On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bob La Quey wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Bob La Quey wrote: > >> > >> > Chuck's point, over and over again, is that our committee > >> > approach to design (both of hardware and software) inevitably > >> > leads to huge amounts of unnecessary complexity. Since most of > >> > us are not as bright as Chuck and rarely can find employment > >> > free from the burden of "the committee" we necessarily think > >> > Chuck must be wrong. > >> > >> And here is where I disagree. > >> > >> Open source software is free of the "committee" effect. It's most often > >> a single person scratching an itch. > > > > Cough, maybe on round one, but very quickly a posse forms. > > Actually, I think the data is with me here. Look at the number of > developers vs. number of projects on sourceforge. It tends toward the > less than 5 for most of the projects.
Well if 2 is company and 3 a crowd then is 5 a committee? :) I wonder why novels are rarely written by committees. And what about the technical world is so different from publishing fiction? BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
