Re: os discuss (http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7263.html)

[cjgidman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

bob@acm.org wrote: 
> cjgidman@mindless.com wrote:
> 
> >....you can't ignore the invisible hand of the
> >market place.
> I don't believe anyone is ignoring the marketplace at all.
> Quite the contrary. Linux is the only OS making headway in
> the broad OS marketplace, the one OS with the strongest
> compounded growth projection over the next couple of years
> (at least), and the one OS which supports more hardware
> platforms than any other. This didn't happen with any
> high-powered marketeering or monopoly power, but out of
> grass root free choice, and if that ain't the market,
> what is?

I didn't say the market place was being ignored.  I said
the invisible hand was, or the forces behind the market.
My contention is that the force behind the huge growth
projection you mention has little to do with market
forces.  More on this below.  Eventually, market forces
will come into play.  

> >Deadlines ARE important.  
> Please substantiate this claim. 

People will demand more from the OS and expect it to be
delivered on their timetable, not the developer's time
table.  If we wait for the developer to decide when
it's ready, it may slow the wheel of progress.  Believe
it or not, a deadline, no matter how arbitrary, helps
some of us focus better on our work.

I could diddle at a piece of software for decades and
never release it because it's not perfect.  Maybe the
end-user doesn't care if it's perfect, he just something
close enough.  Perhaps this is one reason for the broad
acceptance of Windows.  We've been down this road
before.

> >And, as time goes by, software DOES become obsolete.
> Yes, quite so. However, the RATE at which software becomes
> "obsolete" is far slower than the producers of proprietary
> software would have us think. This is similar to the auto-
> makers, who want us to get a new car every three years or
> so, even though the service life of most cars is almost 2 
> decades, given even a swipe at proper care.

Conceeded.  But the rate slowed by delayed delivery
dates.  If I want X but can't have it because John Q.
Developer hasn't released it because...
   o  He's got other things to do
   o  He works on it when he feels like it
   o  It's not "Just Right" yet.
That's when I step in with other incentives.  I say,
"John, give it to me by dd/mm/yyyy and I'll give you
 a dollar."  Now, we have market forces.  Now, it is
going to be managed like a business.  You see?
Deadlines are important.  Market forces do come into
play. Right now, John's incentive is to beat Microsoft.
For non-OS projects, John's incentive maybe to make a
name for himself.  But, eventually, he's going to have
to put caviar on the table.  The Open Source world may
be a spring board that gets him there, but suddenly,
he won't be in it any more.  Well, not like he was.

> >The Open Source model works because there is a David
> >and Goliath competition going on.
> This is true, but your thinking of Microsoft as the David
> seems somewhat at odds with some of the other statements
> in what you've written. Can you explain?

> You see, Microsoft is David, since they do not marshal the 
> resources or the effort required to create a really reliable 
> OS. The number and mean skill level of the people who are 
> working on the Linux system simply have them beat, and the
> Linux team simply cares more. The Linux Goliath does scale 
> quite well, however.

Microsoft is Goliath.  The big, ranting giant that
everyone fears to go up against.  It has nothing to do
with resources.  Goliath's tool was Fear.  When it came
to hard knocks, he lost.

David is driven by a need to prove that his way is
better.  Once Goliath is out of the way, David's way is
immediately suspect.  You see, if the Philistine army
had not turned and run, but rushed upon David like a
pack of wolves, how long do you think David would have
lasted with his four remaining stones?

I say that the market forces are far less fearful than
the Philistines.  Open Source may be a nice tool for
felling a giant, but I'm not so sure it's a viable
model in the long run.

(NOTE: For those not familiar with the story of David
       and Goliath, it can be found in the Bible in
       I Samuel 17.  Or, on the web, here:
       htttp://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1SAM+17&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=off)

> >In a more level playing field, where smaller companies are 
> >competing for smaller pieces of the market,...
> Ah, is this the kind of environment that might exist without
> monopoly power, such as what Microsoft was convicted of wielding?
> I'd like to see a world like this, where everyone used the same 
> standards and competed on merit instead of hype, FUD, and 
> misdirection....
Yes, and you may yet see it.  But, I wonder, who makes
and holds the standards?  Does this person also
control the market?  This is probably another thread.

> >it's not as clear that this laid-back approach to deadlines
> >would work.
> What "laid back" approach are you referring to? No one made any
> commitment to a release date for the Linux kernel; no one had
> to.
I think you answered your own question.  A "laid back"
approach is one where there are no commitments to
deadlines, the customer, self, or anyone.  

>Software "engineering" is still largely craft, and it is very
> very hard to place deadlines on the successful outcome of proto-
> typical craft, in any industry. The people who are at or near the
> top of the Linux kernel effort (and other Free Software projects)
> know better than to commit to a needless deadline.
I agree with you.  And the technology sector is rife
with products that have been prematurely released
because of arbitrary deadlines.  But, if there are no
deadlines, then there is no race.  There is no
competition.  If there is no competition, technology
will stagnate.  At least, that is my belief.
 
<snipped personal experience, etc.>
<snip Microsoft Promised...> 

[Promising arbitrary deadlines is a]
> characteristic defect of companies that fear the marketplace, and will
> promise anything to keep an audience. Mature workers understand that 
> quality delivery takes time, and the notion that a product is ready 
> ONLY when the product developers say so is a vital part of maintaining
> the integrity of a product and it's place in the market.

Modified development processes can speed time to
delivery.  If there is no driving deadline, then there
is no need to modify or streamline development
processes.  Ultimately, this leads to slower develop-
ment times.  What the original article points out is
that if you have a dictator running the show, one who
ignores market forces, development slows.  I think I agree with this.

Chris.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com