M. Fioretti wrote:
[...]
What I mean is only that FOSS developers (as well as very advanced
users like you and me) *do* have the duty to remember in any moment
that "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow", "if there's the source,
you too can fix it" and similar raymondisms have much less meaning
and validity today.
[...]
I don't agree. It would be as you say only if you consider the
equivalence users=developers as an absolute value. It is a relative one.
Let's use some figures with the same complex hypothetical application.
In the 80ies
------------
10 end users
10 found bugs
10 developers
ratio bug/developers: 1 to 1
XXI century
-----------
10000 end users
100 found bugs
100 developers
ratio bug/developers: 1 to 1 (same chance to fix a bug as in the 80ies
*if* developers are skilled as in the 80ies. It's another variable.)
It's obvious that if I change the "bug" variable, the ratio can become
not favorable for developers (let's say 10 to 1) but how can you tie the
growth of found bugs to the growth of the end users base? Can you
demonstrate there is an exponential or progressive growth of bugs when
the user base grows of an X factor? I don't think so.
If an application is well written, it is well written. Point. And it
will have few bugs even if you have 1.000.000 end users.
So:
Well written XXI century application
------------------------------------
1000000 end users
10 found bugs
100 developers
ratio bug/developers 0.1 to 1
Raymond's words would be true.
And even the relation between end users and developers it's hard to
determine. You may have a tiny end user base and a large developers base
because you have hired them, you've done specific marketing etc.
Maybe, it's not true for the *Openoffice.org* project in *this* moment
and for *this* version of the product. It's natural, it's a variable. In
fact, I contest Andrew Brown's (or his editor's) logic where he wrote:
"The OpenOffice project vividly illustrates the limitations of open
source as a way of producing software"
Bugs in OpenOffice.org or in whatever project else doesn't demonstrate
anything other than OpenOffice.org/other software has bugs.
Of course, if you want to show to the readers the truth of an axiom
like: "Open Source as a way of producing software has limitations" you
can *show* examples, but you don't *demonstrate* anything.
It's a common rhetorical technique.
As far as I can admit Raymond's words are an assumption (that *can* be
still valid) you should admit that what you/Brown/his editor/whoever has
seen or believes to see in nowadays open source project don't prove
Raymond was wrong. BTW, words have their meaning and an empiric fact is
not an evidence of anything.
Indeed, it would be interesting, as discussion matter, to analyze if and
how equilibrium among the variables of the expression I've written above
has changed inside OpenOffice.org and how to adjust a positive ratio in
bug fixing.
In this case we would talk on the specific plane (OOo project) and not
on the general one (Open source), and I would accept your and Brown's
position as a naturalistic description of what you see that is a very
different thing from "illustrating the limitations of open source as a
way of producing software".
Regards,
Gianluca
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
