I say 'corporate' specifically because we're talking about commerce - software development - and not any of the other ways in which people are organised. That was the context of the discussion.
And I disagree that Mr Garrett's ideas describe virtually all successful organisations. Sidestepping what's successful and what's not, it's not how governments are run (certainly not the US or UK - they have a system of checks and balances, representatives are elected based on any criteria and the leader is answerable to multiple sources of power) or many churches (the Roman Catholic church being an exception, with the Supreme Pontiff, and even then the College of Cardinals has enormous power as they elect the Pope). Sports teams are essentially corporations in their game structure (single coach, rules, heirarchy, chosen by skill) and totally in their financial one (single owner, etc).
And which bazaars are run like corporatations? The ones I've been to in Egypt are simply a collection of people selling goods in a common location. No discussion of heirarchy, no boss with a final say. Of course, there are formal rules of conduct, but those underly almost all social interactions (except, clearly, in parts of the OSS community), and so aren't essentially 'corporate'.
All of which is just a diversion from the real point, my original question: OSS has changed the way some people think about distribution and revenue models; is OS development doing the same or simply growing into the companies we already have?
Although no one's come and out explicitly mentioned it yet, it strikes me that Mr Garrett is saying that traditional corporate structures work best when developing software.
Enforced rules of conduct, a formal structure, an acknowledgement that not everyone is equal is skill or knowledge and a single leader who has the power of final decision. Strip out the jargon and it sounds pretty much exactly like a traditional office environment.
Does this mean that while OSS has made many people rethink distribution and revenue models, open source development will mature into exactly what we have now?
How can a game that isn't finished, released or for sale win a best game of show award? I love the hype machine as much as anyone, but aren't things getting out of hand? Can you imagine an Academy Award going to a movie that's only being filmed or edited?
I can see it now... "We loved the rushes we saw for Waterworld. It's definitely going to be the best film of the year. Or of any time!"
Here's a novel thought: let's award game prizes to actual games.
Is it just me, or is anyone else bothered that the Slashdot post was written to give the impression that the wonderful Alice wrote the words quoted? Because if you visit the Wonderland blog you quickly see that Alice is quoting from someone else's blog - Paul Kedrosky in this case.
The insight of commenting on other's work makes blogs a rich and interesting resource, but isn't it this type of laziness that brings them into disrepute?
I grew up in Canada but moved to the UK some years ago. Before I got my citizenship, I travelled to the US and Canada, from the UK, on my Canadian passport. And very much like the Mr Doctorow, I was usually asked to list the names of the people I was staying with, their relation to me and their addresses - to a greater or lesser extent depending on the official. I remember one time in particular when I was particularly harassed and started to make mistakes on addresses I had lived at for years. To be fair it wasn't a written list, but it was always an upsetting experience.
Funnily, travelling on a Canadian passport, as a Canadian citizen but being resident in the UK, was the absolute worst of both worlds. The Canadians were very suspicious and treated me as a foreign resident (which meant long waits and lots of questions) while the UK treated me as a foreign citizen (separate queues, long waits and a couple of questions). I find it's now easier, and faster, for me to travel to Canada on my UK passport despite being a Canadian citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Deplane"? Dear God. The word they are struggling for is "disembark".
Stop joking around.
I say 'corporate' specifically because we're talking about commerce - software development - and not any of the other ways in which people are organised. That was the context of the discussion.
And I disagree that Mr Garrett's ideas describe virtually all successful organisations. Sidestepping what's successful and what's not, it's not how governments are run (certainly not the US or UK - they have a system of checks and balances, representatives are elected based on any criteria and the leader is answerable to multiple sources of power) or many churches (the Roman Catholic church being an exception, with the Supreme Pontiff, and even then the College of Cardinals has enormous power as they elect the Pope). Sports teams are essentially corporations in their game structure (single coach, rules, heirarchy, chosen by skill) and totally in their financial one (single owner, etc).
And which bazaars are run like corporatations? The ones I've been to in Egypt are simply a collection of people selling goods in a common location. No discussion of heirarchy, no boss with a final say. Of course, there are formal rules of conduct, but those underly almost all social interactions (except, clearly, in parts of the OSS community), and so aren't essentially 'corporate'.
All of which is just a diversion from the real point, my original question: OSS has changed the way some people think about distribution and revenue models; is OS development doing the same or simply growing into the companies we already have?
Although no one's come and out explicitly mentioned it yet, it strikes me that Mr Garrett is saying that traditional corporate structures work best when developing software.
Enforced rules of conduct, a formal structure, an acknowledgement that not everyone is equal is skill or knowledge and a single leader who has the power of final decision. Strip out the jargon and it sounds pretty much exactly like a traditional office environment.
Does this mean that while OSS has made many people rethink distribution and revenue models, open source development will mature into exactly what we have now?
I can see it now... "We loved the rushes we saw for Waterworld. It's definitely going to be the best film of the year. Or of any time!"
Here's a novel thought: let's award game prizes to actual games.
Just a small bit of British nerdishness:
Lloyds is an ancient insurance house.
Lloyd's is an ancient bank.
The insight of commenting on other's work makes blogs a rich and interesting resource, but isn't it this type of laziness that brings them into disrepute?
Funnily, travelling on a Canadian passport, as a Canadian citizen but being resident in the UK, was the absolute worst of both worlds. The Canadians were very suspicious and treated me as a foreign resident (which meant long waits and lots of questions) while the UK treated me as a foreign citizen (separate queues, long waits and a couple of questions). I find it's now easier, and faster, for me to travel to Canada on my UK passport despite being a Canadian citizen.