3 ms·
I'm not sure how that follows. Most big open-source projects are in practice owned and controlled by a single company/entity, and the processes don't differ muc
by Lorkki 8y ago
I'm not sure how that follows. Most big open-source projects are in practice owned and controlled by a single company/entity, and the processes don't differ much from what you'd see in-house. What you're describing sounds more like how standardisation bodies work than the realities of functioning software projects.
- nwah1 8y agoI guess the corporation, in this case, is acting as a benefactor just as the government would be in other cases. In order to work on pie in the sky ideas, you need to hire brilliant people for long periods of time, with low certainty of success. And this is expensive, and corporations will not generally do this out of the kindness of their hearts... the stars align sometimes where the private incentives and public interests are the same. Xerox PARC, Google X, Bell Labs, and so forth meet this description just as much as DARPA. But the traditional direct profit motive is an important piece of the engine of progress, and relying only on this other incentive structure would cause stagnation.