Hi again Anders,
Only in the technical details. I believe the priciples still apply. >Lots of projects living and thriving will produce lots of different >ideas. The best of these ideas will over time evolve, possibly into still >new projects, each better than the ones that came before it. It's just >the nature of the beast. One single project only leaves room for one >single set of ideas.
Imagine yourself waking up in the middle of the night with a >brilliant new idea for a file system that would give 10 times better >performance than any other for one specific purpose. Should you not be allowed >to pursue that idea? Should you still be forced to solve bug #xxxxx in ext3's bugzilla. That's not the way forward. Maintenance of existing projects is needed and vital, but so is new projects with new ideas.
Good point. But a single standard is important. If you have too many ideas floating around being implemented then you could have total chaos. End up having 20 different programs that all do the same thing incorrectly.
Focusing all attention on one project instead of 4 or 5 would be much better for the software community in the long run.
No, in fact I think it's just the opposite. It may be better in the short run, but in the long run I think it's the way to certain >death.
Certain death? Thats what microsoft did, and I don't think they are dead right now. As a matter of fact isn't Bill Gates one of the richest people in the world? ~~Nick _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!