Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Open source developers just in it for themselves

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Open source developers just in it for themselves

 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2010
On Jun 14, 1:25*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It's convenient for Larry D'Loserites to wantonly lie because they think
> they are entitled to wantonly censor out the bits that catch them out. But
> here's the direct quote from you, just one post ago, *speaking on behalf of
> the Larry D'Loserite Church, in which you define an open source developer,
> not as someone who writes open source code, but as someone who contributes
> something back to the open source community:


You've failed basic primary school set theory again. I'll explain it
to you further down - if you read the explanation very slowly and draw
some circles on a piece of paper like your school teacher taught you,
you might just grasp it.

>
> Anton the Wanton Censor: *"You were trumpeting that 2/3rds of open source
> developers don't contribute anything back - but how can you be an open if
> you don't contribute anything back? Isn't making code contributions the
> whole thing that makes someone an open source developer in the first place?"


1. Draw two circles next to each other that have a gap between them so
they don't overlap. Label one "contributors" and one "non
contributors". The reason they don't overlap is that somebody can't be
in the set of "contributors" as well as the set of "non contributors".

Once you finished that, you can move on to step 2.

2. A code contribution is one type of contribution, so draw a smaller
circle labeled "code contributors" inside the larger circle labeled
"contributors". If you want to get technical, this means that the set
of code contributors is a "subset" of contributors.

Done that yet? How does it look? Have you managed to follow along so
far?

Now this is where it gets tricky: From this diagram we can discover
that someone who hasn't made any contributions at all (ie they sit in
the "non contributors" circle) can't have made any code contributions
because a code contribution is a type of contribution.

Likewise an open source developer is someone who contributes code and
therefore is a "code contributor", and because code contributors are a
subset of contributors, it means open source developer have to also be
contributors at the same time (Wow! Mind blowing! Who knew?).

I know this all seems pretty complex to you, but you should be able
get your head around it eventually.

>
> Hence, your entire complaint with the Eclipse survey revolves around the
> fact that they have not accepted the Larry D'Loserite gospel.


You have missed the point entirely. I have no problem at all with the
survey or the Eclipse Foundation or any Eclipse users. I just pointed
out your lame attempt at misrepresenting it and your irrational
failure to grasp basic logic and subsets.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2010
On 13/06/10 11:50, impossible wrote:
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c141681$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>> On Jun 12, 1:41 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 5:24 am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Jun 11, 4:37 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Screw the "community", say most open source developers, nearly
>>>>>>> >> two-thirds
>>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>>> >> whom contribute absolutely nothing back -- not so much as a bug
>>>>>>> >> report --
>>>>>>> >> according to a recent poll of open source developers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > You seem to be confusing "Eclipse users" with "open source
>>>>>>> > developers".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Most Eclipse users would work for companies writing closed source
>>>>>>> > internal apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Just using Eclipse doesn't make you an open source
>>>>>>> > developer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be confusing "open source developers" with a church.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Open Source Developer" - someone who develops open source software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eclipse User" - someone who uses Eclipse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that Eclipse is open source software, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> So is the Java JDK. So are hundreds of the most commonly used Java
>>>> libraries. So is Subversion. So is Ant......
>>>> So are lots of bits of proprietary app servers like Websphere or
>>>> BEA. So is Emacs. So is Vim.
>>>> So is Trac. So is Redmine. So is Microsoft's MVC.NET web framework. So
>>>> are the NUnit and xUnit .NET testing frameworks. So is the new MS SDK
>>>> for their Outlook file formats. So is Adobes Flex SDK. So are lots of
>>>> bits of Apple's Xcode IDE. So are many many .NET development
>>>> libraries, tools, frameworks, IDE plugins etc available from codeplex.
>>>> The list goes on and on.
>>>>
>>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an internal closed source enterprise
>>>> development team anywhere that didn't have at least some open source
>>>> stuff somewhere in their development, testing and management
>>>> toolchains.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly my point. The category of "open source developers" is very
>>> broad. Which makes the notion of a close-knit "open source community"
>>> a joke.
>>>
>>>> Of course this might not be apparent to someone who's development
>>>> experience is limited to MS Office macros.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has always been readily apparent to me that the notion of a
>>> close-knit "open source community" is a joke. Most open source
>>> developers couldn't care less about the Larry D'Loserite sort of
>>> commitment to ideological purity that you, foir example, espouse.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The survey surveyed Eclipse Users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence this was a survey of open source developers.
>>>>
>>>> So by your moronic logic, iPhone developers and XCode users are also
>>>> open source developers because there is a lot of open source code in
>>>> the Apple developer tools? Or developers building webapps on top of
>>>> MVC.NET are also open source developers?
>>>>
>>>> And also by your logic, the team that develops (for example) the
>>>> National Banks online banking system are open source developers
>>>> because they use or have used Eclipse?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's up to each developer.
>>>

>> That doesn't even come close to answering the question.
>>
>> It is not up to each developer what tools he uses, unless he works in
>> isolation. It's up to the organisation to specify the tools that their
>> developers use and how they use them.

>
> One problem with ripping a sentence out of context is that it makes you
> look like someone who's either too lazy or too stupid to follow a
> conversation.
>
> In your case, I'm going to say it's a little of both.
>
> Eclipse surveyed what it described as "the open source community" and
> discovered that most of the developers who identify themselves as
> belonging to said community are simply in it for themselves. Who their
> employer happens to be is irrelevant because it's up to each developer
> to decide for himself/herself what they identify with and whose surveys
> they choose to participate in.
>

No. In fact it says "the Eclipse Foundation undertook a survey of the
Eclipse community". Not "the open source community". The document itself
notes "the survey is biased to Eclipse users". Nowhere in the document
did it say that the survey respondents consider themselves to be part of
the 'open source community', though the Eclipse Foundation itself does
wrongly try to conflate the Eclipse user base and the open source
community. I'd say that was definitely wrong as many organisations use
Eclipse but don't make their software open source. In fact in one
passage it says that employers are discouraging their workers from
contributing to open source projects. That's probably why 1 in 8 (quite
a small percentage actually) claimed to be 'unaffiliated'.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2010
On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>
> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
>

Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be part
of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in would he
therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them apparently did
fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.

Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
community is silly.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2010
On Jun 14, 11:54*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to open
> source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has not been
> sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute back
> to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in 2010. Conversely,
> in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational policies that allow them to
> use but not contribute back to an open source community, which is an
> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a change in the
> level of willingness to contribute to open source communities.


Hmmm... interesting. So you're saying that there were a large chunk of
survey responders that are just users and not code contributors?

And what's more they work for companies that don't let them make open
source contributions? So they aren't actually open source developers
after all?

That sounds strangely familiar, but I thought you were claiming before
that all the respondents were actual open source developers and not
just users?

You've lost track of all your contradictions.

BTW the 41% not being allowed to contribute anything back kinda puts a
new slant on your assumption of the non contributors attitude doesn't
it?

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2010
On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the "open
>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so did.
>> >

>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>> stupid.
>>
>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>> community is silly.
>>

>
> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
> source development:
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>
> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>
> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
> source communities.
>
> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
> investigating"
>
> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>

You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of respondents
were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate users and clearly
they are not the same as the community that develops Eclipse.

Thanks for posting that. Adobe wouldn't let me cut and paste that
portion for some reason.

Cheers,

Cliff

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2010
On Jun 15, 11:34*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.


Again, what dogma?

The only reason you brought it up in the first place was your own
ideological and dogmatic reaction to Larry posting it.

You either stupidly misread (charitable explanation) or deliberately
misrepresented (probable explanation) something and got called on it.
And everything you've said since is just evasion or attempts at
diversion.

You just can't admit you were wrong. That is the only denial going on
in here.

You're torn between two conflicting aspects of your "personality". On
the one hand you know you were obviously wrong and/or deceptive and
you know more answers just further reinforce that, but on the other
hand you can't let someone have the last word because in your warped
mind that is letting them win.

And to resolve this internal conflict before your head explodes, your
tried and true escape technique is to resort to accusations of
censorship or ideology. Most people just give up arguing with you
before you reach that point though.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2010
On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
>>>>> "open
>>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
>>>>> did.
>>>> >
>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>>>> stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>>>> community is silly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
>>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
>>> source development:
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
>>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
>>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>>>
>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
>>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
>>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
>>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to 35% in
>>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
>>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
>>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009. This
>>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>> source communities.
>>>
>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something worth
>>> investigating"
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam the
>>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>> >

>> You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
>> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
>> Eclipse.

>
> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
>

I'm just quoting that article back to you.

Are you Lennier's fraternal twin?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-15-2010
On Jun 15, 11:23*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that open source
> developers contribute back to the community.


So how do you develop open source software without contributing it?
Surely if you don't contribute what you develop, it isn't actually
open source?

If you don't give it to somebody else, or allow them to get it (ie
contribute it to them) - how can it be open source? Until you actually
contribute the source it is just "software" not "open source
software". Contributing the software with an open source license is
actually what defines it as open source software funnily enough.

It's not dogma, contributing is what defines an open source developer.
The unique alternative definition you seem to (dogmatically) advocate
is a nonsensical contradictory paradox.

As usual you haven't been able to back up a single thing you've
claimed.

> *The survey does not support
> that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to make that news
> disappear.


The only way that survey would contradict "open source developers
contribute back to the community", is if it was a survey that
exclusively polled open source developers. It wasn't - it was a survey
of Eclipse users and anyone that visited their homepage was invited to
fill it out.

Only 16-20ish% could even be identified as doing anything that could
be counted as "Open Source Development". Which isn't a problem for
anyone else but you - because it was a survey of Eclipse Users and
anyone else that wanted to answer.

>
> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
> contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.


Maybe we need to create a new category of developer for you:

"Open Source Developers that don't actually develop any Open Source
Software"

or OSDTDADAOSS for short. It's kinda catchy, I'm sure it will catch on
with all those developers who wanted to have "open source" on their
CVs, but couldn't be bothered with actually doing any actual open
source.

Maybe you somehow think open source is a state of mind rather than
just a category of software license? But isn't that an ideological
view rather than a pragmatic or technical one?

Maybe this state of mind thing could extend to a category of
"Developers that only wish they were Open Source Developers"? Of
course they would be no more open source developers than "Basketball
fans that wish they were in the Harlem Globetrotters" would actually
be members of the Harlem Globetrotters.

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c16f86a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not belong to the
>>>>>>> "open
>>>>>>> source community". Eclipse invited members of its own self-described
>>>>>>> "open source community" to participate in a survey, and 1600 or so
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be said to be
>>>>>> part of the "open source community". If a MS developer filled it in
>>>>>> would he therefore be an "open source developer"? (Some of them
>>>>>> apparently did fill in the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is
>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is part of your
>>>>>> community is silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its own words, is
>>>>> what Eclipse concluded from its survey regarding the state of open
>>>>> source development:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity model to explain
>>>>> how organizations perceive and participate in an open source source
>>>>> community. Over time, an organization moves from denial of open
>>>>> source,
>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and champion.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations contributing more to
>>>>> open source communities. However in 2010 it would seem this trend has
>>>>> not been sustained. In 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to
>>>>> contribute back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>> 35% in
>>>>> 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have organizational
>>>>> policies that allow them to use but not contribute back to an open
>>>>> source community, which is an increase from the 27% level in 2009.
>>>>> This
>>>>> clearly shows a change in the level of willingness to contribute to
>>>>> open
>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is something
>>>>> worth
>>>>> investigating"
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just wants to slam
>>>>> the
>>>>> door on any news that casts doubt on their religious convictions.
>>>> >
>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
>>>> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
>>>> respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3 of the users are corporate
>>>> users and clearly they are not the same as the community that develops
>>>> Eclipse.
>>>
>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in denial.
>> >

>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>

>
> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that open
> source developers contribute back to the community. The survey does not
> support that view, which is why there's such a clamor on your part to
> make that news disappear.
>
> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't; some
> contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy earning a living.
>
> Deal with it.
>

Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly supports
the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to the community?
My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
hysterical claims.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On 16/06/10 23:28, impossible wrote:
>
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c1886fa$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 15/06/10 23:23, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4c16f86a$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On 15/06/10 11:34, impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c169bf9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On 14/06/10 23:54, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c160dae$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>> On 13/06/10 12:14, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are no rules specifying who does and does not
>>>>>>>>> belong to the "open source community". Eclipse
>>>>>>>>> invited members of its own self-described "open
>>>>>>>>> source community" to participate in a survey, and
>>>>>>>>> 1600 or so did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all people who filled in the web-site survey can be
>>>>>>>> said to be part of the "open source community". If a MS
>>>>>>>> developer filled it in would he therefore be an "open
>>>>>>>> source developer"? (Some of them apparently did fill in
>>>>>>>> the form) Eclipse apparently claiming this is stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Claiming that someone who fills in your web form is
>>>>>>>> part of your community is silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you so desperate to deny reality? Here, in its
>>>>>>> own words, is what Eclipse concluded from its survey
>>>>>>> regarding the state of open source development:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community...010_Report.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Eclipse Foundation uses an Open Source Maturity
>>>>>>> model to explain how organizations perceive and
>>>>>>> participate in an open source source community. Over
>>>>>>> time, an organization moves from denial of open source,
>>>>>>> to usage, to modest contribution, to leading and
>>>>>>> champion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In 2009 there was a trend towards organizations
>>>>>>> contributing more to open source communities. However in
>>>>>>> 2010 it would seem this trend has not been sustained. In
>>>>>>> 2009, 48% of the respondents were allowed to contribute
>>>>>>> back to an open source project but that has dropped to
>>>>>>> 35% in 2010. Conversely, in 2010, 41% of respondents have
>>>>>>> organizational policies that allow them to use but not
>>>>>>> contribute back to an open source community, which is an
>>>>>>> increase from the 27% level in 2009. This clearly shows a
>>>>>>> change in the level of willingness to contribute to open
>>>>>>> source communities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It is is not clear the reason for this change but it is
>>>>>>> something worth investigating"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're a Larry D'Loserite who just
>>>>>>> wants to slam the door on any news that casts doubt on
>>>>>>> their religious convictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, yoYou are clearly not an 'open source community member'
>>>>>> if you are prevented from contributing back to the
>>>>>> community as 2/3 of respondents were. Clearly at least 2/3
>>>>>> of the users are corporate users and clearly they are not
>>>>>> the same as the community that develops Eclipse.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just keep repeating the Larry D'Loserite dogma. Ever in
>>>>> denial.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm just quoting that article back to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you're not. You're reciting the Larry D'Loserite dogma that
>>> open source developers contribute back to the community. The
>>> survey does not support that view, which is why there's such a
>>> clamor on your part to make that news disappear.
>>>
>>> Reality: Some open source developers do contribute, most don't;
>>> some contribute once in once in a while, most are too busy
>>> earning a living.
>>>
>>> Deal with it.
>>>

>> Dimwit. Which bit do you claim that I posted that supposedly
>> supports the idea that Open Source Developers contribute back to
>> the community?

>
> Let's see...scroll up....20, 21, 22....that's it, 22 lines:
>
> "You are clearly not an 'open source community member' if you are
> prevented from contributing back to the community as 2/3 of
> respondents were. "
>
> I wonder where you got that idea....Oh, well, I'm sure you'll post a
> link to the evidence one of these days.
>

It's in the reference you supplied: "In 2009, 48% of the respondents
were allowed to contribute back to an open source project but that has
dropped to 35% in 2010". 35% is approximately 1/3. Therefore 65% (approx
2/3) were not permitted to contribute back, therefore 2/3 were not by
definition members of the Open Source community.
>
>> My claim is that the article reflects nothing about the Open Source
>> Community, whatever that might be, in spite of Eclipse's rather
>> hysterical claims.
>>

>
> Got it. See no evil, hear no evil....
>

As a former Microsoft MVP I resent the fact that the image that you
project of the Microsoft community is so bigotted and ignorant. Thank
the little gods that your type is rare in both the Open Source community
and, to my certain knowledge, in the Microsoft community.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccol˛ di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open Source Developers' Conference 2007 - Brisbane - Call for Papers Richard Jones Python 0 06-16-2007 03:57 AM
Open Source Developers' Conference 2007 - Brisbane - Call for Papers Richard Jones Python 0 05-29-2007 09:52 PM
Wanted JXTA Developers for an Open Source Project dexpro@gmail.com Java 0 08-08-2005 05:03 PM
Open Source Conference in Japan: Open Source Realize Forum 2005 pat eyler Ruby 1 03-05-2005 03:50 AM
Survey: "Motivation of Free/Open Source Software (F/OSS) Developers" =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc_R=F6ttig?= Python 0 07-16-2004 12:02 PM



Advertisments