fascinating analysis
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 23, 2007 10:34 AM EDT |
This is some very interesting number-crunching. The best FOSS projects are run at high levels of organization and professionalism, putting most commercial development to shame. The word 'volunteer' carries some unfortunate connotations, and I'm puzzled why this is so, because volunteers in all industries are skilled and professional- firefighters, sheriff's posses, business groups like Toastmasters and Service Corp. of Retired Executives, etc.... |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 23, 2007 11:33 AM EDT |
Thanks, TC. As an anarcho-capitalist, I am very much convinced that interested individuals, working together, make the greatest achievements. But let's point out something about F/OSS compared to closed/proprietary: It _has_ to be more rational and readable code, just because other people want to be able to read it. Having been a volunteer fireman, well, let's just say I couldn't agree more. A professional strives to be "good enough". An amateur strives to be "better". |
| Abe Feb 23, 2007 12:24 PM EDT |
volunteering is driven by carring, commitment, dedication and pride; those are the ingredients for excellence. |
| Libervis Feb 23, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Well, isn't the whole point of striving for a better world to be able to work on what we really want to work on *voluntarily*, not just because it pays us? FOSS is coming very close to creating such a world. That it doesn't pay is a lie, and increasingly apparent one. Initially, monetary rewards may be small, but it is always like that. And you are doing what you really want to do, increasing your skills and excellence which you can then sell to someone (remember that custom coding is the biggest software field) for a higher price. And in addition to these eventual monetary rewards you experience the emotional reward and fulfillment in what you're doing. So indeed, instead of downplaying "voluntarism", we should strive towards a world where there is *more of it*. :) |
| rht Feb 23, 2007 3:10 PM EDT |
I think that FLOSS projects tend to eliminate the biggest drawback to "voluntarism" -- the Office Bearer who is an anal retentive control freak. Just about every non-profit organisation gets at least one of these, if only for the fact that such people take on the demanding tasks that no one else will do. And once control freaks have a little bit of power the organisation is on its way downhill: control freaks cannot allow change. [If you don't know what an anal retentive control freak is: he is one who likes to control others simply because he can. I once worked in a large Govt Dept and, on telling the stores clerk that I had run out of Stores Requisition Forms, I was told that I couldn't get any more Stores Requisition Forms until I had submitted a duly-completed Stores Requisition Form. True story.] Because FOSS projects are based on meritocracy those who contribute get their rewards from their contibutions, not from controlling others. And, if the FLOSS project falls into the hands of someone who is a control freak, or is otherwise lacking in social skills (or any other skill essential to the position held in the project), then either that person is replaced or the project forks. I believe it is the continuing process of evaluation, repair and replacement of the project itself that is FLOSS's greatest advantage. So far as concerns paid versus unpaid work, my experience has been that the professional will tend to produce consistent results of a certain, usually high, quality but the gifted amateur will occasionally produce results that will take your breath away. FLOSS is the perfect melding of the two. |
| swbrown Feb 23, 2007 5:24 PM EDT |
> And once control freaks have a little bit of power the organisation is on its way downhill: control freaks cannot allow change. Actually, the best run FOSS projects tend to have a lot of control freak going on, as the quality of the result tends to be more about what you don't accept than what you do. It can definitely go overboard and cause harm (see: Xfree86) but without it, you wind up with a codebase that's increasingly difficult to evolve. E.g., some people think rejecting patches based on indentation and method naming is just being a style nazi, but it does make it easier for those working on the same project to collaborate, and reduces the kind of version control churn from style battles that ruins the utility of annotations. > And, if the FLOSS project falls into the hands of someone who is a control freak, or is otherwise lacking in social skills (or any other skill essential to the position held in the project), then either that person is replaced or the project forks. I think you just described Linus, yet Linux is still going strong. :) |
| dinotrac Feb 24, 2007 2:59 AM EDT |
>I think you just described Linus, yet Linux is still going strong. :) I don't think that's true at all. From what I've seen, Linus is not a control freak. He has tough standards, but he also cedes a fair piece of control to his trusted lieutenants. I believe that Linus is a major reason why Linux has succeeded so wildly. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 24, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
I think "ceding a fair piece of control" was an act of necessity, something that Linus and his team _learned_. He remains, and I hope will always remain, the final arbiter. Here's how I see things like this working: There is design by an individual, and there is design by committee. We all know the addage that "A camel is a horse built by committee", but there are other examples like the Ford Mustang and the Austin Mini, compared to the Edsel. F/OSS as it exists now is capable of having _lots_ of Tin Pot Little Dictators who get to say what they want their project to work like. This is not a bad thing, because the inspiration of individuals, Richard Stallman as another example, can give focus and provide a real goal. Both of these tend to be lacking where decisions are made by committee. The voluntary nature of F/OSS projects also means that if others do not like that vision, they will go elsewhere. I'm running Xorg, not Xfree86, case in point. Lastly, because there is no monopoly being exercised, because there is no coercion, there is no danger from "competing" projects. No matter how totalitarian one Tin Pot Little Dictator wants to be, they cannot force their opinions on the unwilling at any level. So success comes to Tin Pot Little Dictators who are the best with working with other people to bring forth their vision, rather than the use of force. Anarchy. An-archy, "rules without rulers", because together we achieve more than each alone. |
| tuxchick Feb 24, 2007 9:01 AM EDT |
Perhaps another way to phrase this is "consistent vision." Any project, to be successful, needs someone with clear goals in charge. Without a clear vision and discipline, it becomes a chaotic mess and nothing gets done. The Linux kernel is amazing, and yes, Linus' real genius is how he figured out how to delegate the bulk of the work, but still keep kernel development on track. Somehow he allows lots of room for creativity, but still disciplined enough to not wander crazily all over the place. The nuts-n-bolts of kernel development are very organized. Code must be written in a certain format and patches must be submitted in a certain way. haha all you expensive MBAs, them hippie kernel devs got you beat all to heck. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!