Re: A market perspective on the impact of dunc-tanc
Default User wrote:
> IMHO, the idea of paying privileged, pet, mercenary developers, while
> others work for free, was a VERY BAD IDEA!
Well, that's your perogative. However, who said they were privledged or
pets or mercenaries?
> And it FAILED MISERABLY: (12-4-06 release? It's now 12-15-06 UT; still no
> release in sight).
That's an odd definition of "failed miserably" considering what we're
talking about. You're saying that 11 days (so far) late is a failure on
a project who's previous release took, if memory serves, a *year* from
freeze to release. No slight against the many wonderful volunteers who
put that release together but c'mon, if the previous bar is a year then
11 days is nothing.
> How would
> YOU feel working hard for $0/mo while someone else gets paid (perhaps)
> $6,000/mo for working on the same project?
What others are or aren't paid has no bearing on the time I freely and
willingly give.
> Something akin to Gresham's Law applies here: money drives anything good
> out. Get the money out of Debian, before it becomes just an OpenSUSE
> look-alike/wannabe.
Meh, yeah, money has been such an evil. Any more anti-capitalist
propaganda lurking in ya, "Default"?
> Although I do really miss Debian Weekly News, I FULLY SUPPORT the
> decision of it's editor to STOP WORK on it, and admire him standing up
> for what is correct, something that seems to be missing recently in the
> Debian project.
Actually I think that action is one of the most foolish and greedy
actions that could have been taken if he stopped for the sole purpose of
protesting other people being paid. It is solely intended to have a
negative impact on the project whereas paying developers to work solely
on the project is intended to give a boon.
> Final word: money isn't the answer to the problem, money IS the
> problem.
Er, no. I dunno where you're coming from but there's no problem with
this. In fact it is one of the ways that OSS proponents have said that
OS can be profitable for individuals. Someone pays you to work on the
code to scratch the itch they themselves are incapable or unwilling to
work on themselves. In this case it was a collective who were tired of
the long release cycle. They are contributing in their own way. Who
are you, or anyone else, to begrudge *how* they choose to contribute?
As for paid programmers working on OSS, that's been going on for years.
Software Bounties have been around for years. Companies paying some of
their employees to work expressly on OSS has been happening for years.
Heck, it's even touched Debian to an extent through Ubuntu and its
offshoots.
Money isn't the problem, dogma is.
--
Steve Lamb
Reply to: