Chipp rightly points out that there are very many open source projects which are started, and then wither. He points to the 2,000 or so low activity projects on SourceForge. He could also point to a high proportion of the distributions on DistroWatch.
On the other hand, in programming environments, look at Perl, Python, Lua, Gtk, Qt, fltk, Fox..... Look at their history. They haven't fragmented into incompatible streams, they haven't withered. So what does the evidence prove? Not much. It might work, as some programming environments evidently do, or it might not, as probably many haven't. Going open source is a bit like writing it in Perl. People have written stuff like this in Perl and its worked. Others have written stuff like this in Perl and failed. Does this mean we should stick to writing it in C like we always have? No. It tells you nothing one way or the other. Do you have problems with productivity? Do you have the feeling that a lot of what you are doing would be so much simpler in Perl? Well, think hard about moving, but think the whole thing through before you decide. It just says, think through the open source question with the same rigor with which you would design a program. Just because its business strategy does not mean its easy or doesn't require proper analysis. For Rev, to go open source is not a simple well defined thing, and does not just mean lets have anarchy and give away the engine. And it does not have a predictable defined outcome in terms of profitability that you can forecast by looking at other projects. And, it might not work. I can tell you one thing for sure though. It will not lead to a combination of multiple incompatible streams AND a total lack of development. There's no evidence this happens. One or the other, but not both! Peter _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
