I’m a heavy KOReader user and absolutely adore it, but I think it definitely trades user-friendliness for power and flexibility. The Kindle proprietary store has a far more user friendly UI imo, though it’s getting progressively worse (and the fact that kindles now default to showing you the store pisses me off to no end). KOReader plugins really close the gap though.
> I think it definitely trades user-friendliness for power and flexibility
A tale as old as time with OSS software from what I've seen. So far the only exception that I've seen of a FOSS piece of software with great UX is Blender[1]. With UX not being a first-class citizen on Linux, exposure to a solid universal tooling to create great UX also exacerbates things.
I think the issue of bad UX and OSS are comorbid because good UX needs an extremely opinionated mind at the helm and a culture of prioritizing features and saying "No, this is not important" which OSS generally lacks.
I think Libreoffice is easier to navigate than ribbon-era Office.
I think especially Gnome, but also Kde has better settings than Windows, which is spread across a new and a classical view (or more?).
I also think MacOS finder is worse than Windows/KDE/Gnome equivalents. When you strip so much away that people have to remember strange key combinations to jump/navigate to specific directories you have really gone too far.
And mobile UX (android and iphone) seem to me worse than any desktop system. Nothing is consistent (sharing data between apps), nothing ever seems settled (settings move around in the central settings apps every few releases).
We could argue in depth. Let me head it off a bit - taste is absolutely a thing, but consistency across releases is evidently a good thing unless you are constantly in a situation where your existing userbase is dwarfed by the prospective one. There’s a reason we hang on to diskette icons, don’t change from desktop to metro to ios style desktops every release and so on.
Last point: OSS software can be misguided, but it never seeks to bamboozle the user to make some corporate goal succeed. It won’t nefariously stuff files on a cloud or actively make it hard to export data or be incentivized to NOT interoperate with devices or programs shipped by competitors.
People say that and I used to agree, but honestly I use neither MS Office nor LibreOffice heavily anymore. Nowadays I can figure out what to do in MS Office very quickly but LibreOffice's menus are a confusing maze (even when switched into the more ribbon-like mode).
> So far the only exception that I've seen of a FOSS piece of software with great UX is Blender.
Most OSS software favors power users instead of total beginners. And even Blender is not a great exercise in discoverability. You need training to use it.
The stock software in Kobo and kindle can be used within minutes because they don't have a lot of features/options. And it's totally fine if that's what you need. Just like Windows 7's Notepad. But if you need more capabilities, your wish is notepad++/vim level (which does require more learning), which is what koreader is.
> Most OSS software favors power users instead of total beginners. And even Blender is not a great exercise in discoverability. You need training to use it.
I think it’s more subtle than that. I am a power user — I was compiling my Linux kernel in the 90s, I wrote my own SSH tunnel manager 20 years ago, I always fiddle with settings, etc. etc.
However, I am constantly frustrated with a lot of OSS software because it expects you to think like the developer of the tool, instead of having empathy for the user. What feels obvious to the developer of the tool (I am making up a hopefully-representative hypothetical here, but finding the change of font under “Theme” because it’s how “it looks” but finding the font size under “View” because, well, you view it) feels frustrating and nonsensical to a normal human who relates both the font and its size the same way in their mind. Again, generally — I’m making generalizations here and not calling out any specific software, but trying to illustrate the feeling that I get.
When I switched to the Mac in 2002, it is because these sorts of things made sense. Yes, there were and are frustrations because of this sort of opinionated design mentality, but I judged the benefits to outweigh the positives. Unfortunately, Apple squandered this culture and skill and nowadays I often find the platform as frustrating as OSS ones, to the point where I have switched back to 50/50 time split between platforms.
I find this is mostly just a "mindset" difference.
OSS software aligns mentally with "tool". It only exists because someone had a problem to solve, and they wanted a tool to solve it. Generally, people should expect to have to learn how to use tools. Then they solve their problem and move on. It takes effort, and the result is mastery which gives you new capabilities.
Consumer software (and especially anything ad supported or social media adjacent, and sadly in many respects, lots of modern SaaS companies) want to be as glitzy and smooth as possible, but they don't actually want you to solve your problem. Instead they'd really prefer that you simply spend as much time looking at their software as possible. So the experience can be quite pleasant, it feels nice, things feel obvious, you get the dopamine hits quick and fast. But after a while you realize you aren't actually all that productive (or even productive at all) when engaging with them. Because the goal of this software isn't to help you solve your problem. The goal is to keep your attention and extract your money. If it happens to solve your problem... sometimes that's fine, sometimes that's actually counter to the primary mission of extracting your time and money.
> The stock software in Kobo and kindle can be used within minutes because they don't have a lot of features/options.
Afaik koreader itself does not support stylus while the default reader in kobo does (somebody made a plugin lately but not sure how stable it is). Not to say that koreader is not amazing, but it does not mean that FOSS always has strictly more features. If koreader had strictly more features and I wanted some of them I would choose that. But I also right now want to use the ereader to read books and take notes, not tweak plugins and configurations. I have been in this "power user" loop where I spend more time with configuring rather than doing the thing, and I am a bit more selective with when this makes sense to me.
I love the discoverability of blender in the sense that I can hit space and start typing the name of the thing I want to do and run it from there while it shows me in what menu I could find it and what shortcut to use. And next space it remembers the last thing I ran so to repeat it its even faster.
This requires however to remember the name of the command (or parts of it). I often remember that but not where to find it or the shortcut.
It also requires that you chose the spacebar search option, which is the only correct option if you ask me. (Not a pro. Just messing around with blender sometimes.)
you will spend much MUCH more time as a power law user than as a new user, such that almost any % gain in productivity once familiar is worth almost any months of unproductivity when new.
> I think the issue of bad UX and OSS are comorbid because
I think UX is simply harder when you're not leading the user by the nose to your most profitable features, and removing or obscuring the others. Commercial UX is more akin to advertising than UX, so there's no wonder that it makes very clear the few affordances that it offers (and bizarre when it doesn't, like the "flat" period.)
The other problem with FOSS UX is that millions of dollars haven't been put into it (literally: 5 developers = 1 million dollars/year.) The wonderful benefit of FOSS UX is that you have plenty of time to learn it, because every feature is already there, no one is forcing you to upgrade, and no one is moving things around and deleting things because it is more profitable to them.
Commercial UX had better be good enough to learn basic functionality quickly, because it's going to be completely recycled every year. It also doesn't want you to learn anything too deeply, because then you might become a (gasp) "power user" and make unprofitable demands.
Imagine using the same type of software (e.g. an mp3 player) for a couple dozen years and thinking that it's a hassle to figure out how to learn it. Imagine being boiled like a frog to relearn how your mp3 player works every couple years for a couple dozen years, and dreaming you've saved some sort of time or effort. Imagine you've used mp3 players for a couple dozen years, you still don't know what an mp3 is, you don't know what a file is, and you don't know how to get your mp3s back after switching your mp3 player without rebuying them. Eventually you switch to streaming, give up making any decisions, and take whatever the marketers prefer.
I jailbroke my Kindle and moved to KOReader last year, primarily to get away from the Amazon jail. Just the bare KOReader UX was pretty utilitarian. It lacked polish for sure. I'll have to agree that, as noted elsewhere, the KOReader menus can be difficult to get a grip on.
If you're working at just the most basic level of functionality, I don't think KOReader is necessarily worse than native Kindle. The latter is hampered by being very opinionated about how you should experience it, and that includes pushing their store above the user's own library, and this is a real annoyance.
As you start to demand more capabilities they diverge more. Organizing when you've got many books on the device is clunky on both platforms, but in different ways. The native Kindle options for grouping are simple, but not necessarily easy. They're very generic, and very cumbersome to work with. Bare KOReader's support for folders makes more sense to me, and it's easier to deal with bulk books than is Kindle's.
Getting books onto Kindle is super-easy if you get them from Amazon, but complexity ramps up for other sources. Your best bet is plugging it into USB and transferring via the file system. Native KOReader add to this an OPDS capability (if your book repository supports it), which works but is less than pleasant. If you use BookOrbit as your repository, there's a plugin that gives you the remote BookOrbit UI from the Kindle, which makes things a LOT better.
I experimented with Simply UI for a bit but could never get it to work quite right. About a month ago I found Bookshelf, and this makes the UX pretty wonderful. It has a very attractive and intuitive UI. And it simplifies the interactions needed for group management a bit.
Bottom line is that KOReader + Bookshelf are, for at least a power user, a potentially far superior experience compared to baseline Kindle.
I've tried hard to make Bookshelf work for me, but I find the UI confusing, going off in unexpected directions, and it's very unintuitive. I've got SimpleUI at the moment and it's comfortable, even though the library interface is lacking.
I don't know what the situation is like for Kindle, but there are atleast two open source alternatives for Kobo. KOReader is the Swiss Army knife, Plato is easier to use.
A few people are suggesting that KOReader is symptomatic if the issues with open source software. The reality is it targets a particular group of users.
Fagles was what I read when I first read the Iliad/Odysseus years ago, and I was happy to see him pop up as my revealed preference via the test. I'm also a big fan of Lombardo.
Forgive my ignorance; I'm not a Sanskrit speaker (Malayalam is my first language) -- but I love the sound of Sanskrit.
I have lots of questions: what's the use case for this? Primarily religious / liturgical? It also seems that the fact that this tool works means that any arbitrary Sanskrit sentence can be translated into a chant by some sort of procedure (dare I say algorithm)? I'm terribly curious and fascinated by this!
I think complex Sanskrit words are difficult to roll off the tongue and pronounce if read in a dry manner specially if you don't already know the words or meaning, which unfortunately is true for the majority out there who want to read them, including myself.
Having a spoken reference that too as a chant makes it easy to recite the verses.
Automating pundits in family functions would be my first guess. Could be more convenient and reliable than having to invite some stranger just for recitation.
You should ask yourself - would most christians prefer baptism in a bathtubs at home or drive in weddings for convenience? No? Exactly.
Hindu Vedic pandits and priests who come in and run priestly events and functions at Hindu homes are usually well known within their communities are not treated as strangers and neither is there an element of inconvenience. If anything their absence adds an element of inconvenience. For one most rituals in sanskrit are available on youtube for those who want to diy. But most discerning Hindus prefer the real thing. Same as Christians.
Come on be so for real right now? I have been to many Hindu events, and the pandit is really just there to make things official and say the words. 90% of attendees don't know what he's actually saying. 80% have never met him or his associates.
Now you can't automate him either. His presence is there because religious rituals and practice and tradition mandate his presence, but if you could just play the chants over a speaker and have people understand and follow the ritual instructions some other way, nothing would really change.
For what it's worth, people can and do use AI visuals and sermons in Christianity as well
You 'could' also play the bible over a speaker and do away with a church father delivering a sermon then?
If you have been to many hindu events you would know Vak (speech) and Prana (breath) are both required to deliver vedic chants. Why do people go to musical concerts when they can turn on spotify? Use common sense.
Priestless hindu functions at your home will get laughed at so save yourself some embarrassment.
Please read my comment again. I mentioned that physical presence is necessary but the idea expressed in the comment before mine that people who hire such priests know them well, or that it's the discernment of Hindus rather than a strict requirement which makes such priests invaluable is false.
Were their presence not required, absolutely people would turn to recorded voice as 90% of people don't know what is being said anyways
Most religious families in India have generational priests. Its a privilege to have one too as those priests can be discerning about who they provide services to. Recordings would lower whatever inconvenience families without access to a generational priest but again, its a privilege of location, having strong roots in one's own community though several generations. If you are an urban nuclear family YMMV - their needs are different and they dont care about Vak, Praana and all other aspects of Hindu prayers. The aspect of '90% of people dont't know what is being said anyways' applies to majority of people around the world accross religions.
Incorrect. 80% of Muslims do not understand spoken Arabic. For Christians, virtually 0% read Latin to access the "original" Bible. They are depend on translations that do not preserve the meaning verbatim. Same with sanksrit.
They understand the very small amount which is used in their far shorter rituals. The original Bible isn't in Latin nor are Catholic masses in Latin anymore
The old testament was written primarily in ancient Hebrew. English version is a translation is not authoritative. The vatican does not use the English version for daily prayers (instead uses latin).
Sankrit is the mother language of a lot of indian languages that Hindu’s speak, and can be reproduced without loss of fidelity in many languages. Sanskrit is also easily understandable and readable
if you know the language you speak enough to be able to write it. I dont think you can reproduce arabic version of the quran in bengali or urdu or indonesian. And again, majority of muslims do not understand Arabic to be able to use it for more than daily prayers.
Naomi is an awesome writer and she's been doing many of these deep dives into literary journals. She's also reviewed entire historic genres (like old westerns), IIRC. She has a really unique ability to plainly grasp what's special about a group of related writing.
Curious, in Spanish we have the same saying, but always in the negative version ("no hay moros en la costa") which is something you say when you're doing something secret and there is no one around who could see, hear or cause trouble.
In the UK we say 'the coast is clear' when telling someone that 'there is no-one around to see any misdeeds you're about to do'. Nothing about Moors, nor even Spaniards!
In an alternate timeline, The Sea Peoples are Romans sailing to England, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans. Things became fuzzy when the English themselves became other civilization's Sea Peoples.
I wish the author would go into detail about the sea peoples. From what I read, one theory is that they were subject allies of the Hittites; once the Hittites collapsed they went in search of better farmland with their entire families.
