No, sorry. There is significant problem with this statement.
Developers that create commercial software are intended to create products that sell (which isn't directly proportional to "usability").
Opensource developers follow their own goals, which are some kind of mystery hidden from understanding of mortal users. Since I don't believe in working for free for the sake of welfare of humanity, I think that most of opensource developers creating their software just for fun of working on it, or they have their own unusual goals.
Even accepting user patches isn't necessarily first priority -> certain projects will require you "to become accepted member of community", which is to my opinion just a huge waste of time, when you can simply fix bugs, instead of spending time developing better relationships with community.

It's not how things should be. It is how they are.

If product is used, it is usable.

There is excuse. Read license agreement. It is "provided as is without warranty of any kind". Besides, same applies to commercial software (even though you paid for that). So in the end you are either agree with the way software work, or leave it alone. Although with OpenSource there is a right (or possibility, which most people don't use) of forking or improving it yourself.

Both commercial and opensource software is driven by a huge pile of semi-random factors. Those includes current state of codebase, current developer's wishes, current user's wishes, amount of interest in software, and so on. Some factors has larger influence on one project, another factor might not exist in another project. All those factors collide, and you get some kind of product as a result. And then process repeats (as long as there is interest in software) because "software is always evolving". Personally, I don't like that. I hate evolution in software - to my experience software should reach finished state, when it is perfect, has no bugs, and works (for the next thousand of years) without changes. Unfortunately, this just doesn't happen, everything requires updates and patches.

Although I was referring to the recent flurry of posts, indeed.

And software that is not usable does not sell.

Ah. You are implying you are not moral?

My opinions are provided in the same manner. And my poop stinks too.

Windows sells.
All software is usable, but people has different needs and priorities.
Anything that isn't - never reached development stage.

Moral is a relative thing.

Well, that was my fault. I meant to type mortal, as you used the word, not moral!

First, this was a joke, second, I'm not actively working on opensource software right now (three last attempts to make opensource programs were not satisfying, although programs were created and hosted on sourceforge), only closed-source.
I meant that opensource developers pursue their own goals, and although common sense tells you that this goal should be "high quality product", sometimes it looks like their real goal is something different.

It's in the email you get from Pat when you log in as root for the first time:

The big problem with your statement (often made willy-nilly by many users of this and that "difficult" distro) is that you seem to think you are entitled to speak on behalf of the creators and maintainers of the distro. Where is it written that Slackware is nothing but a self-gratification project? I am looking for it at Slackware.com and haven't found any words to that effect. In fact, I have found quite the opposite:

IMO, only half of those "top priorities" has been accomplished lately. Slackware is stable like a rock, but not really use to use. As if Linux weren't difficult enough, Slackware is often more difficult than all the other "big" distros.


That's also one remarkable difference between Slackware and OpenBSD: the Project Goals page at openbsd.org claims "Focus on being developer-oriented in all senses" and no wording that could lead someone to construe that differently. Also, I have indeed seen Theo de Raadt support that same view that you have shared, that OpenBSD "is just for ourselves". But I have never seen Patrick say anything like that. Can you point me to a reliable source that quotes him as saying so?

If you left Slackware for Kubuntu then yes, I can understand why you think Slackware is difficult. I personally find Slackware the most easy to customize to my own needs, which for me is the definition of "ease of use". When something does not work you can make it work. With other distributions (like Kubuntu) this process is not straight-forward. Yes, a lot of GUI tooling at your disposal there, but if something does not work, it is not easy to make it work.

Slackware's development, as chess indicated, is lead primarily by how Pat Volkerding thinks a good Linux distribution should be like, and to a lesser extent to what the core team thinks should be part of Slackware. But there is input from Slackware users all the time, and when you take a look at the history of http://slackbuilds.org you will notice that several of the packages that are now part of Slackware, had their origin as a submission to SlackBuilds.org.

Eric

I thought it was pretty obvious that since I am not Patrick, nor am I officially affiliated with the project, that I was speaking my own opinion. I did not say, nor do I believe, that I feel "entitled" to speak on behalf of the project; that's silly.

I think you are being far too literal. I said Slackware was similar to OpenBSD, not identical. It's called an analogy.

The point I was simply trying to make, evidently without success, was that, IN MY OPINION, Slackware does not attempt to cater to every whim and desire of each user out there, even if doing so might bring more users. For example, it seems to me that over the years, there have been numerous and numerous requests for dependency resolution to be added to the official package manager. Time and time again I have seen folks complain about the lack of dependency resolution and say that they decided not to use Slackware because of it. Yet, that feature, which many users feel makes things 'easier,' has not been added. What conclusions can be drawn from that? Perhaps that Patrick and the other developers think dependency resolution should not be included for various technical reasons. Or perhaps it means that they like it the way it is and don't really want to change it. Maybe those are two sides of the same coin. Either way, it would seem to me that a decision was made to not include features that might bring more users because of reasons relevant and important to Patrick and the other developers. If my reasoning and analysis are correct, then it would appear to me to be similar to the discussions I see on misc@openbsd.org. That does not mean Slackware is closed to suggestions, patches, and new packages, but that essentially it is driven by Patrick's vision of what Slackware should be.

Hence the analogy.

All people are different. If it is not easy for you, it is easy for someone else. For me slackware is much easier to use than ubuntu.

The development of Slackware rests primarily on the shoulders of Patrick Volkerding, with help from his trusted group of developers. Also, the Slackware community provides feedback here at LQ, and the developers and PV regularly read the posts.
For me this development model works very well! Each version of Slackware goes through a rigorous trial of testing before it is released as stable. Security fixes are quickly released when critical issues are discovered. I started Slacking at 10.0 and I've been impressed with the evolutionary path that this distro has taken.
Slackware will never be a perfect fit for all users, it is designed for the end user who wants to know what is going on under the hood.
Slackware works for me.