Message 02096 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02074 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Step-change by Free Software



Niall Douglas <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com> writes:
On 3 Feb 2004 at 1:08, Rich Walker wrote:

The use of electronic communication to organise a loosely
collaborative volunteer-led project was a step-change innovation.

I think that you'll find that IBM sites were doing this earlier. Look
up some of Lynn Wheeler's stuff on the internal network, as well as
the stuff about SHARE and so on.

Nowhere near as loosely as Linux. I mean, most of the development
isn't even sanctioned or organised by any central authority at all.
Anyone previous to Linux would have thought it highly unlikely to work
at all, but there it is.

i agree that there is an extra dimension of looseness in things like the
Linux development model. The stuff I was referring to was the
development by IBM users of modifications to and extensions of the IBM
mainframe system (I think the whole "virtual mainframe" system was one
of these!)

One guaranteed way of robbing all step-change innovation from a
free software project is to add volunteers. If you get enough
step-change innovation in before they arrive then usually they'll
refuse to join.

Depends on what you're doing. If you fork an existing project to
innovate, *and it works*, people will come in.

Only if they think it works. The most frustrating thing is to improve
something significantly and for no one to agree with you or see what
you're on about. Stackless python is a good example here.

"I have a wonderful tool that helps me considerably but no-one else uses
it" isn't un-common anywhere in the world.

ObAcorn: If you release an interesting but bizarre variant of an
existing stable OS managed with novel weird, ill-documented coding
constraints, brag like a skript-kiddie about the superiority of your
model and diss the press for reporting it without consulting you,
then they'll refuse to join.[1]

Well, I'm guilty of that too - remember my ill-fated Tornado idea, one
I'm still working on eight years later on a different platform,
processor, language and well, just about everything else :)

I won't say that was the thing I was referring to... but I would say
that the nature of the leadership of any such project is very
significant. Look at the difference between the leadership of OpenBSD
and Linux, for example...

When a senior elderly scientist tells you something is possible, he
is usually correct. When he tells you something is impossible, he is
usually wrong.

A very apposite quote.
[snip]
But if you can do your project in <4 man-years, and it will be of
benefit to Man (as opposed to just finding a new way to make money
from people) then there are funding bodies that will fund you.
Strangely, they aren't VC's or bankers.

Quite reasonably, they want a working demo in front of them and plenty
of market validation. Which lets the cat out of the bag. But then good
ideas are plentiful, their good practice is not.

Well, as I said, if the idea is a good idea and you can demonstrate a
significant potential social benefit, there's a UK funding body which
should fund this kind of development without prototypes... 

cheers, Rich.


-- 
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let     251 Liverpool Road   |
                                 London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT02074 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
Message 02096 [Homepage] [Navigation]