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

>>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Winebarger <> 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

    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

Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
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.