> > every FOSS booster has *got* to read dreaming in code. what you
> > learn is that the very things FOSS is supposed to address (buggy
> > code, lengthy release cycles, etc.) it isn't any better at doing
> > than the proprietary, closed source approach.
>
> I am not sure these are the very things FOSS is supposed to address,
> and it certainly need not be (in fact, I think this point may define
> the split between Stallman and the _pragmatists_).
I agree with Ravi - I don't think Open Source is supposed to be addressing those things - which are problems related to how a software development project is run - at all. Open Source is about who controls the functionality of the software: the user vs. the corporation.
Not that other corporations - in their roles as users - do not benefit. Of course they do, considering the penetration Linux has as an enterprise platform even within brick-and-mortar types like the manufacturing firm I work for.
> Chandler is/was an OSAF project with backing (and funding) from Mitch
> Kapor of Lotus 1-2-3 fame. That is not much of an exemplar of FOSS.
> But of course a lot of FOSS projects fail. FOSS does not guarantee
> success, nor does the lack of success of this or that FOSS project
> negate [claims about] the nature of FOSS development.
FWIW, I had never heard of this Chandler thing.
Matt
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123 yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
-Westley