are making a sports car and not a jeep.
Take care and keep up the good work :).
Comment by uhuu — 14 December 2008 @ 02:06
I have no idea what point Jxn is trying to make. Maybe there’s sarcasm in there that I don’t get, but it sounds like he’s saying “since you write it for free, you should write it how I want it, but if you’re getting paid to write it then you can do your own thing.” Which is back-asswards.
Things like Lancelot and Amarok are relatively small, personal projects. They’re written for the developers – they made something THEY wanted. Yeah, it’s nice that other people use them, because they help track down bugs and bring polish. But just because I use it doesn’t mean the developers have to shape it to my desire. I mean, if I went to the Mozilla people and said “Hey, how about for Firefox 4, you guys go back to the whole ‘Firefox is Mozilla but with all the extraneous crap stripped out of it’ concept”, how do you think that would go? I’m willing to bet poorly…
Comment by Jeffro — 14 December 2008 @ 02:46
In my Intro to AE class, the instructor said ‘if an Architect designed a building, it would fall down– if an engineer designed it, people would tear it down.’ I think a similar thing applies to software.
Coding and GUI design are both specialties, with a lot of very specific knowledge. You’ve got to have skilled people for both tasks and they must defer to each other when appropriate. This is a large part of why Apple is on the rise today.
People don’t see enough hard core GUI engineering in most FOSS, and that frustrates them.
Comment by ethana2 — 14 December 2008 @ 06:20
@people who don’t like the “we do it for ourselves motto”:
The only way to put through with all of your hard work, keep finding energy for it while you get blockers, get stuck, or even find yourself in deep shit.. is to *LOVE WHAT YOU DO*. Nothing else will give you the energy to keep on going with it.
(one if the youtube interviews with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates has a quote like this from Steve).
No one is able to do a lot of work for an extended period of time _just_ for the sake of others, especially if you don’t like what you’re doing. If you’re telling developers they should find a different motivation, you’re effectively killing the source of their energy and satisfaction to keep on going.
IMHO there is a truth in the statement “I do it for myself”. I would agree though that it could use a different wording, better marketed at the general public which doesn’t have the context of a developper. Close related statements would be “I find this important” or “I really care about this”.
@CodingSlave:
> The only problem is that neither kmess or kopete have implemented the p2p code correctly
As KMess developer I have to object against this
Can you point out what part of P2P isn’t working in KMess, considering the fact it’s doing direct stable P2P file transfers for a year now?
Comment by Diederik van der Boor — 14 December 2008 @ 10:47
@Victor: I wouldn’t say /a conflict of interest/ – it is a normal artistic workflow – you have critics and followers, and the aim of all of them (and you) is to improve your art. And there are bound to be some creative differences.
@Fri13: The mockups weren’t the problem, it’s the comments some trolls made. The mockups are *always* welcome.
@bill: It is the problem with every piece of software (and not only software). While in the free world, somebody is able to continue the work if the original developer gets tired.
@uhuu: Do you think that Firefox developers don’t browse the web in an ordinary /common user/ way? They developed a browser that fits almost everyone, but did they do it against their habits? I sincerely don’t think so.
Take for example Lancelot, I am a developer, but do I launch applications in an unusual manner? I, again, don’t think I do – sometimes I like to use the /run dialogue/ (as many of, at least KDE, users do), and sometimes I like to browse or whatnot. So, I made L to fit that idea. I don’t claim that it is the best solution to the problem, but it is a very good one (not based solely on my opinion
)
BTW, I never said that most free/libre software is developer-centred, I’m just explaining why it is not a thing of arrogance, but common sense.
And one thing more, *we do* make the software for the others too. If that was not the case, Lancelot wouldn’t have the configuration dialogue because /I don’t need it/, nor it would have multiple themes etc, but still, the main point above stays.
@Jeffro: Well, I don’t understand the logic neither, but, then, everybody has the right of expression.
(I’m only censoring profanities, if at all)
@ethana2: Well, it is a valid point, and because of that KDE also has usability experts, artists etc. in the team.
But, still, you can’t be so exclusive – there are many artists that are great developers too (or vice versa). And KDE has a fair share of them.
We are *all* born with more than one talent.
@Diederik van der Boor: Just please don’t use this blog to solve your p2p dispute
Comment by Ivan Čukić — 14 December 2008 @ 11:14
@Diederik van der Boor: mate, my intention was not to insult any one or their work. I somewhat knew I may cause some sparks with my comment but … If you like you can e-mail me or we can discuss this over IM gs_edghill@hotmail.com;
@ Ivan Čukić: agreed
Comment by CodingSlave — 14 December 2008 @ 14:53
@CodingSlie, @Ivan Čukić: agreed
I didn’t mean to be harsh either, I just wanted to avoid some kind of myth floating arround and love to hear from you over IM! 
Comment by Diederik van der Boor — 15 December 2008 @ 08:45
Artists paint as a form of self expression. They are driven to do it by an internal need that everyone accepts. When a musician says that he plays because he gets enjoyment from it, it is accepted.
Many artists and musicians want their work to be appreciated, but I know many people who love music and art who do not. They do it for themselves. They shun the spotlight and do not want to subject themselves to public scrutiny.
Programmers use a different palette, but they are still creating. So if you are creative and enjoy the act of creating, why can’t you do it for yourself? It does not need to be explained. It just is.
Comment by LinuxCanuck — 15 December 2008 @ 14:25