Message 02054 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01958 Message: 4/4 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Step-change by Free Software



On 30 Jan 2004 at 9:55, Stefan Merten wrote:

The way Linux is developed has been seen as a step change by quite a
number of people. Remember the Torvalds-Tanenbaum debate for instance.
ESR described this as the "Cathedral" vs. "Bazaar" (I put the terms in
quotes because as we know they are both wrong).

You are right that the /management/ of Linux is a step-change within
software development mangement techniques. The use of electronic
communication to organise a loosely collaborative volunteer-led
project was a step-change innovation. ESR as you mention says lots of
good things about this but I think he's overegging it - software
vendors learned in the late 70's that you can save money by getting
the customer to do the debugging for you by releasing early and
frequent.

I think you could even argue that a step-change is easier in Free
Software because you don't need to have huge and expensive resources
to make your idea come true. As long as you have the idea and the
(programming) abilities you can just start the project. As ESR says:
If it scratches enough itches and if your projects gives a good
promise to solve a problem then others may join in voluntarily. Linux
(i.e. the kernel) is a very good example for that. At this stage the
expensive resources - "work force" - will come to you automatically.

One guaranteed way of robbing all step-change innovation from a free
software project is to add volunteers. If you get enough step-change
innovation in before they arrive then usually they'll refuse to join.

Remember - the more radical something is, the more people will
distrust it. People only readily accept radical new ideas when
they're desperate - from the 1929 depression we got both FDR's
welfare state in the US and Hitler in Germany.

In a way this is a way of ensuring quality on a peer review basis. If
your idea is good enough to convince other experts in the field then -
and only then - it is done. May be it is even a good thing that you
can't coerce people by paying them into something which only you alone
think is worthwhile doing.

Capitalism is what is it because it's based on paying people to do
things they're otherwise not do. Like it or not, industrial society
is unthinkable without it. If you want to question that, go examine
all those third world sweatshop workers who make almost everything we
consume.

On the point of convincing experts, usually they're the last to
recognise a good radical idea. They invariably fail to spot trends,
make the wrong predictions etc. which is why we had all those silly
predictions of "what it will be like in the year 2000" in the 60's.

On a more personal note, I have been hawking around my ideas to form
a software venture for 18 months now and if I've learned anything,
it's that you pitch the idea as being as conservative and unradical
as possible. Investors simply will not bet unless they have at least
a 50/50 chance of success from the expert.

Cheers,
Niall






_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01958 Message: 4/4 L2 [In index]
Message 02054 [Homepage] [Navigation]