Very true. Thats why I said "Corporate software" as opposed to "closed source". There are some open source projects that are being financed by corporations.
A more appropriate title for the article would be ["Forking" Greatest Danger of Adopting Distributed Development?]
Distributed development also has some advantages that compensate for this drawback that outweights the risks in my opinion. But I mostly agree with writer on this item.
The danger is not of open source but of forking in/to open source.
Forking is more of a danger in open source because of its mostly distributed approach in development.
Corporate software is less in danger of this because all decisions are taken from a central perspective and hence more focused.
If "religion" = "software" and "religion" = "bullshit" then "software" = "bullshit".
Most programmers have known a long time that the majority of software out there is total crap.
For example a web page is "pull" meaning that you have to request it in order to have it. You know the address of the server you request info from.
An email is "push" because anyone can send you email if they know your address.
Pull is better in the sense that it permits you to only accept communication from the publishers you selected. You could do the same for email and only accept mail from ppl and publishers in your address book for example but in some case you do want "unkowns" to contact you. Whereas you positively dont want "unknowns" to contact you regarding "newsletters" and such.
You might say then that we would be better off then reading the "newsletter" (or whatever) off the publishers web site. The thing is that RSS enables you to aggregate all those items from different sources together as opposed to going to all the websites.
Wrong. The article says exactly the oposite. It says the development cost have increased "exponentially" but not consumer price. More customers certainly compensante for some of this but not all. Hence the prediction that the market will restructure in consideration of these economics.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. Thats why I said "Corporate software" as opposed to "closed source". There are some open source projects that are being financed by corporations. A more appropriate title for the article would be ["Forking" Greatest Danger of Adopting Distributed Development?] Distributed development also has some advantages that compensate for this drawback that outweights the risks in my opinion. But I mostly agree with writer on this item.
The danger is not of open source but of forking in/to open source. Forking is more of a danger in open source because of its mostly distributed approach in development. Corporate software is less in danger of this because all decisions are taken from a central perspective and hence more focused.
If "religion" = "software" and "religion" = "bullshit" then "software" = "bullshit". Most programmers have known a long time that the majority of software out there is total crap.
Mod this up.
There is a big difference.
For example a web page is "pull" meaning that you have to request it in order to have it. You know the address of the server you request info from.
An email is "push" because anyone can send you email if they know your address.
Pull is better in the sense that it permits you to only accept communication from the publishers you selected. You could do the same for email and only accept mail from ppl and publishers in your address book for example but in some case you do want "unkowns" to contact you. Whereas you positively dont want "unknowns" to contact you regarding "newsletters" and such.
You might say then that we would be better off then reading the "newsletter" (or whatever) off the publishers web site. The thing is that RSS enables you to aggregate all those items from different sources together as opposed to going to all the websites.
Wrong. The article says exactly the oposite. It says the development cost have increased "exponentially" but not consumer price. More customers certainly compensante for some of this but not all. Hence the prediction that the market will restructure in consideration of these economics.