> 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.
... writes:
> 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 has evolved into a more nuanced stance, but In The Beginning, the big issue was: give me the source so I can fix the bug I found today and continue with my life; I don't have time to wait for your closed cycles to give me a fix in a year, which might not even be the fix I need.
The rest of it flowed from that, and I believe there's still a significant amount of support for this viewpoint: for many people, the most significant thing that Open Source gives them is the ability to download the code and make their change directly.
It has been, as shag points out, a dismal failure at this.
If you and Ravi don't think it was a goal, then it's certainly better than, say, those of us who know that it was a strong motivating and rallying point: "Do it as Open Source, so that we can fix the bugs sooner" was certainly a big part of Mozilla and OpenOffice to name two huge examples.
/jordan