61–70 of 152 posts
seems like a missed opportunity not to include a screenshot of said banner in this blog post
> a non-intrusive banner that appears monthly on a transition screen and asks users who save hundreds of euros or dollars a year to consider making a voluntary contribution is not scandalous Showing that actually pretty intrusive banner would undermine their argument.
I disagree with take on Wikipedia or Wikimedia there was a lot of trash talk because they were totally obnoxious with their fundraising. I donated once to Wikipedia and then I was getting Jimmy Wales in my mailbox basically like everyday. That actually drove me away from ever wanting to donate to them. Then there was a lot of talking if they really are so much in need of money but that's different topic. In contrast…
I have this same feeling with donating blood (in most EU countries you don't get paid for this so it is completely charitable). If you have donated blood, every 2-3 months they will send you an e-mail for a new donation cycle. That's fine. But if you don't respond, they will send another reminder. Then a text. Then they will call you. Yes, you can just click the "Not this time" button, and click the reason for denyin…
My wife works in a line of business where up-selling is a debated issue. Most of the industry thinks it's good, because they see more sales on the products that are being pushed, but they never measure how many people are actively turned off by the aggressive sales tactics and won't return in the future and now buys absolutely nothing.
It's baffling to me that organisations never measure negative impact from campaigns, because maybe you're pushing away the wrong people. E.g. maybe your most reliable patrons are the most adverse to your campaign and now you have to work even hard to reach your goals next time, as these people are not coming back?
I understand that dealing with complaints is annoying, but the response in the article was very unprofessional. Feel free to say what the change is, why it is there, and perhaps even address some of the concerns. But attacking users, even if it is a small segment of the population, does not paint The Document Foundation in a positive light.
Entitlement and, really, some of this crosses the line into bullying of the foundation and the maintainers, should be dealt with robustly. It will help to reset expectations around what's reasonable for the relationship of those developing LibreOffice with the community of users.
People need to recognise that they get a huge amount of value out of LibreOffice, for which they aren't required to pay a penny, so it's not unreasonable to be asked if they would like to contribute something back in return.
But amongst large populations of people, when it comees to free things, some portion of that population will always undervalue that free thing and fail to recognise how much benefit they get from it and start acting entitled. There's nothing wrong with calling that out.
Many of the threads here are shameful and ignorant.
I disagree with take on Wikipedia or Wikimedia there was a lot of trash talk because they were totally obnoxious with their fundraising. I donated once to Wikipedia and then I was getting Jimmy Wales in my mailbox basically like everyday. That actually drove me away from ever wanting to donate to them. Then there was a lot of talking if they really are so much in need of money but that's different topic. In contrast…
They lost me at putting "overreacting" in the title. If that's the way they react to negative user feedback, they deserve more of it. Even Microsoft sometimes caves in if enough people complain - recall is now optional and I believe opt-in; there's noises about maybe not sticking AI in everything and letting you turn it off in future versions.
It's perfectly fair game to call it overreactions, and even in this thread, no one seems to be disputing that that's what they are, the main concern is the analogy to Wiki's fundraising practices is an example of normal.
Life as an open source developer is often nasty, brutal, and in some cases short if they get pushed out of the game by hostile users who make it feel like a thankless task. They've been trying to sound the alarm on this, and I for one want to be part of what makes these developers thankful for the communities they have rather than frustrated.
I know sometimes I suffer from "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome, and I try and proactively balance out that part of my personality with lots of upvotes on good things (like the people in this thread noting that they donate to the project), and by being supportive of developers and people sharing their hobby projects.
I disagree with take on Wikipedia or Wikimedia there was a lot of trash talk because they were totally obnoxious with their fundraising. I donated once to Wikipedia and then I was getting Jimmy Wales in my mailbox basically like everyday. That actually drove me away from ever wanting to donate to them. Then there was a lot of talking if they really are so much in need of money but that's different topic. In contrast…
Why not just click the “unsubscribe” button on any of those emails you complained about getting? Seems like blaming marketing for a lack of self-agency to opt-out, but I suppose we each have our own metrics. I’ve donated, got emails, clicked one button, stopped getting emails. Guess it just seems the complaint is very solvable, but I do partially understand your point.
I disagree with take on Wikipedia or Wikimedia there was a lot of trash talk because they were totally obnoxious with their fundraising. I donated once to Wikipedia and then I was getting Jimmy Wales in my mailbox basically like everyday. That actually drove me away from ever wanting to donate to them. Then there was a lot of talking if they really are so much in need of money but that's different topic. In contrast…