Shari wrote:
I wouldn't want an Open Source Revolution. Where nobody is
ultimately responsible for the bugs they create.
It is hard to beat the incentive of having your daily bread provided by
product revenue. It keeps the food chain simple and direct, and
provides perhaps the ultimate accountability: you don't produce, you
don't eat. :)
I think there are a lot of merits to the traditional proprietary model
which are often overlooked as we explore new philosophies. While
revolutions often provide excitement, evolutions tend to produce more
sustainable results in the long term. Market dynamics have evolved the
proprietary model in ways that may not be so bad for a great many
products, not bad at all.
Doesn't Open Source mean that one person can randomly make that
decision, and implement it at his will? One person with a particular
set of beliefs, that all people should have the newest computers out
there with the latest and greatest OS's, goes into the source code
and "breaks" it for anything older.
Then a week later, somebody else goes in and makes it backwards
compatible again?
I imagine some FOSS projects are managed with the sort of anarchy, but
the good ones have strong project managers who determine which
contributions go in, and how. It's been said that the art of FOSS
project management is ultimately the art of saying "No".
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
