| |||||||||||||
LWN sourceLWN sourcePosted Jan 15, 2013 10:39 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: LWN source by dlang Parent article: LWN's 2013 Predictions
In the case of the LWN codebase, I would rather have more articles and no code release rather than having them concentrate on the code audit and release and go under because they aren't producing articles. The LWN.net site code was presumably written in response to the specific requirements of LWN.net and much of it is probably not directly useful unless you are, in fact, LWN.net. Personally I, too, would much rather see Jon and his team concentrate on content, which they demonstrably do better than just about anybody else, than get sidetracked by having to sanitise the LWN site code for release and running a community development project (because naturally the people clamouring for a LWN.net code release don't want them to just throw the code over the wall, Android-style, no, they want them to accept bug reports and patches, do new releases, etc. etc. on an ongoing basis). Especially since, these days, ready-made free content management systems with support and a community are a dime a dozen.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||