El sáb, 09-05-2015 a las 16:15 +0100, C R escribió:
I wonder if there is a real benefit on just expanding the userbase, if that doesn't come with an expansion in the developer-base.
In terms of donation capital, yes. We MUST support popular operating systems to gain the popularity we need to be a successful software project *of any type*. The end-game does not matter in terms of the capital raised for development, except of course in the assurance that the software will always be free and usable by everyone.
Do you have numbers that show how popularity in free software translates into more donation capital?
As I mentioned earlier, blender and krita are tricky examples because they don't run a traditional crowdfunding campaign. Blender started funding development with the pre-sales of open-movies. Krita with Training DVDs. They offered a product that was attractive to their users. There was a physical product the paying contributors received for their money. Blender and Krita can afford creating a crowdfunding campaign on the promise of delivering better software in the future because they already have a captive audience.
A large userbase can only benefit the project if there's a way to convert that userbase in some sort of cash flow to support full-time paid development.Agreed. That's where kick-starter and other crowd funding campaigns have been a success. We need a crowd for those to work, and that crowd is going to be composed almost entirely of users. The reason crowd funding works so well is that a small donation from a lot of people is far easier to get than large donations from a small user-base.
I don't have numbers to back this claim, but it always seemed to me that crowds donate really little money or no money at all, while specialized users and people making money with the tool consider donating more seriously, because they weigh the potential benefit that donating could mean for their jobs.
It's tempting to think that if you have 10 million users and ask them 10 cents you'll make a million dollars easily, as you are asking an amount of money that anyone can pay. But that doesn't seem to be the case in reality. There are extremely popular applications being used around the world by lots of people that are unable to get just a couple thousand dollars when they start a crowdfunding campaign.
We have to present something that works with existing industry machinery. Yes, Blender supports CUDA for rendering and CUDA is a proprietary technology owned by nVidia. Without paralel multi-threaded graphics hardware rendering our scenes, we would not have Big Buck Bunny, we would not have Sintel, we would not have Tears of Steal, and we would not have as many people interested in Blender as an industry-grade alternative for Autodesk Maya, or 3DS Max, or Cinema 4D, or Lightworks, etc. etc.
Check your facts. The only open movie that required CUDA was the only made using cycles, Tears of Steel. :-p
If we want to expand a software project beyond the realm of the hobbyist, we must first provide competitive software. We presently can't do that without making some compromises. The industry is too advanced, and too integral to cinema, gaming, and commercial video to be ignored, or waved off as unimportant. Blender knows this, and supports Unity 3D, as well as file formats for CAD programs, and various proprietary closed source technology. This is why they are popular, and why they are getting ample funding and media attention (and throngs of extension developers) right now. They are a *perfect* example of successful open source software projects. They stay true to their own open-source roots by providing all their code, while not expecting the world to conform to their personal software creedo. That is the only thing that moves Open Source software forward, and the only companies that are making a success of it are the ones that understand that. We stick to our FOSS morals, and we invite people to join, we do not demand it.
See, that's exactly why free software and open source software mean different things today. Since the thread is "Educating users on Free Software" I think it's relevant to define what kind of success do we want. Are we pursuing relevance in the market or are we commited to create an alternative that respects the users freedoms?
Adhering to Free Software ideals doesn't necessarily mean that we have to sacrifice quality and power in our tools. But maybe we do have to sacrifice a position in a market that requires us to put compromises on our ideals.
Agreed, but their popularity and funding is a product of their willingness to compromise on what professionals need in terms of integration with existing systems, and new technology that is developed by companies whose bread and butter relies on keeping their drivers proprietary (for the time being). It is not reasonable to expect nVidia to open source their drivers just because we say all software should be open source. Not when we are a trivial minority. It is thus presently good-enough that nVidia is even willing to write drivers for Linux. When we buy nVidia, we are supporting Linux, because it is showing these large companies that Linux users mater as customers.
I strongly disagree. Sorry to put it in these terms, but it is delusional to think that you're doing any favour to a free operating system when you choose buying from a company that has refused systematically to provide open information about their products. Also it's delusional to think that while "we are a trivial minority" we have any impact on the decision of nVidia about making drivers for linux. I'm pretty sure they have other reasons.
I think that's a bit like saying: "We want to open a coffee shop, but our goal is not to have lots of customers, or make money." It sounds nice, but it's self-delusion at best. Of course we want lots of customers, and of course we want money. It does not have to be a stated goal, but it is a goal of any business, just as a large user base is a goal of any software project (especially those that want things like crowd-funding).
I think you're confusing needs and goals. Making money it's not a goal. It's a need. And even though it's a need, there are several free software developers who prefer to work for free and avoid the obligations, deadlines and responsabilities that come when money is involved. Some people can afford working for free, as a hobbie, while other really need the money.
Also I wouldn't say that getting a lot of people using inkscape is a goal if that people will regard it as a "freeware" applications and won't care about free software at all.
Not just lots of users. Advanced users, people who really know what they're doing and what they want to achieve when they use the tools.So, professional graphics people... fine. But we have to cater to what they need for work. In the case of Blender 3D that means supporting closed-source drivers, and file formats that existing proprietary software uses. We could immediately up the excellence and quality of Inkscape, as well as professional user base, by being able to read and write the file formats that work with industry-leading tools like Illustrator. That's not necessarily in-line with the end-game of having only FOSS, but it's a necessary first step to gain the professional user base we are after.
I don't think that supporting proprietary formats and technologies is a must if free and open technologies can provide the same degree of flexibility.
Quite the other way around, supporting proprietary technologies usually is an obstacle for progress. I can understand that sometimes is inconvenient when interacting with workflows based heavily on proprietary formats, but if we don't push for open standards that situation will perpetuate.
And it's not just about ideals. It has a practical side too: see how the vfx industry gradually moved to open standards like EXR which eventually made collaboration easier without having to deal wih the multiple drawbacks of supporting proprietary formats.
David Revoy switched from GIMP to Krita, and when he did he found a welcoming project that paid attention to his needs as an artist.Like supporting .psd Photoshop format to be able to work with other industry artists without requiring them to learn a new software package.
It's their choice. The risk is that people starts using only PSD by default because it allows easier interaction with Photoshop. That weakens the possibility of an open format and puts a toll on the development of Krita, that has to be always up-to-date with watever changes Adobe introduces to the PSD format. And we're not even talking about the possible legal consequences of supporting a proprietary format without licensing it.
They are adding layer-effect support too this time around I believe.
Layer effects are inspired in Photoshop's but are not necessarily something done to support non-free workflows. Non-destructive layer effects and adjustments are useful tools that allow improved productivity. Pretty much like Inkscape's filters.
Exactly. If Krita didn't welcome him instead of demanding that he toss out all his Photoshop projects and start over using open formats, would he would have still been interested? Probably not. Why? Well it's not very welcoming to evangelize new users, and demand they change, and go FOSS cold-turkey.
Look, I'm a graphic designer like you, and I've been using free software only for my professional work for the last 7 years. I started gradually, but I could made the switch when I decided that my freedom as a user was more important to me that some convenience and shortcuts for my everyday work.
I takes some effort. We should be focusing on reducing or even removing that effort instead of making the free software behave more like proprietary software just to make its former users feel cozy.
And again, it's because Blender made necessary compromises. If Cycles were run on just FOSS software, most of that art would still be rendering on CPUs so hot you could cook your dinner on them.
Unrelated and not necessarily true: An i7 running free drivers may be faster than many models of nvidia GPUs with CUDA for rendering.
So, is it really necessary to grow a huge user base for that? I don't think so.Yes, it is. Blender had a fairly substantial user base before professional artists got wind that it was a decent replacement for Maya and 3DS Max. 14 years ago, I remember playing with it along side Maya (when it was still Alias Wavefront). It's reached a maturity lately that can compete with the big-boys, and in a lot of ways surpass them. If they didn't have the initial user base, it would never have gotten this big. If they didn't make compromises to get big, they would still be hobbyist. It takes small steps to climb a mountain, and it's never a straight path.
I don't think there's anything wrong about looking at what the "industry" does (both right and wrong) to make decisions about how to shape a project. If you take a high-end program like Nuke, for instance, you can find valuable information about what high-end users need for their work. Does that mean that you have to copy it to be successful? Not at all. Does that mean that maybe you should pay attention to what they did because their audience needs it? SURE.
Does inkscape need to copy Illustrator? Does inkscape need to support the file format of Illustrator and implement all their features? No. If inkscape provides the same or more flexibility and power than the other program has, then it will become an interesting alternative.
PDF is an industry standard for press files. PDF is considered an open standard. Do we need AI support for sending stuff to a print shop because a bunch of designers and printshop owners use it as a delivery format? NO! What about the problem of interchange formats? Let's push for open standards instead of supporting proprietary formats.
Why not hunting the people doing awesome art with Inkscape and ask them about their needs to take decisions about the direction of the project instead? Defining an audience, trying to create the best tool for that audience.It's a good idea. I would be surprised if Inkscape devs have not already been doing this. They are actually doing a fantastic job as well. I do luxury branding with Inkscape. I would be happy to help with direction for professional graphic designers. To be honest though, they surprise me with all the awesome things they add to the project with each release.
As far as I know, there isn't a formal initiative but inkscape developers are quite open to users suggestions and requests. But so far it's just them receiving suggestions and requests rather than looking for users and interviewing them about their workflows. I think it would be interesting if they took a more active approach getting a stuff of professional "consultants" (I mean users who have a certain degree of proficiency with the tool, use it for their work and have a reasonable experience in the field).
The main things that are lacking in terms of vector tools (from my perspective) are:
This e-mails got already too long. Let's leave the feature suggestions for another time. An IRC meeting with users and developers maybe?
I'm also a professionl graphic designer with more than 15 years of experience and half of that using free software exclusively, we can share our views there.
What do Devs think about this idea?
Gez.