From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-23 10:17:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B853A8F.2291152F@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Open Source Approach (was Progress on AdaOS) References: <9IFe7.12813$6R6.1221214@news1.cableinet.net> <9lghqu$ac6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7C3293.76F49097@home.com> <9lhefg$lgd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B7D47F1.25D6FC78@boeing.com> <5ee5b646.0108171856.18631c4c@posting.google.com> <3B7F624B.7294D24F@acm.org> <9lr6je$5hj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9ltoi7$4is$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B82789B.8D195045@home.com> <9ltuo8$70n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B829450.879B0396@home.com> <9m0d08$51j$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83DE1A.7770DC9C@home.com> <9m0rc6$ak0$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B83F894.D7082F9A@home.com> <9m12li$db7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9m1u2m$baq2@news.cis.okstate.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:17:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:17:04 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12346 Date: 2001-08-23T17:17:04+00:00 List-Id: David Starner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:54:29 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote: > > No doubt about it. But I think there are any number of people who might be > > much more serious about getting a project done as a commercial, for-profit > > endeavor than will get serious over it if it is just a hobby. Hence, even > > though partnership schemes, licensing contracts, etc. etc. etc. may be more > > complicated than just giving it all away, it probably does a lot to help > > move the mission forward. > > Prove it. Linux is ample proof of our case. No one's going to argue > that if you give programmers a real salary, you can get an OS. But I > can't think of a single large program that was built on the "no salary; > we'll get money when we're done" shareware model. Show me an OS built > on this model. Another thing that does sometimes happen in the "pay for deliverables" scenario, is that all concerned work until the money runs out, and what they deliver in the end is not necessarily what we'd call an acceptable deliverable! ;-) This could be due to many reasons, including not finished, poor design, poor quality, whatever. Open Sourced/similar work tends to be different overall, because people's reputations and pride are at stake. The only downside that I can see to the Open Sourced approach is that the results are sometimes what you might call a "free for all". The result is sometimes a plethora of new features, which may not be necessary or desirable. An example of this might be Apache -- a first rate product in the beginning, but now so full of features that I'd have trouble trusting it as secure (usually more features == more room for exploits). The other problem is perhaps duplication of effort: for example: GNOME vs KDE GTK vs Qt the various browsers Yet, OTOH, competition is sometimes good, forcing the best to surface to the top. The one thing that bugs me now is that there are so _many_ different products for Linux/FreeBSD, that it can be time consuming picking the best of breed. I wish RedHat or some other organization would provide an "Evaluation Service", in order to save us time. One way it might work, is that you get a 3 point evaluation for free: 1 - Gotta have 2 - OK 3 - Don't bother but for better grading results, you pay for the service. Something like the following, or maybe a 10-point system: 1 - Gotta have 2 - Excellent 3 - Above par 4 - par 5 - below par 6 - Poor 7 - Don't bother Additionally, perhaps a "usefulness" measurement. For example, there must be a ton of "list your directory in colour" scripts, commands and whatever (usefulness = very low). I hate wasting my time sorting through these less useful contributions. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://members.home.net/ve3wwg