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.
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.