| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
"Corporate code dumps""Corporate code dumps"Posted Mar 8, 2008 18:20 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: "Corporate code dumps" by robla Parent article: Ryzom returns? No, you are still misunderstanding me. Remember, on those occasions where I get a chance to do some code work, I do it in the kernel arena - a project dominated by "corporate contributions." I have no problem with them. I will say that large dumps of code from companies can be a mixed blessing; bad practices which would have long been cleaned up in an open project can persist for a long time in a closed code base, leaving big messes to clean up. One may or may not agree with the Mozilla project's decision to, for all practical purposes, start over, but they did have their reasons for going that way. My point remains entirely about the notion that we need a big injection of code to get a project going in the first place. I do not think that is true. That is different from saying that we have not benefited from such injections in the past and won't in the future, or that they are not welcome.
(Log in to post comments)
Who is this "we" you refer to? Posted Mar 8, 2008 19:44 UTC (Sat) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] Well, maybe you're right about me not understanding you, so let me ask a question. Who is "we"?
Who is this "we" you refer to? Posted Mar 9, 2008 5:55 UTC (Sun) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] Having read this whole exchange... If you're curious where the oppositional tone you're inferring from Jon Corbet's words is coming from, I suggest you take a look in the mirror.
Who is "we" referring to? Posted Mar 9, 2008 7:36 UTC (Sun) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] I'm sorry for being way more combative than I needed to be. Looking back through the exchange, you're right. My last message was meant to be conciliatory, but I just didn't write enough or in the right way. I still believe my question about "we" is valid, because it gets to the heart of one of my pet peeves. The benefits of a good infusion of previously proprietary code from a corporate donor is a matching infusion of developers who used to be proprietary developers. Saying that "we" don't need these infusions is saying that "we" don't need the developers to be part of the "we". Now, I realize that nobody here would actually mean to say that, but that's why I think being sloppy about the use of "we" is dangerous. So, that's why I'm asking about "we". I figured rather than assume the worst (as the above paragraph does), I'd ask point blank what is meant by "we". I have questions about other phrases, such as what is meant by "free software can't actually invent anything" (as a stereotype to be feared). Well, as written, that's mostly true. I think true invention is actually beyond even Eliza, though it wouldn't surprise me if Emacs has a M-x invent-anything command. I understand the gist of what is actually meant by that phrase (though a clarification would help), but I don't understand why it's so worrisome. The bulk of desktop software is proprietary now; it's better if the existing software is made open rather than rewriting it from scratch. Anyone so worried about that stereotype shouldn't be out creating yet another virtual world platform or online gaming system, they should be creating a whole new category of software.
|
|
||||||||||||