Subject: Re: ways of funding
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:25:49 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <Ben_Tilly@trepp.com> writes:

    Ben> I agree that reuse is a difficult problem.  However I submit
    Ben> that CPAN (the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network)
    Ben> demonstrates that in the real world a free software project
    Ben> can achieve substantial levels of re-use.

Trying to use CPAN is what put me off of Perl for good.  But I prefer
working in Emacs Lisp, and that's not really a limitation for the
small amount of scripting I do.  So I don't put any reliance on a few
bad experiences.

Stuff I've tried from CTAN aside from what makes it into Debian is
largely broken.

Where should I look to get a better idea of how well these particular
archives are working?  Obviously my random sample conflicts with your
greater experience.

"Debian" (Red Hat, if you prefer) is an obvious response.  But then
the real library is the set of .debs derived from CPAN (CTAN), not the
archive itself.

Oh, yeah: is there any way to measure "check-outs"?  "Check-ins" are an
obvious ego-boo that doesn't necessarily imply utility of the module.


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."