Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tim: That computer journalism is generally incompetent, way off the ball, way out of date, and completely beat up. As a quick example, that article is about open source *business* model, not about open source. Yet the title is completely bogus, in a crap attempt to stir the pot. Ed Greshko: I feel that is a bit harsh. I don't, I feel it's an accurate summation of their bad journalism, typical of faux technical journalism, and tabloid headline hyping. One trouble with crap journalism is that it's read by people who don't know any better, either. So open source model broken becomes promoted far and wide, where it's believed with no regard for the facts. To coin a phrase, some pointy haired boss will read it, understand nothing about it, but take the title as gospel, and make even more stupid decisions against using open source. Yet, I wonder how may of these companies are flourishing? And, is it really out of line to conclude Unless open-source providers find new ways to add value for their customers, especially in this economic environment, the growth of their companies is at serious risk. Some business models for using something (open source, or something else) will be broken, that's always been the way. Some do well selling books, big and expensive books, or lots of smaller books for dummies, on the systems. Others provide support, or sell packaged systems that work from the get-go, etc. But if someone thinks, hey we can get this thing for free and sell copies of it, making whacking profits in the process, I think they're dreaming that it's going to earn them the money they hope it can, considering that anybody with a slight bit of nous can get the *same* thing for free (individuals, or other like-minded businesses). Just because something is freely available, doesn't mean that you'll be able to exploit it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.5-41.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tim wrote: I don't, I feel it's an accurate summation of their bad journalism, typical of faux technical journalism, and tabloid headline hyping. Yet, nothing on the technical side was called into question. So, why to you bring up faux technical journalism? One trouble with crap journalism is that it's read by people who don't know any better, either. So open source model broken becomes promoted far and wide, where it's believed with no regard for the facts. To coin a phrase, some pointy haired boss will read it, understand nothing about it, but take the title as gospel, and make even more stupid decisions against using open source. Sorry I sense a knee jerk reaction. Yet, I wonder how may of these companies are flourishing? And, is it really out of line to conclude Unless open-source providers find new ways to add value for their customers, especially in this economic environment, the growth of their companies is at serious risk. Some business models for using something (open source, or something else) will be broken, that's always been the way. Some do well selling books, big and expensive books, or lots of smaller books for dummies, on the systems. Others provide support, or sell packaged systems that work from the get-go, etc. But if someone thinks, hey we can get this thing for free and sell copies of it, making whacking profits in the process, I think they're dreaming that it's going to earn them the money they hope it can, considering that anybody with a slight bit of nous can get the *same* thing for free (individuals, or other like-minded businesses). Just because something is freely available, doesn't mean that you'll be able to exploit it. Well, whatever. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Yet, I feel you are reading much more into the article than was intended. -- She's a (spirit) medium. Well, more a small. (Reaper Man) [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:13 +0530 Rahul Tidke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? Well, I think he makes some interesting points, but he's drawing a broad generalization from very little presented data. And, as other intelligent people have pointed out in the thread (and as the article author kind of pointed out, but ignored to a large degree, perhaps for reasons of sensationalism--and it worked, look how long this thread is) open-source is a development model, not a business model. However, I run a business (Everything Solved, Inc.) that is supported entirely by providing services related to open-source software. It's been quite successful for several years. So that's one counter-example. If he's saying, The words 'open-source' aren't a genie in a bottle, then yeah, he's right, but I think we've all known that since 2000. The bubble was a long time ago now, folks. :-) As always, you can't just go around stealing VCs' money and not *selling* anything and expect your business to go anywhere. Big news. :-) There's no real get-rich-quick in the world, there's only work hard, be smart, be well-organized, be lucky, and maybe you'll get rich. -Max -- http://www.everythingsolved.com/ Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 11:43 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: Ed Greshko wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). Actually, my motives where much more subtle (sinister). I tend to feel that some those wanting more/better documentation don't quite realize how difficult producing quality documentation for the masses truly is. So, it is more of try doing it and maybe you'll gain some appreciation for the difficulty. How does understanding the difficultly help? And other than the interactive desktop programs like the office tools, why should 'masses' need to know all the details? 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Which is why there may be a niche market for some company involved support to include documentation. But, that would require a business plan and a business model :-( There is a well known book publisher covering technical topics with a bazillion titles, but published books can't keep up with the rate of change in fedora. What we need is a way to eliminate most of the need for local configuration in the same way open source eliminates most of the need for local programming for common tasks. That is, have a way that a configuration that someone has expertly tuned for a particular purpose can be shared with anyone who needs to do the same kind of work. Fedora mostly just ships one config file for every program and might do a little tweaking to match hardware and user choices during installation. If there were perhaps a hundred choices instead, pre-tuned to different usage models, the end user would only need to know what he wanted to accomplish, not the million variables he had to change to do it. But who would collect, setup the access, vet the operation of those 100 setups, provide accurate information about how they are tuned, and so on and so on and so on Regards, Les H -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 19:22 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 09:31:55 AM -0800, Les wrote: On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 12:04 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. I haven't written anything for LINUX, but I can tell you that the biggest issue is getting something on paper (in bits?). Once the first effort is in, LOTS of people can fix it and even copy it and redo some or most of it... That's OK, if your intention is to get information into the Linux sphere. I was **explicitly** speaking, see the quote above, of **good** documentation. And since I already wrote how weak I find assumptions like yours above, I'll simply point you to Point 1 of http://digifreedom.net/node/61. So, my advice is just do it. someone will fix it. Here I could simply answer after you, please or repeat what I wrote above: we're talking about quality, not quantity. But I have a very fresh, real world example of somebody who just did it and things didn't go as you say, so I'll let that speak for itself. Have a look to the thread about Postfix How-tos starting at http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2008-12/0133.html the thread summary is: - postfix gurus only wrote good, but too difficult docs - some popular postfix howtos (by other people who just did them) are broken - newbies read **those** docs only, as the official ones are too difficult - they make mistakes following those docs, ask how to fix them to the postfix list. This happens several times a year. - every time, postfix gurus answer those docs are broken, check the official docs - for any number of reasons, postfix gurus have no plan to write better howtos themselves - nobody but postfix gurus could write better howtos than those already available, or fix those ones. Excepted a good technical writer **paid** enough to spend on the subject lots of time, since it isn't an easy task by any means. Actually Marco, I have written many documents, and am a pretty decent technical writer within the area of my particular expertise. I am a Test Applications person who wrote over 60 programs for Teradyne Inc. along with several hundred pages of documentation on system use and technical skills for test applications. You would find some of them in nearly every company in the world using Teradyne systems. I wrote and delivered training on RF, Video, DSP, system correlation, and several other topics, and no one ever complained that they didn't get their money's worth. Yet even my documentation was often improved upon by those who followed later. That is engineering in progress. Some of those changes were patently wrong as well, and often what the uninitiated see as a failure of the documentation is really a failure in following well what was written. In many cases the folks who criticize documentation haven't actually read it. I read nearly a 1000 pages a week of technical documentation, and that is what makes me good at what I do. The field for Technical topics is not ever static. During my career, from vacuum tubes to DTL, then TTL, then MOS, then CMOS and advanced BI-CMOS, some DMOS, and of course the advanced processes today where devices are so small that you practically need a microscope to read their labeling, the field has continually advanced. Advanced architectures today for software, hardware, and OS's are changing at an increasing rate, and have been for decades. It won't stop, or get easier, but only magnitudes of more difficult if you do not keep up. When you talk about how docs are broken, and then refer to Wikipedia, you are not looking at true technical documentation, but historical documentation, and there is a real difference. What is needed for technical documentation is indepth knowledge of not only how a system works, but why, and why you should not short cut the means and methods supplied. Does that mean that everyone will read the documentation? Of course not, and of those who really read the documentation, how many will actually act according to the document? My experience is that at every engineering site, there are one or two guru's, and they are the ones who actually do the grunt work to understand how things work. They read the documents. Most of the rest to some degree piggy back on those few. That's not bad either. It is human nature. The best companies find out the best capabilities of each and capitalize on them, as well as working with their weaknesses to improve the people within the company. The most successful companies leverage that expertise across their customer base and across product lines. And that leveraging is accomplished through abbreviated documentation targeting specific needs, along with
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 19:22 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 09:31:55 AM -0800, Les wrote: On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 12:04 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. I haven't written anything for LINUX, but I can tell you that the biggest issue is getting something on paper (in bits?). Once the first effort is in, LOTS of people can fix it and even copy it and redo some or most of it... That's OK, if your intention is to get information into the Linux sphere. I was **explicitly** speaking, see the quote above, of **good** documentation. And since I already wrote how weak I find assumptions like yours above, I'll simply point you to Point 1 of http://digifreedom.net/node/61. So, my advice is just do it. someone will fix it. Here I could simply answer after you, please or repeat what I wrote above: we're talking about quality, not quantity. But I have a very fresh, real world example of somebody who just did it and things didn't go as you say, so I'll let that speak for itself. Have a look to the thread about Postfix How-tos starting at http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2008-12/0133.html the thread summary is: - postfix gurus only wrote good, but too difficult docs - some popular postfix howtos (by other people who just did them) are broken - newbies read **those** docs only, as the official ones are too difficult - they make mistakes following those docs, ask how to fix them to the postfix list. This happens several times a year. - every time, postfix gurus answer those docs are broken, check the official docs - for any number of reasons, postfix gurus have no plan to write better howtos themselves - nobody but postfix gurus could write better howtos than those already available, or fix those ones. Excepted a good technical writer **paid** enough to spend on the subject lots of time, since it isn't an easy task by any means. since it isn't an easy task by any means is the statement I hear a lot. The truth is that writing should be part and parcel of every engineers job. However it is seen as grunt work by many young engineers who have not been well exposed to the need for documentation within their education. Programmers are taught self documenting code... What an oxymoron. We do call it code for a reason. Hardware and software engineers are not well educated in the need for documentation, and seldom given any time at all to do that portion of the job. If you take time to do the correct support task some fool that doesn't know anything about the task, the skills, the knowledge, or the overall expertise of state of the art will criticize it. As a result you get bad support, poor products, and the inability to transfer knowledge. Read the documents on ANY software package built on object oriented code, and tell me how many bits of the data, code and operation are required to actually accomplish the given task, or how it can be improved. Ever tried to optimize object oriented code? I have. There are a lot of educators on this list. I hope they read my last post on this and this one. Our societies depend upon the software and hardware being designed and built today. Your cars systems, aircraft systems, medical systems, alarm systems, communications systems are all becoming vulnerable to loss of knowledge and expertise. Sorry Marco, just one of my pet peeves. Regards, Les H -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Les wrote: But who would collect, setup the access, vet the operation of those 100 setups, provide accurate information about how they are tuned, and so on and so on and so on Who cares You've managed to stray so far OT from an OT that it is meaningless. Yes, when another poster mentioned documentation I should have flagged it as irrelevant to the original OT discussion so as not to lead you to continue. My bad Meaningless discussion ended. -- How sharper than a hound's tooth it is to have a thankless serpent. [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Les wrote: There is a well known book publisher covering technical topics with a bazillion titles, but published books can't keep up with the rate of change in fedora. What we need is a way to eliminate most of the need for local configuration in the same way open source eliminates most of the need for local programming for common tasks. That is, have a way that a configuration that someone has expertly tuned for a particular purpose can be shared with anyone who needs to do the same kind of work. Fedora mostly just ships one config file for every program and might do a little tweaking to match hardware and user choices during installation. If there were perhaps a hundred choices instead, pre-tuned to different usage models, the end user would only need to know what he wanted to accomplish, not the million variables he had to change to do it. But who would collect, setup the access, vet the operation of those 100 setups, provide accurate information about how they are tuned, and so on and so on and so on It is definitely a missing piece but more a 'how' than a 'who'. In my opinion it should be part of a distribution's infrastructure, needed just as much as the part that manages the source code. People who have a configuration they want to share should be able to do it with an action as simple as committing to a version control system. In fact with a distributed VC, it should be possible to have a system that could be used locally for farms of machines and also push a copy up to a public repository. I can't imagine anyone today designing an operating system with thousands of lines of unversioned cruft spattered all over the place that actually control the way it works (or doesn't...). Vetting should be like every other fedora item: let the users download it and if it is broken they get to keep both pieces. Having a way to add comments and feedback would let you crowdsource the work of determining what works best in what situations, though. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Saturday 06 December 2008, Tom Horsley wrote: Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? So, what is your view? Generally crappy code in need of constant support? Uh, oh. You didn't want to get me started on this... :-) Well, seeing as how in this new F10 release alone we have the DNS resolver library code broken for lots of people, the NetworkManager being used to replace network even though it screams not ready for prime-time and not backward compatible and GDM completely rewritten, leaving out vast chunks of functionality, I wouldn't exactly call it not requiring much support. But my biggest issue with the open source model is the utter lack of any documentation for anything. And if, God Forbid, something should, over time, become well documented through mechanisms like google searches and wiki pages, and dummies books, that seems to be some kind of catalyst for the developers, triggering a frantic need to utterly rewrite something that was perfectly OK, just to make sure it retains its traditional level of obfuscation :-). Even worse, the lack of documentation forms a kind of positive feedback loop, increasing the feeling that things need to be rewritten, not because they really need it, but because it is easier to rewrite than to understand how to modify the existing code. +1 Tom, a bullseye -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Flee at once, all is discovered. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tom Horsley wrote: Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? So, what is your view? Generally crappy code in need of constant support? Uh, oh. You didn't want to get me started on this... :-) Well, seeing as how in this new F10 release alone we have the DNS resolver library code broken for lots of people, the NetworkManager being used to replace network even though it screams not ready for prime-time and not backward compatible and GDM completely rewritten, leaving out vast chunks of functionality, I wouldn't exactly call it not requiring much support. Do you think it is valid to use F-anything as a point of reference for support? Remember, the target audience of the article is business. But my biggest issue with the open source model is the utter lack of any documentation for anything. And if, God Forbid, something should, over time, become well documented through mechanisms like google searches and wiki pages, and dummies books, that seems to be some kind of catalyst for the developers, triggering a frantic need to utterly rewrite something that was perfectly OK, just to make sure it retains its traditional level of obfuscation :-). You point out a long standing problem. Developers are generally poor documenters. Good documenters generally don't come cheap. I feel the world is populated by more good programmers/developers than good documenters. Or, at least, there are more programmers/developers who earn enough from their day jobs to contribute than there are documenters. When I hear folks lamenting the lack of documentation I often wonder what percentage of them dedicate their time to a documentation project. While you did end your sentence with a smiley, we all know that rewrites are prompted by other things. Sometimes it is as simple as the developer realizing they should have done it differently to make it more efficient. At other times it is a request for a new feature and the developer finding out it can't be done reasonably in the original framework. I suppose you were trying to construct an non-sequitur in suggesting that out dating the documentation would be a driving force in rewriting software. I let Wiley handle those :-)* * Even worse, the lack of documentation forms a kind of positive feedback loop, increasing the feeling that things need to be rewritten, not because they really need it, but because it is easier to rewrite than to understand how to modify the existing code. Sorry, I don't follow that logic either. I'm not sure if you are talking about the end-user documentation or the documentation that should exist within the source code. I feel these are vastly different things. Certainly there have been projects have been adopted by people other than the original developers and there have been times where the code wasn't documented to the point where the new staff felt it was easier to rewrite the code to provide the same functionality. Would documentation be something the author of the BW article be talking about when he speaks of adding value? And, isn't the target of the article the business end-user? -- O.K.! Speak with a PHILADELPHIA ACCENT!! Send out for CHINESE FOOD! Hop a JET! [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 09:56:13 AM +0530, Rahul Tidke wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? Ah, well, why not bite? Personally, more than the article itself, I found interesting and worth a read the page on the same theme (by the author of RUTE) linked in a comment: http://2038bug.com/free-software.html I do NOT agree with several important conclusions and assumptions of the author, but reading it probably helps to (re) look at several things with more humility and balance than some FOSS advocates have or show in some circumstances. On one thing I do agree with that page though: giving how it behaves (I could give more examples) not installing Evolution and replacing it with Thunderbird wouldn't hurt a bit. Marco F. -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 17:14:57 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: When I hear folks lamenting the lack of documentation I often wonder what percentage of them dedicate their time to a documentation project. Would it make any difference if they did? Is it fair to ask them write it yourself or shut up? In order to dedicate your time to documentation one would need to: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
M. Fioretti wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 17:14:57 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: When I hear folks lamenting the lack of documentation I often wonder what percentage of them dedicate their time to a documentation project. Would it make any difference if they did? Is it fair to ask them write it yourself or shut up? In order to dedicate your time to documentation one would need to: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). Actually, my motives where much more subtle (sinister). I tend to feel that some those wanting more/better documentation don't quite realize how difficult producing quality documentation for the masses truly is. So, it is more of try doing it and maybe you'll gain some appreciation for the difficulty. 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Which is why there may be a niche market for some company involved support to include documentation. But, that would require a business plan and a business model :-( Karl, are you listening? :-) :-) :-) -- mixed emotions: Watching a bus-load of lawyers plunge off a cliff. With five empty seats. [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 20:57:08 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). Actually, my motives where much more subtle (sinister). I tend to feel that some those wanting more/better documentation don't quite realize how difficult producing quality documentation for the masses truly is. So, it is more of try doing it and maybe you'll gain some appreciation for the difficulty. Oh, if that's what you meant, sorry. I completely agree with you on this. And on this too: there may be a niche market for some company involved support to include documentation. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 12:04 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 17:14:57 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: When I hear folks lamenting the lack of documentation I often wonder what percentage of them dedicate their time to a documentation project. Would it make any difference if they did? Is it fair to ask them write it yourself or shut up? In order to dedicate your time to documentation one would need to: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 I haven't written anything for LINUX, but I can tell you that the biggest issue is getting something on paper (in bits?). Once the first effort is in, LOTS of people can fix it, and several will and even copy it and redo some or most of it with their name on it. That's OK, if your intention is to get information into the Linux sphere. So, my advice is just do it. someone will fix it. Regards, Les H -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Ed Greshko wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). Actually, my motives where much more subtle (sinister). I tend to feel that some those wanting more/better documentation don't quite realize how difficult producing quality documentation for the masses truly is. So, it is more of try doing it and maybe you'll gain some appreciation for the difficulty. How does understanding the difficultly help? And other than the interactive desktop programs like the office tools, why should 'masses' need to know all the details? 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Which is why there may be a niche market for some company involved support to include documentation. But, that would require a business plan and a business model :-( There is a well known book publisher covering technical topics with a bazillion titles, but published books can't keep up with the rate of change in fedora. What we need is a way to eliminate most of the need for local configuration in the same way open source eliminates most of the need for local programming for common tasks. That is, have a way that a configuration that someone has expertly tuned for a particular purpose can be shared with anyone who needs to do the same kind of work. Fedora mostly just ships one config file for every program and might do a little tweaking to match hardware and user choices during installation. If there were perhaps a hundred choices instead, pre-tuned to different usage models, the end user would only need to know what he wanted to accomplish, not the million variables he had to change to do it. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tom Horsley wrote: Even worse, the lack of documentation forms a kind of positive feedback loop, increasing the feeling that things need to be rewritten, not because they really need it, but because it is easier to rewrite than to understand how to modify the existing code. I wonder if there is any research or statistical work that looks at the upstream packages in terms of rate of code change, or more specifically at the rate of change of external API's or even non-backwards-compatible changes to those APIs? A rating like that would give a real indication of how much choosing to use such a program is going to cost you in maintenance over time. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 09:31:55 AM -0800, Les wrote: On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 12:04 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. I haven't written anything for LINUX, but I can tell you that the biggest issue is getting something on paper (in bits?). Once the first effort is in, LOTS of people can fix it and even copy it and redo some or most of it... That's OK, if your intention is to get information into the Linux sphere. I was **explicitly** speaking, see the quote above, of **good** documentation. And since I already wrote how weak I find assumptions like yours above, I'll simply point you to Point 1 of http://digifreedom.net/node/61. So, my advice is just do it. someone will fix it. Here I could simply answer after you, please or repeat what I wrote above: we're talking about quality, not quantity. But I have a very fresh, real world example of somebody who just did it and things didn't go as you say, so I'll let that speak for itself. Have a look to the thread about Postfix How-tos starting at http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2008-12/0133.html the thread summary is: - postfix gurus only wrote good, but too difficult docs - some popular postfix howtos (by other people who just did them) are broken - newbies read **those** docs only, as the official ones are too difficult - they make mistakes following those docs, ask how to fix them to the postfix list. This happens several times a year. - every time, postfix gurus answer those docs are broken, check the official docs - for any number of reasons, postfix gurus have no plan to write better howtos themselves - nobody but postfix gurus could write better howtos than those already available, or fix those ones. Excepted a good technical writer **paid** enough to spend on the subject lots of time, since it isn't an easy task by any means. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Les Mikesell wrote: Ed Greshko wrote: 1) be ABLE to write good documentation. You yourself acknowledged good documenters are scarce. You're either good at it or you aren't, it's just like programming or any other complex creative activity. This is the biggest obstacle, or at least the first thing that makes the write it yourself or shut up useless (at least). Actually, my motives where much more subtle (sinister). I tend to feel that some those wanting more/better documentation don't quite realize how difficult producing quality documentation for the masses truly is. So, it is more of try doing it and maybe you'll gain some appreciation for the difficulty. How does understanding the difficultly help? And other than the interactive desktop programs like the office tools, why should 'masses' need to know all the details? 2) have enough free time, after you've paid mortgage, food and bills, to start and finish writing a manual. Unless you're _paid_ just to write that documentation, of course. Even if you're good, it takes a lot of time and effort to do a good job. Which is why there may be a niche market for some company involved support to include documentation. But, that would require a business plan and a business model :-( There is a well known book publisher covering technical topics with a bazillion titles, but published books can't keep up with the rate of change in fedora. What we need is a way to eliminate most of the need for local configuration in the same way open source eliminates most of the need for local programming for common tasks. That is, have a way that a configuration that someone has expertly tuned for a particular purpose can be shared with anyone who needs to do the same kind of work. Fedora mostly just ships one config file for every program and might do a little tweaking to match hardware and user choices during installation. If there were perhaps a hundred choices instead, pre-tuned to different usage models, the end user would only need to know what he wanted to accomplish, not the million variables he had to change to do it. *** I'm not talking about FEDORA...the article wasn't about FEDORA *** And this is getting even more OT than before. -- Use a pun, go to jail. [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Ed Greshko wrote: There is a well known book publisher covering technical topics with a bazillion titles, but published books can't keep up with the rate of change in fedora. *** I'm not talking about FEDORA...the article wasn't about FEDORA *** And this is getting even more OT than before. To whatever extent fedora wants to claim to be the leading edge distributor of open source, it is all about fedora - and whether they want to claim responsibility or not, fedora and Red Hat before the split have almost certainly dropped more code in more peoples laps than anyone else. Even if the article was strictly about businesses using RHEL, the changes all start being distributed in fedora - including the ones that are going to cause maintenance issues for users upgrading to the next RHEL. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 13:33:35 PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: M. Fioretti wrote: So, my advice is just do it. someone will fix it. Here I could simply answer after you, please or repeat what I wrote above: we're talking about quality, not quantity. There is a problem peculiar to the free/open source world in that poor quality versions of things have no reason to ever go away. What we're discussing now, that is your just do it, someone will fix it approach, has nothing whatever to do with the software license. Because we're talking of documentation written, or possibly improved, by third parties, not the developers. I don't have a solution for this - it is just an observation that if anyone ever releases bad documentation or even advice, others will be finding and following it years later via google and other archives. but this is a problem only because releasing crap documentation (the just do it, someone will fix it kind) is much, much easier than releasing good stuff, which is again the only point I was making. In the Postfix example, if such documentation existed the Postfix gurus would simply tell newbie don't read A, read B. Instead they say don't read A, read the mountain of over-detailed stuff at postfix.org even if you could go by with one decent, ten page how-to. I have a different take on this. Complex programs like postfix have (and need) thousands of options to cover every possible case... Rather than confuse people who should be just following standards with the thousands of options they shouldn't touch anyway, we need a dozen templates for this sort of program. Right. Now, who could write such good templates, ie distill without errors those thousands of options and explain the result clearly, in order to minimize misunderstandings, except the developers themselves or (much better) some pretty good technical writer who's either paid to do it or already financially secure? We keep going back to the original point, don't we? (and probably could well stop here, since we're not the ones who could fix this and it isn't Fedora-specific in any way) 'night Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
There is a problem peculiar to the free/open source world in that poor quality versions of things have no reason to ever go away. That takes Which actually isn't a problem but a feature. Stuff survives if someone cares enough to keep it going - which if you are the business who happens to be the one using that code is good news as you can keep it alive. Its also for the mainstream not true that poor stuff lives. Even good stuff that isn't the best or the most commonly used often gets clobbered by network effects. In fact you will find that each given application space is almost always dominated by one or two contenders with the remainder lost in the noise. Those contenders also change over time. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 22:18:23 PM +, Alan Cox wrote: There is a problem peculiar to the free/open source world in that poor quality versions of things have no reason to ever go away. That takes Which actually isn't a problem but a feature. with source code, yes, that's a blessing, no question. With bad documentation, which is the only thing we were discussing (*), no. (*) me, at least. Les actually diverged a bit throwing software itself, rather than its documentation, in the picture. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
M. Fioretti wrote: There is a problem peculiar to the free/open source world in that poor quality versions of things have no reason to ever go away. What we're discussing now, that is your just do it, someone will fix it approach, has nothing whatever to do with the software license. Because we're talking of documentation written, or possibly improved, by third parties, not the developers. What happens to the people trying to use it relates very much to the license, although only as a side effect. Commercial software vendors tend to maintain their own knowledge bases and attrition takes care of cleaning up the things that are out of date. With free stuff, you can probably still find copies of anything that has ever been released and it will clutter any searches you attempt. I don't have a solution for this - it is just an observation that if anyone ever releases bad documentation or even advice, others will be finding and following it years later via google and other archives. but this is a problem only because releasing crap documentation (the just do it, someone will fix it kind) is much, much easier than releasing good stuff, which is again the only point I was making. In the Postfix example, if such documentation existed the Postfix gurus would simply tell newbie don't read A, read B. Instead they say don't read A, read the mountain of over-detailed stuff at postfix.org even if you could go by with one decent, ten page how-to. One decent ten page how-to is right for 10% of the installs, a different ten page how-to would be right for a different 10%. But there's no way to find the one you need and avoid the others. I have a different take on this. Complex programs like postfix have (and need) thousands of options to cover every possible case... Rather than confuse people who should be just following standards with the thousands of options they shouldn't touch anyway, we need a dozen templates for this sort of program. Right. Now, who could write such good templates, ie distill without errors those thousands of options and explain the result clearly, in order to minimize misunderstandings, except the developers themselves or (much better) some pretty good technical writer who's either paid to do it or already financially secure? None of the above. Only a person who actually runs the program in production over a period of time will have a usable template, and it will only be suitable for some subset of other situations. The problem is that he has no way to share his work with the thousands of other people who could use exactly the same setup, and those thousands of people have no way to find the dozens of good examples that exist whose owners might want to share them. For the code, there are source code archives where you can easily track changes over time and alternate branches of development - for a very small developer base. For the much larger user base there is only a choice of 500-page books detailing every obscure config option or the single default config that comes with a distribution. We keep going back to the original point, don't we? (and probably could well stop here, since we're not the ones who could fix this and it isn't Fedora-specific in any way) Who could fix it? What we need is a location and mechanism for admins to share their config files with similar tools that code developers have to maintain versions/branches etc., and view diffs across them. And to whatever extent possible, fedora could produce alternative packaged configs on the order of the caching dns server that would help some subset of users. Making an end user need to know about a million config options to create one of a dozen or so common setups doesn't make much more sense than just throwing the source code at them. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
M. Fioretti wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 22:18:23 PM +, Alan Cox wrote: There is a problem peculiar to the free/open source world in that poor quality versions of things have no reason to ever go away. That takes Which actually isn't a problem but a feature. with source code, yes, that's a blessing, no question. With bad documentation, which is the only thing we were discussing (*), no. (*) me, at least. Les actually diverged a bit throwing software itself, rather than its documentation, in the picture. I tried to separate the concepts of end-user documentation for the things that end users should need to know (like using interactive office programs to create your own content) from things related to program setup and configuration. For the latter, people should only need to know what it takes to make them work. If you can ship something that works the way the user wants it to work, they don't need documentation any more than they need the source code (...the real documentation at that level). If you don't understand how these are intertwined, consider how almost any variable could be left in the source or extrapolated into a config file - and in the case of interpreted programs like perl or shell scripts the configuration may in fact be a piece of the software itself, sourced at runtime. The 'one-size-fits-all' concept of the distribution RPMs doesn't quite work to provide configurations that 'just work' for everyone, but a few dozen canned configs might cover most of the cases. This is, of course, a different issue than 'how do I connect a form in openoffice to a table in postgresql?'. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 16:55:54 PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: Commercial software vendors tend to maintain their own knowledge bases and attrition takes care of cleaning up the things that are out of date. With free stuff, you can probably still find copies of anything that has ever been released and it will clutter any searches you attempt. Good point, you're right here. Right. Now, who could write such good templates, ie distill without errors those thousands of options and explain the result clearly, in order to minimize misunderstandings, except the developers themselves or (much better) some pretty good technical writer who's either paid to do it or already financially secure? None of the above. Only a person who actually runs the program in production over a period of time will have a usable template This is exactly what a responsible, professional tech writer does before writing. Either he runs the sw himself or nags to death the developers and testers to figure out what their notes and internal docs mean. The problem is that he [who has a usable template] has no way to share his work with the thousands of other people who could use exactly the same setup This is false. All that person should do is publish online one page with that template and a few clearly written explanations of its content. It's writing the clear explanation which is hard, which is a good part of why those templates don't pop up every day. Who could fix it? What we need is a location and mechanism for admins to share their config files with similar tools that code developers have to maintain versions/branches etc., and view diffs across them. Les, I have made one general comment about how difficult it is to write good documentation on whatever subject, never mind Fedora. Now you are talking of something which has nothing to do with the topic I suggested. The fact that I used a Postfix example doesn't mean that the good docs problem is only for initial configuration, I thought that was clear, sorry. Having a config files repository would be absolutely useless for a newbie user of, say OpenOffice or Kde. Or even a novice postfix administrator who needs to understand what he finds in the log files, or why postfix runs slowly. With all respect, you're flying way too far from the only point that interests me in what was even in the beginning an OT discussion, so please don't be offended if I stop right here. If you want to propose a Fedora or distro-agnostic mechanism to share config files, that's good. But I have nothing to say right now on such a subject and you'd really be better by starting a brand new thread for this. Many people are surely ignoring these messages altogether due to their subject. Good night now. Marco -- Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Rahul Tidke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? Well open source isn't a business model, so I am not sure why the businessweek.com cares about it. It is solely a development model. -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
M. Fioretti wrote: Right. Now, who could write such good templates, ie distill without errors those thousands of options and explain the result clearly, in order to minimize misunderstandings, except the developers themselves or (much better) some pretty good technical writer who's either paid to do it or already financially secure? None of the above. Only a person who actually runs the program in production over a period of time will have a usable template This is exactly what a responsible, professional tech writer does before writing. Either he runs the sw himself or nags to death the developers and testers to figure out what their notes and internal docs mean. Tech writers and developers often can't test in production scales themselves - and developers are way to optimistic about things. I'd expect someone who actually keeps a large university mail system running to have a much more realistic config file than someone who only looks at the theory. The problem is that he [who has a usable template] has no way to share his work with the thousands of other people who could use exactly the same setup This is false. All that person should do is publish online one page with that template and a few clearly written explanations of its content. That's equally true for source code, but we don't expect users to build their systems from scratch by gathering up source code page by page from random users they don't know in random, distributed places, do we? It's writing the clear explanation which is hard, which is a good part of why those templates don't pop up every day. Explanations are mostly irrelevant if you it works like an appliance. If you need details you can go to the source. Who could fix it? What we need is a location and mechanism for admins to share their config files with similar tools that code developers have to maintain versions/branches etc., and view diffs across them. Les, I have made one general comment about how difficult it is to write good documentation on whatever subject, never mind Fedora. Now you are talking of something which has nothing to do with the topic I suggested. The fact that I used a Postfix example doesn't mean that the good docs problem is only for initial configuration, I thought that was clear, sorry. Postfix is a perfect example. Very few people should ever need to know any config options for mail systems. They just need one installed that works in one of some small number of siturations. Having a config files repository would be absolutely useless for a newbie user of, say OpenOffice or Kde. Agreed - there is a big difference in end user run-time operation and administrivia. But they aren't treated differently in the distributions, which contributes to the reputation of open source documentation that started this topic. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
(Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? Regards, Rahul. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 09:56 +0530, Rahul Tidke wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? That computer journalism is generally incompetent, way off the ball, way out of date, and completely beat up. As a quick example, that article is about open source *business* model, not about open source. Yet the title is completely bogus, in a crap attempt to stir the pot. The only point of that article is to increase their readership, not to do anything else beneficial. It's best ignored, like the painful bratty child in class who wants everyone to look at me. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.5-41.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tim wrote: On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 09:56 +0530, Rahul Tidke wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Any comments from Fedora community?? That computer journalism is generally incompetent, way off the ball, way out of date, and completely beat up. As a quick example, that article is about open source *business* model, not about open source. Yet the title is completely bogus, in a crap attempt to stir the pot. I feel that is a bit harsh. First of all the article does appear in Business Week so I feel it should be apparent that the focus is on business and not the technology or any moral precepts. While the one line title should have been Open Source: The Business Model Is Broken, maybe we can chalk that up to an editor who felt constrained to fit it into a single line on the web page? And even if we can't accept that, maybe the smaller lines in the title will clue us in on what the article is all about...oh right, I am reading Business Week. It is not as if the purpose of the article is hidden. :-) Frankly, I am ill prepared to answer to what I think about the questions/issues raised in the article since I am not an investor in companies that have been trying to make (me) money utilizing this business model. I am also not a reader or follower of those companies balance sheets. Not to mention that I'd be hard pressed to serve up a viable business plan on my own. (Note: I am being kind to myself.) Yet, I wonder how may of these companies are flourishing? And, is it really out of line to conclude Unless open-source providers find new ways to add value for their customers, especially in this economic environment, the growth of their companies is at serious risk. Seems to me it is almost like asking If the Big-3 automakers in the US don't wise up and provide the cars the world needs/wants shouldn't they prepare to become extinct?. -- I wouldn't be so paranoid if you weren't all out to get me!! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:13 +0530 Rahul Tidke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Tom Horsley wrote: On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:13 +0530 Rahul Tidke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2008/tc20081130_276152.htm Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? So, what is your view? Generally crappy code in need of constant support? -- There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: (Off Topic ) Open Source: The Model Is Broken ??
Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support. What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? So, what is your view? Generally crappy code in need of constant support? Uh, oh. You didn't want to get me started on this... :-) Well, seeing as how in this new F10 release alone we have the DNS resolver library code broken for lots of people, the NetworkManager being used to replace network even though it screams not ready for prime-time and not backward compatible and GDM completely rewritten, leaving out vast chunks of functionality, I wouldn't exactly call it not requiring much support. But my biggest issue with the open source model is the utter lack of any documentation for anything. And if, God Forbid, something should, over time, become well documented through mechanisms like google searches and wiki pages, and dummies books, that seems to be some kind of catalyst for the developers, triggering a frantic need to utterly rewrite something that was perfectly OK, just to make sure it retains its traditional level of obfuscation :-). Even worse, the lack of documentation forms a kind of positive feedback loop, increasing the feeling that things need to be rewritten, not because they really need it, but because it is easier to rewrite than to understand how to modify the existing code. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
