On 19 Feb, Rev Simon Rumble scribbled:
-> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:19:07PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
->
-> > they want to release a product. they producs requires feature that is
-> > beta and in development in version X of the kernel (or library or app)
-> > for theirs to function - they cannot release until their dependancies
-> > have been released - thus their cannot set schedules.
->
-> If it's that critical then they need to put their own resources into
-> making it happen. Easy. Doesn't have to be outside the mainstream
-> development, just them hacking on _their_ problems and getting things
-> release-ready.
but if the feaure they want is done - but the rest of the subsystem
they depend on still needs work according to the developer before its
released - they're stuffed. what if the developer decides to go on a
month's world tour and not do anything? he is not beholden to do any
release - regardless of how much work the company does. thy are stuffed
waiting on someone who has no guaranteed schedule and who they cannot
nudge into having a schedule.
sofar in the linux world this has resulted in the company hiring the
person they depend on in the end if they can afford it - but some
cxompanies cannot, or the person just wont move and wants to stay where
they are - then the company is USCWAP
-> > if companies cant tell cusotmers when
-> > things will be available so the customer knwos it will be and can
-> > factor that into their plans - you will lose customers. that's a big
-> > reaosn many comanies die - they cannot meet their ship dates and
-> > customers go away and find someone who can meet their ship dates.
->
-> Is there anything really that critical? Did anyone die or go broke or
-> lose their job because 2.4 took so long?
thats not the point (and i woudlnt be surprised if comapnies did in
fact lose customers becaue the promised features in 24. took too long
and the cusotmer went to bsd or win nt or something else)
-> > IMHO there should be a non profit organisation thatis funded by all
-> > companies using linux that people work for (probably the top developers
-> > most likely) who just ork on improving things and rolling back changes
-> > the commercial vendors make intoa central distribution of software
-> > compnents so its kept organised.
->
-> I guess this could be okay, though it needs to be managed right. It
-> does sound like Linus' bandwidth is somewhat constrained.
the problem here is that linus is a "central point of failure" - hes
good - but as anyone knwos -a central point of failure is bad.
corporations at least have lots of people and thus no central point.
they can re-assign mantinence when people go on holidays, its more
dependable for them. thats they point the article was making. they have
a very good point.
--
--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
