I thought I'd pose a question to you, for academic curiosity. For example, in my current line of work, cluster computing, there's a lot of possible funding models for supporting maintenance, and they all have different ~unintended consequences. (ex) You lose customers, waste cycles, delay research schedules, and they all have some other costs associated. Economics just works that way.
But in general, I wonder what produces the best outcomes for software development. It's an impossible question to answer without having much time to waste, so don't try too hard :) Could a open-source project with a funding model lead to better code than a professional solution? Could you just dangle some cash on the end of a string and the cats will just herd themselves? On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > Hello , Mathieu! Well, I did not refer to implementation of new features, >> but the maintenance of that code that already works, fixing bugs. >> > > Ok, so, basically, buggy software gets rewarded for requests to fix bugs. > Bugless software is not rewarded : it does not pay. Therefore we are > encouraged to put enough bugs in there so that we get money. Nevermind the > high-reliability ideals. > > (Of course, don't let my comments prevent you from contributing money. I'm > just trying to say that some assumptions about funding may encourage the > wrong things and cause strange compensations.) > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
