Paul G. Allen wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski 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.
Not the ones I've worked on. Two examples I can remember: The Linux
kernel and Crystal Space. Both were several years ago, but both had
areas that suffered from the effect. The latter being bad enough that I
dropped out of the development because I could not deal with the
inefficiencies that resulted from it. I have often wondered how it's
progressed since then.
So, I would rephrase the statement to be something like 'Much of Open
Source software is free of the "committee" effect.'
Thinking about this further, after reading more of the thread.
I've worked for many companies both large and small. The small ones
naturally had smaller teams of people working on the projects (or
project). Most of the larger ones had larger teams of people working on
the projects.
In ever case that comes to mind, the smaller teams were far more
efficient than the larger ones. The teams with the fewest and brightest
had the best results. Those with larger teams took longer and more often
than not the results were not as good as they should have been, for the
reasons Bob stated.
Too often it's decided that the solution to a problem is to throw more
bodies at it. Many times the solution is just the opposite.
PGA
--
Paul G. Allen, BSIT/SE
Owner, Sr. Engineer
Random Logic Consulting Services
www.randomlogic.com
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
