Apache and its various offshoots? Linux itself? KDE? JBoss and its subprojects? Hibernate? None of these came from some academic thesis work and all are wildly successful. So I do not agree with the characterization of Open Source.
- s On 6/8/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 08 June 2007 08:21:28 am Mark Waser wrote: > Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse arising therein. Same goes for most software developed by this method-almost all the great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative proprietary programs, and those that are original were almost always created under the watchful eye of a passionate, insightful overseer or organization. Firefox is actually Mozilla Firefox, after all. This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source programs out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it can't create them in the first place. Josh ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
