Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:08 pm
by ucosty
lollynoob wrote:On somewhat of a tangent, another problem I find with open source projects is that eventually the project becomes decentralized and fragmented, like linux (not just the kernel itself, but linux as an operating system) has. Imagine the accomplishments that could be achieved if instead of hundreds of distributions, there was only one, with the developers from those hundreds of distributions participating in it's development? This could be accomplished with a closed-source project, as tighter restrictions could be created to disallow such fragmentation, and the development team could grow as it pleased, as opposed to growing as everyone pleased.
That's partially because there is no such thing as "linux" as a project. The linux kernel's development is highly controlled, in terms of direction. Other than that the distributions bring together a variety of packages and software and call it Linux. There is no "Linux as an operating system". Most distro's exist to fill nieche markets. I wouldn't, for instance, lump Gentoo, Damn small linux and Ubuntu together. They all are made for different target audiences.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:40 pm
by crazygray1
lollynoob wrote:(Directed at crazygray) If a project becomes too large for the original developer to handle, what's saying this same developer can handle the project along with a whole team of unorganized people?
On somewhat of a tangent, another problem I find with open source projects is that eventually the project becomes decentralized and fragmented, like linux (not just the kernel itself, but linux as an operating system) has. Imagine the accomplishments that could be achieved if instead of hundreds of distributions, there was only one, with the developers from those hundreds of distributions participating in it's development? This could be accomplished with a closed-source project, as tighter restrictions could be created to disallow such fragmentation, and the development team could grow as it pleased, as opposed to growing as everyone pleased.
In short, it seems more beneficial to the project if the original goals of the developer take precedence over the goals of the community.
Edit: It seems what I'm against isn't so much open source, it's open development which seems to ruin things. A non-forking clause seems to be just what I was thinking of.
I see your point. It's better if everyone just contributed on one project.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:46 pm
by Alboin
crazygray1 wrote:I see your point. It's better if everyone just contributed on one project.
Forced relations are never a good idea, IMO. If someone wants to break away, then the project leader should try to resolve whatever issues they are having, and fix the problem. By forcing people to stay with your project, you may cause more problems than you would normally have. (eg. The lack of freedom imposed by your clause might cause people to write their own software to accomplish the same task as your own, causing exactly what you were trying to prevent.)
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:12 pm
by crazygray1
How about allowing to, but making it so they have to contribute a certain amount? How that would be measured I don't know.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:49 pm
by Bobalandi
@crazygray
What do you mean by that?
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:04 pm
by crazygray1
If someone wants to add to the OS make it so they have to change or add to the source enough so that it can actually call it "theirs" if they so choose. This is only in the case of those who wish to take the project in their own direction, for those who want to add to the original this shouldn't apply.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:08 pm
by Dex
Please do not fall into the trap of believing that you are going to be the next linux.
Linux came about because it was the right OS at the right time.
Same as bill gates made his money because he was in the right place, at the right time.
If you go open source you will see alot of down loads of your OS and thats it.
There will be no team or anything like that.
My OS is such that one the source is closed, but if a coder add something usefull to the project, they get the source code + part ownership of the project.
This has worked well so far.
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:51 pm
by crazygray1
I do not intend to believe that I will make the next linux. I was just using it as an example. As for my OS I would just like for it to be used by somebody not just myself.
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:50 am
by Dex
crazygray1 wrote:I do not intend to believe that I will make the next linux. I was just using it as an example. As for my OS I would just like for it to be used by somebody not just myself.
I did not mean this from a quality point of view, but more from a open source project that will grow with the help of many volunteers.