* Eugene Kim <firstname.lastname@example.org> [001015 20:01]:
> I fall in the middle of these two trains of thought. Doug is concerned
> about moving in the wrong direction; you're more concerned about not
> moving at all. I think that both of these are equivalent evils.
> Successful open source development depends heavily on strong initial
> design. It's certainly feasible, even highly recommended, to scrap
> initial code attempts entirely and rewrite from scratch, but if you start
> off with a bad design to begin with, an open source-style methodology is
> not going to help you in any way whatsoever.
Thanks for the previous clarifications. This topic of open source and
movement and their relations both obvious and suble seems to touch a
note somehow, so...
My thought on this is that with Augment, the -design- I think is very
good. There are thousands of man-hours involved in the design of this
product. It's implementation may be a bit dated by today's standards,
but it's -design- I would say is good. The algorithms used may not
change all that much on the back end. That's part of the point. Even
if just used as a reference, I believe getting the code out would be
tremendously useful and not cause any overhead.
This may also cause more interest and raise the awareness of some of
the issues. I don't know how to put a value (good or bad) on this.
This may be important to focus on to illuminate differences in
approaches and clarify questions that might surface about going forward.
Doesn't having a reference like this have value in the eyes of funding
I look forward to talking with you all again tomorrow.
-- -- Grant Bowman email@example.com -- SuSE +1-510-628-3380 x5027 -- 580 Second Street, Suite 210 fax +1-510-628-3381 -- Oakland, CA 94607 http://www.suse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:57:56 PDT