On 4/12/07, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, Canonical has. I think their execution has been poor, but they > have had the right vision for several years now. Their vision is wrong because, no matter the architecture decisions they've made, they *think* they're smart enough to build it as a proprietary application -- and they're not. This is *exactly* the class of application that *must* be open source if it's got any hope of success.
Method of production is orthogonal to goals of production. Don't confuse the two, or make the mistake of writing off what they are trying to do just because how they are doing it is dumb. [Or to put it another way- RH has gone a long, long time with a proprietary build system. There is very little reason to think that Canonical can't similarly succeed with a proprietary development infrastructure.]
> (I think GNOME would be happy to switch away from bugzilla to > something distributed, but has ~ 0 manpower to write the tool in the > first place. You obviously know mozilla better than I do, but I'd be > shocked if they are ready to move away from bugzilla- too tied into > it.) And this is the problem in a nutshell. Everyone agrees with the idea in theory, but no one has the manpower to make it happen in practice.
No one besides Canonical (and maybe rpath). They may not be doing it well, but they are doing it, and they will get smarter with time. Red Hat and Novell should see this as a serious threat to their business models, and should be investing appropriately. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
