First of all, any company only selling an OS is doomed.
1. It doesn't seem to stop Microsoft. 2. That's why Apple sells hardware. By forcing the consumer to purchase a tangible (hardware) to get the intangible they want (OS X), Apple guarantees that money will flow into their coffers. Remember, just because Apple is moving to the x86 processor does not mean that OS X will run on any old PC. The MoBo architecture between a Mac and a PC are quite different (mostly because the PC has a crapload of legacy hardware that it can't get rid of).
Another point is if he, you and how many other people believe that OSX is SO much better then Windows, why is it not making higher sales or large jumps in sales in the existing open market?
Where have you been? Apple has been experiencing HUGE leaps in sales! Tiger was their biggest release ever, with hundreds of thousands purchasing new Macs to get it. Last year Apple shipped over one million new computers, and their market share is estimated to be as high as 16%! (A disputed figure, BTW, but definitely shows that Macs are on the rise.)
It's been out and avialable for what, four years?
That's like saying Windows has been out for 10 years. Windows 95 bears little resemblence to Windows XP. While things aren't quite as drastic with OS X, it has changed a LOT since its first release. These things take time.
You think the general consumer is not buying it because they don't like the current model of CPU and suddenly this is change is the diamond?
Nope. I think that Apple plans to use this to put the Apple on very exact footing with PCs. No more dancing bunnies, flaming bunnies, or any other performance related advertisments. The hardware will be considered by the market to be equal, thus making the design of the machine and the OS the deciding factors.
Are you implying that the OS he is so confident and will take world consumers by storm and Apple is betting the farm on (in your words) will be "done" at some point? How do they make any money after that?
Jobs is confident in the lead that OS X has obtained over Windows, yes. Apple does not make its money off of software. Apple makes its money off of hardware.
I'd also like to ask how you are aware of his inner feelings
It's called reading people. It's a talent that most people pick up. It doesn't mean that everyone's always right, but occasionally people like to share the "read" they get on someone. There's nothing magical about this, just piece together the evidence, pay attention to the person's history, and follow the person's actions to their logical conclusions.
The Apple guys just smiled and said, in theory, OS X could run on x86 hardware, but only IN THEORY. Yeah right. I think a lot of people who have had their heads deep in OS X code for a while probably figured this would come eventually.
Apple was actually more blatent than that. Rhapsody (the OS X code name prior to release) was actually developed on both x86 and PPC hardware. Rhapsody even had a version of the APIs that ran on Windows. Then after OS X officially became OS X, the Darwin code base was kept maintained on the x96 platform. By open sourcing the code, Jobs clevery hid the fact under the "Open Source people are maintaining the x86 stuff" guise.
In short, everyone's always known that Jobs was keeping his options open. The only catch is that no one quite realized that it was part of Jobs's master plan. Now we know, NeXT never actually died. Apple *is* NeXT.
Indeed, this will be a huge blow to Apple marketing. [...] Now, they will have negligible margins on Dell in the benchmarks. If they go a sane route and stay with OpenBoot or similar, they will still need video cards that don't depend on ugly PC BIOS, so they are still unlikely to be kings of 3D.
Jobs is betting the farm on OS X. His opinion at this point is that OS X has such an amazing lead on Windows, that it will eclipse Microsoft's offerings. He's only been waiting for the development of the OS to reach a level that he feels is "done".
Now that OS X is "Done", he can go right up against a Dell and say "We've got the same performance, same hardware, but our OS doesn't suck, doesn't have program installation problems, works for you, not against you, has this great bundle of useful stuff, looks pretty, makes sense, etc, etc, etc." The entire value proposition of Apple has just shifted to "Apple Rulez, Microsoft Suckz".
If you want a "AI" that borders on a consciousness, you don't want to start at this level - that's way too much work. You want to algorithmicly be simulating entire cells or even groups of cells at once, instead of components of cells.
Except for one problem: You're assuming that we actually know how the brain functions. Neural networks are interesting, but to date they've failed to show the levels of intelligence of a comparable animal. On top of that, they don't actually model the brain's neural patterns correctly.
Experiments at a lower level may produce greater insight, especially if we're missing something tricky such as encoded waveforms in neural pulses. Lower level simulations would allow us to explore the differences between the simulation and the real thing, thus producing loads of data on things we might be missing.
You are an amusing fellow, you know that? I especially love the part about accusing others of watching Fox News, then quoting similarly disreputable sources yourself. In all your ranting and raving, you've never actually managed to make a point other than that you hate Bush (Ok, take a number) and that you think he's ready to start World War III. For "evidence" you provide nothing more than heresay and normal military operations! Quite entertaining.:-)
The US didn't develop any of the technologies you mentioned, as none of them were actually built.
Really? Let's go through them one by one:
1. The Orion project did testing on the concept, and developed the necessary nuclear explosives (i.e. Pulse units). The declassified test video that convinced Von Braun to support the Orion concept can be viewed here.
2. The NERVA engines were considered ready for upper stage use despite the ablation problem. The program was only cancelled after the plans for interplanetary missions were cancelled.
3. In 1964 the Tory-IIC engine of the Nuclear Ramjet was fired for five minutes. The technology was successful, but the Pentagon had second thoughts due to the arrival of ICBMs.
4. Skylab was in orbit from 1973 to 1979. Generally considered a "successful" space station. The station was allowed to reenter after the focus shifted to the Space Shuttle project.
5. The Saturn V was flown 13 times with a 100% rate of success. Of those flights, seven boosted Apollo missions that landed on the moon.
In other words, most of this technology really did exist.:-)
As crazy as it may sound, these suits (correctly named "Space Activity Suits") were designed to actually *expose* the wearer to hard vacuum while still providing life support for the astronaut! This sort of suit would allow astronauts to have the same working freedom in the suit as the freedom enjoy inside the ship! Such a suit could make regular space construction and maintenence possible. It's also safer than regular suits as it is far less susceptible to depressurization. Perfect for environments like Mars where spacesuit damage becomes a major concern!
Now all of it has been buried and forgotten. Advancement? We've buried our collective heads in the sand. That's why Bush's CEV program actually makes sense. He must have listened to his NASA engineers for a change, because the CEV is a staged program that is predicated on using existing technology to build a space infrastructure. No waiting for someone to invent the Starship Enterprise, we're going NOW. And to do it, we're pulling out many of the bits of technology that we forgot. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm excited about this program.:-)
- Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
Nitpicky point, Oracle databases are happy about 50TBs, because they are indexing and effectively managing that much data across a complex enterprise architecture. In comparison, 50TB for a single experiment may be just a single data blob of far less management complexity (just a LOT of data). So, in fact, the two don't really compare.
I don't think it makes sense to hire 'developers' unless they have specific important skills.
Presumably, a given proposal would base its cost estimates on full time work from the developers of the proposed project. That's where the developers come from.:-)
I think what makes more sense is bounties.
Bounties are tricky. Yes, they provide incentive, but only for things that are easy to do. If you want something that's difficult (e.g. Working sleep mode for Linux) then you need to pay the price for full-time developer.
I know this word is used way too loosely by people trying to make points about the law but aren't you forcing someone to break the law in order to sue them?
I charge $60. Is this the outsourcing rate? Or am I just a greedy bastard?
Neither. The ~$24/hr is a rate I consider "reasonable" for grant work. It's not intended to compare to the rates available in the private sector; rather it is a rate that is intended to reflect realistic living costs in non-metropolitan areas.
Christ, have you people learned anything? Out-source to India, Russia, or China; you should be able to get at least three times as many man-hours out of it.
That is a REALLY bad idea for a non-profit entity. For one, going international can create all kinds of legal complications. You have to be *very* careful about this. For another, outsourcing places barriers between the people who are giving the money and the people who are receiving it. Those barriers aren't going to help much in getting future funds.
I said volunteers for practical reasons: This fund has been accumulating for a year, and has only raised $125k. With full-time pay that probably ends up with only $20k for developers.
Actually, you need to look at it from the perspective of fewer, but higher quality, projects. Since they don't have too much money at the moment, one administrator makes the most sense. We'll say he makes a salary of ~$50,000/yr. It's not an amazing amount, but should be sufficient for a comfortable living outside of a major metropolitan area.
That leaves the admin with about $76,000 to give to projects. Obviously, actual funding levels for projects would depend on the individual project, but it's enough money to fund three developers (potentially on single developer projects) for 6 months each. (again at ~$50,000/yr) The administrator would want to stagger these projects, of course, so that he doesn't burn up the funds in a short period of time.
During that year, it would also be the admin's job to promote the LinuxFunds project, thus raising more capital for future ventures. This makes the projects he chooses very important! It is critical to future funding levels that the early projects produce noteworthy work. If consumers can look at a piece of work and say "LinuxFunds made that happen!", then they'd be more likely to assist in future funding. To that end, it may make sense for the admin to earmark some (but not too much!) of the funds to advertising budgets. e.g. An artist to create logos/buttons for LinuxFunds receipients to use on their webpages.
If you did that, what would be the point of the LinuxFunds Foundation? i.e. LinuxFunds would become redundant and should just be absorbed into some other foundation.
In any case, it usually makes sense to have a targetted goal for the money. What is LinuxFunds trying to achieve? Are they looking to support specific types of functionality, bootstrap promising new OSS projects, encourage new OSS based companies, or a combination thereof? It's important to have a focus (and earmarked money for that focus) otherwise you're just pissing money into the wind.
I know you're being sarcastic, but $28k really is far below a single livable income for anyone other than a single student. That includes areas where living costs are far lower. Upping the salary to $40-50k/yr would allow the administrator to fully focus on the job at hand without paying anywhere near what the private sector would pay. Remember, this job wouldn't include things like life and medical insurance. That would have to come out-of-pocket. Teachers don't have that problem, and usually have decent retirement packages waiting for them. (FWIW, though, teachers *are* underpayed. The question, however, is where in the world is that $20,000 per student per year going to?)
A handful of people the Linux community trusts, who will agree to volunteer (probably for a small stipend) to evaluate proposals and say who gets which money.
Volunteers are a *bad* idea for core operations. What you need is one or two full time administrators (with full time pay!) who can manage the funds. They would be responsible for setting goals for the funds, placing submitted proposals out for public review, and then making a final decision on whether a proposal will receive funding or not. During the period of public review, OSS developers/members may feel free to add their comments and/or votes, thus influencing the administrator's decision.:-)
They have had "interns" which work on individual open-source projects, but mostly they offered grants and microgrants to OSS developers who needed funding to work on a specific project. For example Software Suspend recieved some funding as well as XIPH.ORG.
This really is a good idea. The government gives out quite a bit of funds, but usually only for projects that meet military, community development, or pork projects required by congress.
According to public records they were bring in revenues between $100K to $200K per year at their high point. Its definately a viable model for funding open-source projects it just looks like its in need of volunteer support.
Why do they need volunteers? From the sound of it, all they really need is better administration. Also, it sounds like they have run afoul of a common mistake in OSS funding: underfunding the project. I know most people don't realize it, but even a non-profit entity can't operate if it doesn't have 100% attention from its administration. Which usually means that the administators of the money must be payed a fair market salary. A lot of people feel funny about this (since they feel that it's not "their" money), but it makes a big difference to the quality of time an individual can put into their work.
Please mod parent up. Projects like NeoOffice/J are making a big difference. A mere $50k a year could potentially mean a world of difference toward the continuation of a project like that. IHMO, it is far more worth of funding than projects such as... hmmm... from the LinuxFunds front page:
* Scarface: A 3D GTA Game * Kavlon Coloring Book
Which would you rather have, a coloring book or NeoOffice/J? My vote goes to NeoOffice/J.
Ok, I've dug a bit deeper and it appears that the site is designed close to what I've described. Primary differences seem to be:
Developers are expected to become staff members.
The funds distribution seems to be more focused more on "hiring" rather than individual project proposals.
I can't access it at the moment, but it seems that the decision on a developer/project is made by an online chat rather than a small panel. (Nothing wrong with the idea of public review, though.)
They don't seem to *pay* fair market value for developers and administrators. I'm sorry, but if you're only drawing a salary of $28k, you're probably going to have to find something else to support yourself. A salary closer to $50k would have made a better baseline, with consideration given to circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, any company only selling an OS is doomed.
1. It doesn't seem to stop Microsoft.
2. That's why Apple sells hardware. By forcing the consumer to purchase a tangible (hardware) to get the intangible they want (OS X), Apple guarantees that money will flow into their coffers. Remember, just because Apple is moving to the x86 processor does not mean that OS X will run on any old PC. The MoBo architecture between a Mac and a PC are quite different (mostly because the PC has a crapload of legacy hardware that it can't get rid of).
Another point is if he, you and how many other people believe that OSX is SO much better then Windows, why is it not making higher sales or large jumps in sales in the existing open market?
Where have you been? Apple has been experiencing HUGE leaps in sales! Tiger was their biggest release ever, with hundreds of thousands purchasing new Macs to get it. Last year Apple shipped over one million new computers, and their market share is estimated to be as high as 16%! (A disputed figure, BTW, but definitely shows that Macs are on the rise.)
It's been out and avialable for what, four years?
That's like saying Windows has been out for 10 years. Windows 95 bears little resemblence to Windows XP. While things aren't quite as drastic with OS X, it has changed a LOT since its first release. These things take time.
You think the general consumer is not buying it because they don't like the current model of CPU and suddenly this is change is the diamond?
Nope. I think that Apple plans to use this to put the Apple on very exact footing with PCs. No more dancing bunnies, flaming bunnies, or any other performance related advertisments. The hardware will be considered by the market to be equal, thus making the design of the machine and the OS the deciding factors.
Are you implying that the OS he is so confident and will take world consumers by storm and Apple is betting the farm on (in your words) will be "done" at some point? How do they make any money after that?
Jobs is confident in the lead that OS X has obtained over Windows, yes. Apple does not make its money off of software. Apple makes its money off of hardware.
I'd also like to ask how you are aware of his inner feelings
It's called reading people. It's a talent that most people pick up. It doesn't mean that everyone's always right, but occasionally people like to share the "read" they get on someone. There's nothing magical about this, just piece together the evidence, pay attention to the person's history, and follow the person's actions to their logical conclusions.
The Apple guys just smiled and said, in theory, OS X could run on x86 hardware, but only IN THEORY. Yeah right. I think a lot of people who have had their heads deep in OS X code for a while probably figured this would come eventually.
Apple was actually more blatent than that. Rhapsody (the OS X code name prior to release) was actually developed on both x86 and PPC hardware. Rhapsody even had a version of the APIs that ran on Windows. Then after OS X officially became OS X, the Darwin code base was kept maintained on the x96 platform. By open sourcing the code, Jobs clevery hid the fact under the "Open Source people are maintaining the x86 stuff" guise.
In short, everyone's always known that Jobs was keeping his options open. The only catch is that no one quite realized that it was part of Jobs's master plan. Now we know, NeXT never actually died. Apple *is* NeXT.
Indeed, this will be a huge blow to Apple marketing. [...] Now, they will have negligible margins on Dell in the benchmarks. If they go a sane route and stay with OpenBoot or similar, they will still need video cards that don't depend on ugly PC BIOS, so they are still unlikely to be kings of 3D.
Jobs is betting the farm on OS X. His opinion at this point is that OS X has such an amazing lead on Windows, that it will eclipse Microsoft's offerings. He's only been waiting for the development of the OS to reach a level that he feels is "done".
Now that OS X is "Done", he can go right up against a Dell and say "We've got the same performance, same hardware, but our OS doesn't suck, doesn't have program installation problems, works for you, not against you, has this great bundle of useful stuff, looks pretty, makes sense, etc, etc, etc." The entire value proposition of Apple has just shifted to "Apple Rulez, Microsoft Suckz".
And you know what? Jobs is probably right.
If you want a "AI" that borders on a consciousness, you don't want to start at this level - that's way too much work. You want to algorithmicly be simulating entire cells or even groups of cells at once, instead of components of cells.
Except for one problem: You're assuming that we actually know how the brain functions. Neural networks are interesting, but to date they've failed to show the levels of intelligence of a comparable animal. On top of that, they don't actually model the brain's neural patterns correctly.
Experiments at a lower level may produce greater insight, especially if we're missing something tricky such as encoded waveforms in neural pulses. Lower level simulations would allow us to explore the differences between the simulation and the real thing, thus producing loads of data on things we might be missing.
Well, Digital:::::::Convergence did say they'd be back. I can just see the headlines now:
"With our patented new CueTick(TM) Technology, you too can surf the internet with your dirty laundry!"
I really hope these masses of shredded papers aren't dumped in our landfills
1. Where do you think it all goes now?
2. Shredding the paper most likely *helps* it decompose as it provides more corners and surface area for the bacteria to attack.
Reminds me somewhat of a crude version spin-dizzy cities from a book which my memory fails to recall
:-)
Cities in Flight by James Blish, if I'm not mistaken.
Just wanted to say thank you, very interesting links, especially project Orion.
You're welcome. I always strive to inform.
You are an amusing fellow, you know that? I especially love the part about accusing others of watching Fox News, then quoting similarly disreputable sources yourself. In all your ranting and raving, you've never actually managed to make a point other than that you hate Bush (Ok, take a number) and that you think he's ready to start World War III. For "evidence" you provide nothing more than heresay and normal military operations! Quite entertaining. :-)
The US didn't develop any of the technologies you mentioned, as none of them were actually built.
:-)
Really? Let's go through them one by one:
1. The Orion project did testing on the concept, and developed the necessary nuclear explosives (i.e. Pulse units). The declassified test video that convinced Von Braun to support the Orion concept can be viewed here.
2. The NERVA engines were considered ready for upper stage use despite the ablation problem. The program was only cancelled after the plans for interplanetary missions were cancelled.
3. In 1964 the Tory-IIC engine of the Nuclear Ramjet was fired for five minutes. The technology was successful, but the Pentagon had second thoughts due to the arrival of ICBMs.
4. Skylab was in orbit from 1973 to 1979. Generally considered a "successful" space station. The station was allowed to reenter after the focus shifted to the Space Shuttle project.
5. The Saturn V was flown 13 times with a 100% rate of success. Of those flights, seven boosted Apollo missions that landed on the moon.
In other words, most of this technology really did exist.
Bush want's to extend the arms race into space, and quite simply ignore existing treaties
Got any evidence to back that up, or are you just talking from your ass? (I'll give you a clue: You're talking out of your ass.)
I almost forgot my favorite bit of 1960's tech:
Skin tight Space Suits
As crazy as it may sound, these suits (correctly named "Space Activity Suits") were designed to actually *expose* the wearer to hard vacuum while still providing life support for the astronaut! This sort of suit would allow astronauts to have the same working freedom in the suit as the freedom enjoy inside the ship! Such a suit could make regular space construction and maintenence possible. It's also safer than regular suits as it is far less susceptible to depressurization. Perfect for environments like Mars where spacesuit damage becomes a major concern!
Articles like this make me look forward to the 1960's.. They were really advanced..
:-)
There is some truth to this. The US developed *amazing* levels of space technology in the 1960s. Take a look:
8,000,000 tons from ground zero to anywhere in the Solar System
Plenty of power for regular Moon trips
Jets with unlimited range (Okay, the actual design of this one was a little scary. Still, the principles are sound.)
Complete Space Station in one launch
118 metric tons to orbit
Now all of it has been buried and forgotten. Advancement? We've buried our collective heads in the sand. That's why Bush's CEV program actually makes sense. He must have listened to his NASA engineers for a change, because the CEV is a staged program that is predicated on using existing technology to build a space infrastructure. No waiting for someone to invent the Starship Enterprise, we're going NOW. And to do it, we're pulling out many of the bits of technology that we forgot. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm excited about this program.
- Oracle is doing press releases on things like using *50 TB* of disk for a project
Nitpicky point, Oracle databases are happy about 50TBs, because they are indexing and effectively managing that much data across a complex enterprise architecture. In comparison, 50TB for a single experiment may be just a single data blob of far less management complexity (just a LOT of data). So, in fact, the two don't really compare.
I don't think it makes sense to hire 'developers' unless they have specific important skills.
:-)
Presumably, a given proposal would base its cost estimates on full time work from the developers of the proposed project. That's where the developers come from.
I think what makes more sense is bounties.
Bounties are tricky. Yes, they provide incentive, but only for things that are easy to do. If you want something that's difficult (e.g. Working sleep mode for Linux) then you need to pay the price for full-time developer.
I know this word is used way too loosely by people trying to make points about the law but aren't you forcing someone to break the law in order to sue them?
1. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement.
2. "when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment"
3. I'm thinking that someone who has permission to download files is not causing anyone to break the law by downloading from a site that is offering said files.
NeoOffice/J? Looks like a port of OO.o to a non-free platform. Who cares?
;-)
Thousands of users (including myself). There's a very real userbase behind NeoOffice/J that you might not notice unless you actually own a Mac.
Might as well apply the money to a project that needs it, and is worthwhile. Hurd anyone?
Oh yeah, THAT'S not pissing money into the wind...
I charge $60. Is this the outsourcing rate? Or am I just a greedy bastard?
:-)
Neither. The ~$24/hr is a rate I consider "reasonable" for grant work. It's not intended to compare to the rates available in the private sector; rather it is a rate that is intended to reflect realistic living costs in non-metropolitan areas.
So, no. You're not a "greedy bastard".
Christ, have you people learned anything? Out-source to India, Russia, or China; you should be able to get at least three times as many man-hours out of it.
That is a REALLY bad idea for a non-profit entity. For one, going international can create all kinds of legal complications. You have to be *very* careful about this. For another, outsourcing places barriers between the people who are giving the money and the people who are receiving it. Those barriers aren't going to help much in getting future funds.
I actually agree with you.
:-)
Glad we agree.
I said volunteers for practical reasons: This fund has been accumulating for a year, and has only raised $125k. With full-time pay that probably ends up with only $20k for developers.
Actually, you need to look at it from the perspective of fewer, but higher quality, projects. Since they don't have too much money at the moment, one administrator makes the most sense. We'll say he makes a salary of ~$50,000/yr. It's not an amazing amount, but should be sufficient for a comfortable living outside of a major metropolitan area.
That leaves the admin with about $76,000 to give to projects. Obviously, actual funding levels for projects would depend on the individual project, but it's enough money to fund three developers (potentially on single developer projects) for 6 months each. (again at ~$50,000/yr) The administrator would want to stagger these projects, of course, so that he doesn't burn up the funds in a short period of time.
During that year, it would also be the admin's job to promote the LinuxFunds project, thus raising more capital for future ventures. This makes the projects he chooses very important! It is critical to future funding levels that the early projects produce noteworthy work. If consumers can look at a piece of work and say "LinuxFunds made that happen!", then they'd be more likely to assist in future funding. To that end, it may make sense for the admin to earmark some (but not too much!) of the funds to advertising budgets. e.g. An artist to create logos/buttons for LinuxFunds receipients to use on their webpages.
If you did that, what would be the point of the LinuxFunds Foundation? i.e. LinuxFunds would become redundant and should just be absorbed into some other foundation.
In any case, it usually makes sense to have a targetted goal for the money. What is LinuxFunds trying to achieve? Are they looking to support specific types of functionality, bootstrap promising new OSS projects, encourage new OSS based companies, or a combination thereof? It's important to have a focus (and earmarked money for that focus) otherwise you're just pissing money into the wind.
I know you're being sarcastic, but $28k really is far below a single livable income for anyone other than a single student. That includes areas where living costs are far lower. Upping the salary to $40-50k/yr would allow the administrator to fully focus on the job at hand without paying anywhere near what the private sector would pay. Remember, this job wouldn't include things like life and medical insurance. That would have to come out-of-pocket. Teachers don't have that problem, and usually have decent retirement packages waiting for them. (FWIW, though, teachers *are* underpayed. The question, however, is where in the world is that $20,000 per student per year going to?)
A handful of people the Linux community trusts, who will agree to volunteer (probably for a small stipend) to evaluate proposals and say who gets which money.
:-)
Volunteers are a *bad* idea for core operations. What you need is one or two full time administrators (with full time pay!) who can manage the funds. They would be responsible for setting goals for the funds, placing submitted proposals out for public review, and then making a final decision on whether a proposal will receive funding or not. During the period of public review, OSS developers/members may feel free to add their comments and/or votes, thus influencing the administrator's decision.
They have had "interns" which work on individual open-source projects, but mostly they offered grants and microgrants to OSS developers who needed funding to work on a specific project. For example Software Suspend recieved some funding as well as XIPH.ORG.
This really is a good idea. The government gives out quite a bit of funds, but usually only for projects that meet military, community development, or pork projects required by congress.
According to public records they were bring in revenues between $100K to $200K per year at their high point. Its definately a viable model for funding open-source projects it just looks like its in need of volunteer support.
Why do they need volunteers? From the sound of it, all they really need is better administration. Also, it sounds like they have run afoul of a common mistake in OSS funding: underfunding the project. I know most people don't realize it, but even a non-profit entity can't operate if it doesn't have 100% attention from its administration. Which usually means that the administators of the money must be payed a fair market salary. A lot of people feel funny about this (since they feel that it's not "their" money), but it makes a big difference to the quality of time an individual can put into their work.
Please mod parent up. Projects like NeoOffice/J are making a big difference. A mere $50k a year could potentially mean a world of difference toward the continuation of a project like that. IHMO, it is far more worth of funding than projects such as... hmmm... from the LinuxFunds front page:
* Scarface: A 3D GTA Game
* Kavlon Coloring Book
Which would you rather have, a coloring book or NeoOffice/J? My vote goes to NeoOffice/J.