Really Open Source software projects almost never have a total open door policy on the contributions that are accepted. There is usually a small group that determines whether contributed changes are good enough and fit the overall project goals and architecture well enough.
Wikipedia is one of the best innovations in information aggregation ever. I think many of us are very happy that it exists and use it extensively. It does work to filter wheat from chaff over time. Claiming most Open Source is me-too knock-offs is simply wrong. Apache and many of its subprojects took the market by storm because it is significantly better than the closed source solutions it replaced for one example among many. You understand that Mozilla is open source right? Most of the innovation we enjoy in Firefox today came long after Netscape days and long after lingering Netscape/AOL control. But I don't expect any great understanding about Open Source here. It is not the expertise or prime interest of the group. On 6/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
from http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=696 Bruce Sterling: All blogs will die by 2018<http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=696> - *Date*: June 5th, 2007 - *Blogger*: The Trivia Geek Security expert and tech curmudgeon Bruce Sterling famously quipped at this year's South-by-Southwest conference that "I don't think there will be that many [blogs] around in 10 years<http://www.feed24.com/go/44185676>. I think they are a passing thing." This got the blogosphere all a-twitter<http://www.feed24.com/go/44185676>(ahem), but I think enough time has passed that we can look past this ill-worded point from Sterling's SXSW rant and get to the real moneyline: "You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a *great*painting." And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia–and to the "wisdom of crowds" fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon Valley–but it's also a fair assessment of what holds most (not all) open source enterprises back: *Lack of vision*. Nearly all great innovation comes from a singular vision pursued doggedly until it achieves success. Apple is a great example of this, as the company didn't really resume its cutting-edge status (for better or worse) until Steve Jobs returned, and gave us the iMac and iPod (for better or worse). And say what you will about Microsoft, but it was Bill Gates singular vision for Windows and the software industry that drove his company to its excess…er, success. 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 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
