> Because their opinion gets any legitimacy only by what you paid for it, either by money or work.

I think this confuses validity of opinion with obligation. Certainly nobody from Rails has any obligation to a stranger. But it's another thing to tell Rails users their opinions are invalid.

For the record, I run a reasonably sized OSS project and constant get bombarded for feature requests and free assistance. I'm not a pushover, I don't sell support (although I've been asked to) but I am polite to people and I do believe user's opinion carries some weight, because I want my app to be successful.

I know very little about Rails. It's just that 'Rails is Omakase' reminds me of 'Debian is By Developers for Developers', which didn't work out well for the folks that wanted Debian to take over the world.

I really don't understand this point of view - why release open source software if you don't care about your users, and only care about your contributors? To me you'd be better off NOT releasing it, and just keeping it all wrapped up and closed, then you wouldn't have to deal with the non-contributing users who want changes.

This is one of the fundamental problems around many (most?) OSS projects. The elitism that comes with believing you are somehow better than everyone else because you contributed, or started an OSS project.

This attitude also stumps your growth - many people who probably would contribute often end up staying in the shadows, not wanting to look stupid, or offend the sensibilities of the OSS team.

Perhaps a more welcoming attitude might not only make people more supporting of OSS, but might find you some more willing contributors as well?

What are you building open source software for, if not to be used by consumers? If you're building it for some sense of self-aggrandisement, why make it open source in the first place? Just keep it nicely closed, so that only the elite chosen few ever get access to it, and keep out those who's opinions apparently don't matter.

Open source (for many) is a way to pay it forward, and give back. Kinda strange that the very people you're supposedly helping by providing free software don't matter.

>I really don't understand this point of view - why release open source software if you don't care about your users, and only care about your contributors? To me you'd be better off NOT releasing it, and just keeping it all wrapped up and closed, then you wouldn't have to deal with the non-contributing users who want changes.

What is there NOT to understand?

You release it, because (not all at the same time):

1) You want and value the CONTRIBUTING users (that's your actual software's community).

2) You want it to be used by people but as it bloody is.

3) You want to make money off of it, and think the open source + support/extra services model works.

What I really don't understand are the complaints. Isn't one of the core benefits of open source that you can _change_ the source? If you don't like what DHH is doing, fork rails to your liking. But no, they want it there way AND in the upstream repository.

And that's exactly the reason Linux never took off on the desktop. It's very difficult to gain new users if you're constantly dismissing them and asking them to put up or shut up with code.

These things aren't built for users, they're built for developers scratching their own itches. DHH built rails for himself first, and happened to share it for those who like his way of doing things. If you don't like his way, use another framework.

>And that's exactly the reason Linux never took off on the desktop. It's very difficult to gain new users if you're constantly dismissing them and asking them to put up or shut up with code.

And it's also why lots of OSS developers could not give a flying duck is Linux took over the desktop or not. They do it for their own fun and benefit, not for some entity called Linux to gain market share.

That is a completely understandable view and one that I hold myself. However, it's difficult to hold that view, and then simultaneously complain about things like driver support, which only come from attaining a modicum of popularity.

> Because their opinion gets any legitimacy only by what you paid for it, either by money or work.

I'm sorry, but that is just fallacious. There are plenty of people who aren't involved in any given project, but would still be qualified to give decent advice.

Developers should consider random opinions, just not if they conflict with the direction of the software. If a number of users have similar grievances, that is an indicator that something needs to be fixed, or maybe the direction of the software should be changed slightly.

That's if the developer intends the software to be widely-used, of course

>I'm sorry, but that is just fallacious. There are plenty of people who aren't involved in any given project, but would still be qualified to give decent advice.

It's not about qualifications. It's about the willingness to hear them. I'd rather write my OWN project, MY way, that a better project in some other's terms. That's why people start their own projects after all.

So, the might be qualified, but the open source project creator could not care less about their advice, valid or not.

He might have his own opinions and long term ideas about the project. He didn't start to write software to be a slave to other people's ideas.

If he _wants_ other people's opinions, he'll ask for them.

And if he, like DHH, even posts a lengthy blog post telling them to shove them, then it's clear that he doesn't want them in this particular case.

>That's if the developer intends the software to be widely-used, of course

Developers can also intend for their software to be "widely-used" but only if it's _in their own terms_.

E.g RoR is widely used just fine, for example, despite being "opinionated".

So, "wanting your software to be widely used" does not necessarily imply that you "should consider random opinions".

It's contradictory that you would do whatever you like regardless of anyone else's opinions, ever and expect your software to be used by a large number of people.

Obviously you aren't obligated to accomodate anyone when you are doing your own project, even if you are doing your own project and then making it available publicly. But acting like a tiny dictator on a power trip is not the correct behavior if your purpose is to make a tool for public consumption.

If you want to "write your OWN project, YOUR way" you are not making a public tool, you are making a private tool that is available publicly.

>It's contradictory that you would do whatever you like regardless of anyone else's opinions, ever and expect your software to be used by a large number of people.

Who said you expect or want "a large number of people" in the first place?

You might put your project out there just for the potential valuable contributors to help with the code, not for the end users.

And one can imagine someone creating something unique with no regard for what people are saying, and still expecting them to embrace it. Because he thinks his vision is perfect or better than what exists. Kind of like Ford's quote "If I had asked people what they wanted, I would have given them faster horses".

But the problem with all the above is the absolutism. You don't have to "_never_ listen" as you imply. A project leader might listen to user opinions sometimes, and don't care at all about their opinions on other aspects of his program that he feels adamant about.

E.g it's not like DHH _never_ listens and does whatever he likes "regardless of anyone else's opinions". He only does that for FEW aspects of the project.

>If you want to "write your OWN project, YOUR way" you are not making a public tool, you are making a private tool that is available publicly.

Yes. A lot of projects are like that and people should understand that and respect your decision, instead of bitching about it.

You are the one that stated absolutely you shouldn't listen to random opinions, with rhetoric such as "If he _wants_ other people's opinions, he'll ask for them" and "developers can also intend for their software to be "widely-used" but only if it's _in their own terms_."