What's the difference?
What's the difference?
Posted Oct 21, 2011 16:42 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: What's the difference? by khim
Parent article: Andy Rubin: Android 4.0 to be open sourced by year end (The H)
GCC has used a completely open model since the egcs days, and the gcc repository even includes vendor branches (for Red Hat, Google, and others) so that other GCC developers and the public can see the history and code can more easily be merged.
Of course it's true that private companies sometimes develop a GCC improvement for a client and let the client have the code before the general public gets access. But eventually these kind of one-offs either get merged with the official version or they die off, and other developers will often insist on redesign at that point.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 17:04 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (7 responses)
And this proves... exactly what? That GCC was driven to bazaar model kicking and screaming? That it was developed for 12 years in exactly the same fashion Android is developed today? From 1987 to 1999 (when 2.8.x effort was abandoned and egcs-based gcc 2.95 replaced it) GCC was developed "behind the closed doors". Indeed the infamous Cathedral vs Bazaar essay uses it as example of cathedral model! Sorry, but realities of today don't change the lessons of the past. Android 1.0 was released about three years ago. Of course "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme": we can not be sure about timings but if we'll use GCC timeline, for example, then Google Android will rule till about 2016 - when it'll slowly be eclipsed by different kinds of bazaar-like forks.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 18:02 UTC (Fri)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (4 responses)
This is a terrible argument. How GCC *used* to work is not a normative argument for how things should work now -- we've learned stuff in the last few decades.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 21:48 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
No. My argument was that most (perhaps all) successful large projects were developed "in a cathedral style" initially. There was small team (sometimes just a single person as in GCC case!) which developed their "vision" - and only later community followed. Where bazaar was tried from the start (things like HURD or MeeGo) the result was often disappointing: when first release was ready to see the world it was usually way too late to fight for the mindshare. Note that some projects switched to "bazaar development" quite early, some were dragged there kicking and screaming, but on the first glance the fatality rate among projects of the first class is lower then among projects of the second class (would love to see statistic which shows otherwise). What does it mean for the esteemed bazaar? Not all that good conclusion: both "stick with cathedral forever" and "switch to bazar ASAP" strategies are losers long-term, but the last one is worse. Easy to understand why, BTW: bazaar gives you more options, but slows down the momentum. If you are in a fierce competition with someone then lost momentum from the switch to bazaar can easily send your project to oblivion. If you are in fact so successful and dominant that even "competing bazaar" on the coattails of your releases can provide valuable artifacts then your leadership may be in jeopardy, but the project itself will probably survive without you.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 22:09 UTC (Fri)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (1 responses)
Err, but most projects fail, and the HURD lost to the canonical bazaar project: Linux.
I think it's pretty uncontroversial that even when talking about "bazaar-style projects", you need a small team to develop the initial version (how else are you going to attract a larger community?), and that it's incredibly valuable to have strong leadership setting the overall vision, shaping community norms, and performing quality control (think how strongly the personalities of people like Linus, Guido van Rossum, Theo de Raadt, Tridge, Larry Wall, ... have affected their respective projects).
But you can have all that while acting in an open way and allowing outsiders to join in. It's not like anyone is asking the Android people to give commit access to everyone with a Google account.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 23:15 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
it doesn't need to be fancy, but if it's not usable the community isn't going to form.
part of being 'usable' includes the ability to build it. When you have 'code dump' releases from companies, it's very common that the initial versions can't be compiled because they were dependant on proprietary stuff (including tools) that aren't part of the release.
If people can compile and start using your release, you have a pretty good chance of surviving. If they can't, you have a struggle ahead.
Posted Oct 23, 2011 9:13 UTC (Sun)
by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295)
[Link]
Posted Oct 21, 2011 18:46 UTC (Fri)
by dbruce (guest, #57948)
[Link] (1 responses)
You're omitting one very big difference - look at the financial and engineering resources of Google vs. those of the GNU project. If Google continues to develop Android seriously, there is no way any open source fork is going to "eclipse" it.
Posted Oct 21, 2011 22:08 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
If you don't believe that other companies can ever eclipse Google then it just means that bazaar development will be pointless. But I don't believe that. Yes, Google is about 10 times larger then, for example, RedHat. But Android is not the main Google product and RedHat is not the only company which can decide to develop it. As long as there are important features which can be attractive for all (or at least most) users Google can keep the lead. But there are only so much you can do in this context. At some point you'll ran out of "big" features and "small" features will matter. At this point no single company (not even Google or Microsoft) can compete. You can only fight using courts and format lockins - both venues are not possible for the free software where you can always use yesteryear version to achieve pretty good compatibility.
EGCS days? Ha!
GCC has used a completely open model since the egcs days, and the gcc repository even includes vendor branches (for Red Hat, Google, and others) so that other GCC developers and the public can see the history and code can more easily be merged.
EGCS days? Ha!
Not exactly...
So your argument is that because GCC was developed in a cathedral style until sometime in the mid-nineties, we should therefore be happy about new software being developed in that style now?
Not exactly...
Not exactly...
Not exactly...
EGCS days? Ha!
Not really convincing...
You're omitting one very big difference - look at the financial and engineering resources of Google vs. those of the GNU project. If Google continues to develop Android seriously, there is no way any open source fork is going to "eclipse" it.