Quote:
Originally Posted by cravuhaw2C
It is due to the insular view taken adopted by its developers. It is a niche product developed by developers for themselves.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cravuhaw2C
Agreed. This is due to the insular view of its developers. It is developed by developers for themselves. According to the Book Of PF, all of us end-users are just there for the ride. If you harbor so much as a dissenting view, you are persona non grata.
|
You seem to be suffering from the common delusion that free software is developed by benevolent charitable organisations for the good of mankind. While there may be a few examples, the majority of free software development is driven by someone needing to write it because they, or the corporation they serve has a need for it. You get to be "along for the ride" and use it freely "as is". If it's not fit for your purposes you can acquire the skills or the finances to do something about it or just use something else.
The difference between OpenBSD and some other projects in this respect is that OpenBSD is upfront about it.
Or are you seriously suggesting that as an "end user" you have a say in what happens in the Debian GNU/Linux project or Arch Linux?
Debian is a do-ocracy, if you don't write code, donate money or equipment/resources you don't get a say. Same with Arch Linux.
The Linux Foundation itself, which employs Torvalds and Greg KH is funded by corporate backers, it is not some kind of charity producing free software for the masses out of love for mankind. You, I nor anyone else has commit rights to the Linux kernel - "you're along for the ride".
There are graphical installers, because someone saw a need, sat down and wrote the code or was paid to do so. Not because many end users procrastinated incessantly until they were written for free.