Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 08:54:05 -0800

On 11/1/02 11:16 AM, "Ben Laurie" <> wrote:

> Tim O'Reilly wrote:
>> People keep saying sourceExchange (RIP).  But is alive and well,
>> and doing a lot of this interfacing.,,
>>,, are all very successful
>> projects managed by
> is not SourceXchange, and you know it. Its a commercial
> cousin to it, but it is by no means the same thing. SourceXchange was an
> interesting idea (and I have my views one why it died if anyone cares),
> and may perhaps flourish in some guise once more, given changing
> attitudes to free software.

The reason I said this was that the original posting to which I responded
was as follows:

>> Sitting at one interface are GNU, SourceForge, and
>> Bitkeeper: an interesting case study in contrast, it strikes me.  Then
>> there are and sourcexchange (RIP) at another interface.

What I was trying to get across was that while SourceXchange might be dead, is not.   Since SourceForge was mentioned as one (live) example,
and the only CollabNet example was a dead one, I was seeking to point out
that Collab was still there, albeit "at the other interface" mentioned.

So, "Sitting at one interface are GNU, Collab.Net, SourceForge, and
BitKeeper..." was my intent, not to suggest that Collab.Net is
SourceExchange--any more than GNU or SourceForge is solely defined by any
one of its projects.

Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472