> > The loose association of people who make up the Open Source phenomenon couldn't >change the world, >there isn't enough organisation and there would never be agreement. >A commercial enterprise can pay people to change the world (or to try >to). >The best OS can do is to influence individual people, one at a time.
Well. I guess the world "has" changed. Measuring how much it changed is not easy may be, but Linux is a reality. If the loose association above could do it, more guided efforts could even do better. I am very optimistic about it. Simply think about this, is bugzilla not an effort of organizing things? How about versioning? Mailing lists? All these things came first because they were immediate needs. I have a close friend here who contributes her four hours every Saturday for helping kids who have AIDS. One week, she fills out some paper work, the other week, she organizes some boxes, stuff.. There "might" be planning, guidance, task division in volunteer work too. As long as people know that they are guided (not managed or bossed around) and they know why things work in a certain way, they will understand you. As Craig said, the commercial software will be there because of obvious schedule reasons. However, operating systems, servers, office software, desktops can replace the commercial ones. So, i am thinking more about general purpose software. For special purposes, commercial software might be there in the future too. Gunes http://www.seas.smu.edu/~gkoru -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
