erland wrote: > However, IMHO SqueezeCenter isn't the typical open source project. > There is a huge difference when a company makes all decisions and the > decisions are based on what reaches the company strategy and gives > economical results in the end.
I'm not so sure. FireFox is open source, but they get huge amounts of funding from Google. NetBeans and Java are open source, but got huge amounts of funding/engineering time from Sun. In both cases, I don't think decisions are as community driven as you are claiming. Even IETF and IEEE standards are defined by folks who vote at the meetings, and those same folks have their time and travel paid for by some companies. Sure, there are a few pure amateurs, but most of the folks are representing a view of their supporters and sponsors. > I'm pretty sure Apple's success is because they work a lot with > usability. I may be quoting you out of context here, but Apple is the best example I know of a completely closed source company that extracts premium prices. Sure, they have great design and great usability. But they are not open in any sense of the word. I'm not sure that there will be any light shed on this thread if it continues, as it seems to be mostly smoke. Starting with the subject line of the thread. It assumes that a rant is justified and that a rescue is needed and the need for this rescue is seen by all. SlimServer/SqueezeCenter/SqueezeBoxServer or whatever its called is by no means perfect. But I am not seeing how this effort here is helping it move anywhere. Pat p.s. I absolutely hate the renaming of the server. Hated it the first time, do now, and probably always will. Branding, bletch. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
