@Scmbradley @schratze Responding to this seriously for a moment: I always put a lot of work into making sure my software works reliably. Sometimes that means not having certain features because they are impossible to implement reliably.

But what then happens, is that it fails to gain traction and adoption the way that shinier, less reliable options do, because on paper my thing has 'less features'. There are more factors that affect adoption, of course, but this is definitely a real issue.

And while adoption for the sake of adoption isn't useful, widespread adoption *is* usually how people learn of the existence of a thing. So the result is that I can't reach people who would have been interested in it.

And I feel like that's part of the problem here, not just for me - we need structures for distributing knowledge of tools and devices that may be obscure, but that are deliberately reliable, that don't rely on things just coincidentally landing at the feet of the right people, because that implicitly depends on it having mass market appeal.

Otherwise all the incentives are aligned to do the less reliable but more appealing thing.