[...]
There is this cultural pressure on standards to be marketing tools.
Because of the government and military context for GIS, this pressure
is particularly intense for us. It starts to loop back on itself somewhat
like this, http://frot.org/on_standards/statements.html
Jo,
Thanks for
IMO:
Well said Jo.
I know, this argument has gone round and round in the past, and many
are impatient with philosophising. I hope that philosophising can
sometimes provide energysaving insight, or i wouldnt engage in it. But
repeating without code, you are nothing grates on the nerves
Tim Bowden wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 21:28 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Or, to quote the IETF, rough consensus and running code.
Except that the reference is to the informal criteria for when one might
even beginning to firm up a standard. In the
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] scale of FOSS projects
On 5/8/08, Schuyler Erle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 12:03 +0200, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Yes it does. Karl Fogel describes it very well in his book
(http://producingoss.com). I strongly recommend
Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] scale of FOSS projects
Real artists ship. For everyone else, there is wanking.
Folks,
For the record, while I acknowledge a kernel of truth in this, I find
the
statement so elitist and dismissive of the varied efforts that it takes
to
make things work
Howard Butler wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past i've heard it suggested that really successful open
source projects now need serious organisational backing. They can't
be built by a network of partly-funded enthusiast contributors
alone.
I think really
Schuyler Erle wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 12:03 +0200, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Yes it does. Karl Fogel describes it very well in his book
(http://producingoss.com). I strongly recommend it to project leaders
and developers who maintain just-opened and want to get dirty with
principles of the
P Kishor wrote:
On 5/8/08, Schuyler Erle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One important point that Fogel makes that I think is worth noting here
is that the number-one sine-qua-non of *any* potentially successful
software project is *shipping working code*.
Until a developer does that, the
Howard Butler wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the past i've heard it suggested that really successful open source
projects now need serious organisational backing. They can't be built
by a network of partly-funded enthusiast contributors alone.
I think really
At the moment, I can't think of any really successful open source
projects that didn't have their origins with a network of
partly-funded enthusiast contributors where the originator didn't have
some form of organizational home and/or a funding stream for the first
few releases of the software.
Miles Fidelman wrote:
...
I think I've made this comment before, but it probably bears repeating:
History is a useful indicator. As far as I can tell, most really
successful open source projects started out as efforts that had some
serious funding behind them, or something that allowed the
, with
Inkscape now being what I would call an successful open source project.
Landon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:11 PM
To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] scale of FOSS
Jo,
I'm having trouble responding to your email, I think since it touches on
a number of points, and perhaps just because I mostly agree with what you
have said. So instead, I will just assert a few loosely related points that
come to mind after reading it.
1) I still fundamentally believe a
13 matches
Mail list logo
