Slashdot Mirror
What Makes an Open Source Project Successful?
crowston asks: "There have been a number of discussions on Slashdot and elsewhere about how good projects work (e.g., Talk To a Successful Free Software Project Leader), but less about how to tell if things are going well in the first place. While this may seem obvious, most traditional definitions of software project success seem inapplicable (e.g., profit) or nearly impossible to measure for most projects (e.g., market share, user satisfaction, organizational impact). In an organizational setting, developers can get feedback from their customers, the marketplace, managers, etc.; if you're Apache, you can look at Netcraft's survey of server usage; but what can the rest do? Is it enough that you're happy with the code? I suspect that the release-early-and-often philosophy plays an important role here. I'm asking not to pick winners and losers (i.e., NOT a ranking of projects), but to understand what developers look at to know when things are going well and when they're not."
If we assume that Slashdot was 4 years old when he said that, we get an allotted 178.25 comments annually before you become a child. Since that comment was 2 years ago, that means we have an additional 356.5 allotted comments before becoming a child. Add to the preexisting limit, and you are given 1069.5 comments currently before becoming a child.
So, as you can see, you are misquoting Michael, because by the 713 figure, I am a child, but with the modified figure, I am not. While you are still three times as childy.
Uh, to pretend I'm on topic, this post scratched an itch of being completely pointless but accomplished what I, the author, wanted it to do - make fun of Michael, and use poorly thought out and badly executed math to update the figure. And isn't that what most OSS projects are started for, anyway? If the author is happy with it, then it is successful, right?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
So, as you can see, you are misquoting Michael, because by the 713 figure, I am a child, but with the modified figure, I am not. While you are still three times as childy.
Considering at the time I had many more comments, and Michael was being a prick, he isn't misquoting Michael at all. You would have to take into account the duration of the account, and the relevance of the comments posted. FK usually posts on-topic, positively moderated comments. Michael was just being a troll.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
First of all, 713 is not the established base for being "childish" in Michael's world. Apparently, 713 is somewhere over whatever Michael thinks is a normal comment rate. (Since he has a mere 97, it's gotta be something low...) Secondly, I pulled the number of years out of my ass. It would be possible to calculate the days or something, but I don't really care enough about Michael to put, like, effort into it.
Also, I know that the FortKnox account has only been around since like the beginning of 2000 or so since that's about the time I registered my account and my UID is slightly lower. Finally, I doubt anyone really cares what Michael has to say. Lord knows I don't read Slashdot for the editors' comments. If Slashdot didn't have an active user community posting comments, I wouldn't be here. There are better sources of repeated news and poorly reported facts. I can find other people who willfully release DDOS attacks on poor webservers while refusing to even offer the courtesy of simply warning a site of impending doom.
Actually, for an interesting comparison, compare FortKnox's user page to michael's - notice which page looks far more like the owner of a troll... (Hint: my vote goes to the owner of "Replies: 22; Score:-1, Flamebait".)
Besides, it was a joke. I don't actually want to get dragged into the "Michael is an ass" debate, although I definately get the feeling that most of the editors actively hate the vocal Slashdot croud and would wish they'd just leave if it wasn't for the page views they generate.
Besides, you're just upset because you're less childish on the Michael Childish Rating Scheme if you take comments over time into effect :)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
You're mistaking a troll for a contributor who posts something that goes against the prevailing sheep mentality around here (i.e., something that most people don't like but is most probably true) - and is not afraid to back it up.
A troll is simply modded down and ignored.