Tom Horsley wrote: >>> "Open-source code is generally great code, not requiring much support." >>> >>> What universe does Stuart Cohen live in? >>> >>> >> So, what is your view? Generally crappy code in need of constant >> support? >> > > Uh, oh. You didn't want to get me started on this... :-) > > Well, seeing as how in this new F10 release alone we have the DNS > resolver library code broken for lots of people, the NetworkManager > being used to replace network even though it screams "not ready for > prime-time and not backward compatible" and GDM completely > rewritten, leaving out vast chunks of functionality, I wouldn't > exactly call it "not requiring much support". > Do you think it is valid to use F-anything as a point of reference for "support"? Remember, the target audience of the article is "business". > But my biggest issue with the open source model is the utter lack of > any documentation for anything. And if, God Forbid, something > should, over time, become well documented through mechanisms like > google searches and wiki pages, and "dummies" books, that seems to > be some kind of catalyst for the developers, triggering a frantic > need to utterly rewrite something that was perfectly OK, just to > make sure it retains its traditional level of obfuscation :-). > You point out a long standing problem. Developers are generally poor documenters. Good documenters generally don't come cheap. I feel the world is populated by more good programmers/developers than good documenters. Or, at least, there are more programmers/developers who earn enough from their day jobs to contribute than there are documenters. When I hear folks lamenting the lack of documentation I often wonder what percentage of them dedicate their time to a documentation project. While you did end your sentence with a smiley, we all know that rewrites are prompted by other things. Sometimes it is as simple as the developer realizing they should have done it differently to make it more efficient. At other times it is a request for a new feature and the developer finding out it can't be done reasonably in the original framework. I suppose you were trying to construct an non-sequitur in suggesting that out dating the documentation would be a driving force in rewriting software. I let Wiley handle those.... :-)* * > Even worse, the lack of documentation forms a kind of positive > feedback loop, increasing the feeling that things need to be > rewritten, not because they really need it, but because it is > easier to rewrite than to understand how to modify the existing > code. > Sorry, I don't follow that logic either. I'm not sure if you are talking about the end-user documentation or the documentation that should exist within the source code. I feel these are vastly different things. Certainly there have been projects have been adopted by people other than the original developers and there have been times where the code wasn't documented to the point where the new staff felt it was easier to rewrite the code to provide the same functionality. Would documentation be something the author of the BW article be talking about when he speaks of "adding value"? And, isn't the target of the article the business end-user? -- O.K.! Speak with a PHILADELPHIA ACCENT!! Send out for CHINESE FOOD! Hop a JET! Mei-Mei.Greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
