On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:43:12AM +1100, Michael Silk wrote:
OSS development in general is quite structured and often
applies their own deadlines.
Deadlines maybe, but what is the reprocussion if they aren't met ?
Loss of goodwill, trust and status. These are important commodities to a great
many OSS developers - and often translate into direct monetary gain at the end
of the day if maintained.
Nothing. You're not getting paid, so you don't lose many. You can just
blame it on being busy with your real work (which it probably would be
due too) ...
You may note that developers doing this are seldom prominent OSS developers.
Deadlines only matter if they actually need to be met, and in OSS
(i.e. free, "when you have time" development) I can't think of any
time where one would be required.
As opposed to the timely release of Microsoft's latest OS, Cairo, I take it?
The main difference
between proprietary vendors and OSS is that things gets fixed
faster, and if you don't think it gets done fast enough you
can always fix it yourself.
I can fix things where I work currently, myself. Whats the difference ?
You can fix the bugs in NT 4.0 that Microsoft have stated they won't fix? Maybe
the bugs in Windows Server 2003? If so, you have *way* more clout than most
developers do.
The main difference between OSS and commercial is you are getting paid
for one.
The main difference is that in OSS development any improvements made by anyone
make it back to the common codebase. Most OSS development is commercial anyway,
you are trying to create a false divide here.
Jesper
