Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 19:11:13 +0900

>>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org> writes:

    Lynn>      Adapted to need would probably be the right measure.  I
    Lynn> don't know about that "chunk size" characterization though.
    Lynn> Aren't you the one saying code reuse is not actually all
    Lynn> that high in the F/OSS world?

Compared to what?  Compared to proprietary, it's probably higher.
Compared to what it needs to be to overcome the resource deficit it
currently faces, I think it's pretty low.  And CPAN sits exactly where
the resource deficit in free software is lowest---admin and network
hacks.  Accident?  I suspect not.

    Lynn> Also, some apps grow like mud balls rather than being split
    Lynn> into fine diamonds.  The former is probably much more
    Lynn> common.

Are mudballs high quality and reusable?  Your terminology suggests
not.

    Lynn>    That (my quoted) argument is also countered by
    Lynn> "Homesteading the Noosphere".  I suppose you could
    Lynn> characterize it as profit in a different coin, though.

That's sort of tautological.  I don't see that it helps us understand
the reuse and quality issues, though, because the correlation of
quality with the different "coins" is not obvious, but probably
matters.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.