The reason for the open source concept in my mind is to insure continuity of a project in case of death or disinterest by the initial developers. I don't buy the too many cooks analogy in any way. Completely wrong metaphor for software development. No one is in the way of another, rather they are collaborating. They are not necessarily even involving the end user any differently than you would with a close project.
When Linus Torvalds began writing the Linux kernal, there was minimal support for open source. It was not until it was used as the kernal for the GNU system that had most of the other pieces already developed or in the process of being developed that the GNU/Linux system was functional. And then you have protection from anyone trying to take your ideas and claim them as their own because you will likely select the GPL or other copyright protection and if they do further development, they have to share their work with everyone else, including you. I agree that having 100's of versions of Linux is not always productive because it dilutes the energy of the untold thousands of volunteers as well as the commercial Linux developers. If they could focus on fewer versions, then they would have more time to correct shortcomings. But that assumes that they want to work on a specific niche area and they may not be interested. So in the long run, having the many versions does more good than harm since only a few versions are really all that popular. And you also have country and language specific versions that may be a better fit for those users. It is unfortunate if developers do not want to write cross platform code, but it is their prerogative to do what they think is best for themselves. They may find that in the future someone could eclipse them, but then again it depends on many factors such as licensing issues for code that they may be using in their program. The mythology that Linux can run on old equipment depends upon the version of Linux. Some are designed to use lesser hardware, such as Puppy Linux or Vector Linux, but the leading edge versions do not. But even Vector Linux (as an example) keeps advancing whereas old Windows versions are not. 73, Rick, KV9U Rud Merriam wrote: > Note I did not say the work would not be open source, i.e. available to all > eventually. > > You know the old saying, "To many cooks spoil the broth". It applies to the > development process. The "negative attitude" comes from experience. > > The trick is to have enough people contributing to catch oversights but also > to limit the tension that pulls the project in multiple directions. The > project needs non-programmers also to provide end user input. The > participants also need to agree to disagree when appropriate and continue > making progress. > > For example, one group I know of is insisting their project be done in > Linux. Okay, but that discounts the mass of hams who are only using Windows. > Now I am perfectly willing to write portable code but that is not enough for > that group. > > Let me point out that Linux was not an open source project. The main work > was done by an individual. Even after he opened it he still retained a large > degree of control of what could done to the system. Now it is totally open > and look at the profusion of versions. To a point that is great. But after a > point it just becomes mind numbing. Now you cannot be sure that an > application will run on a specific version of Linux. Heck, even the old > adage about Linux running on older boxes is no longer true. I went to > install a version only to find it would not run on a box from '99. > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > http://TheHamNetwork.net > >
