| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Who's complaining here?Who's complaining here?Posted Dec 6, 2004 15:51 UTC (Mon) by cr (guest, #3685)Parent article: The Linux Kernel's Fuzzy Future (InformationWeek)
From my reading, this article is voiced by the journalist, saying, "Why can't you bazaar guys be more like the cathedral guys?" To which, the obvious answer is, "Because their method doesn't WORK (for us)!" Methinks he has confused engineering and marketing, a common problem for those who report on Microsoft.
(Log in to post comments)
Who's complaining here? Posted Dec 6, 2004 20:29 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Yes, but as other posters have pointed out, that particular method doesn'treally work for them either. The best that their "roadmap" can be taken to mean is that such and such a feature is getting serious consideration for inclusion in upcoming releases. The comparable thing for Linux, which might be interesting to some but non-essential for everybody, would be to have a kind of "department" entry for the Linux kernel describing who the major developers have been in the past and what projects they are currently working on or considering working on in the upcoming future. That would completely capture all the value of a "road map" and then some, since it could help a company could figure out if it needed to pay someone to work on a Linux feature they want.
|
|
||||||||||||