2 ms·

Are you aware of any open source project of the size and magnitude of Windows (including and especially the number of engineers involved?) And I don't think Li

Are you aware of any open source project of the size and magnitude of Windows (including and especially the number of engineers involved?) And I don't think Linux is a possible answer here, because remember Vista/Longhorn pretty much started as a bottoms-up rewrite (I'm sure there is a legion of blog posts out there about why THAT is a bad idea too), and also involved in the scope of "windows" is all the applications that will ship with it. I agree with you that in the context of an open source development framework, you would never need 24 people to design a menu, but can you even build something the size of Windows in an open source framework on any sensible timeline? My impression of the most impressive and successful open source projects - even large ones - is that they are a labour of LOVE of one specific genius who eventually figures out how to scale themselves for ongoing maintainace. But it is almost certainly at that time a) their personal passion, b) not their paid profession, c) not the key contributor to the stock price of a major billion-dollar multi-national company.

throwaway984393 5y ago
This is specifically addressed in the appendix of later editions of The Cathedral And The Bazaar. I think what people are missing is that traditional project management does not deliver projects any faster or better. "Oh, it's really big and complicated, so all this inefficient process is necessary!" But then you bring in a Six Sigma or Lean or Agile consultant, and they look around and go, "What the fuck are you people doing?" They write up a list of recommendations and leave, and then the corporation does exactly jack shit with those recommendations. But many of the recommendations are to stop doing so much bullshit process, because it's often making coordination on that big complicated thing even harder. Also addressed by the paper is the fact that, yes, Open Source does benefit from people with very big brains motivated to do what they love. The traditional model of "throw 100 random engineers at the problem" is simply not going to result in the efficiency of 10 highly motivated, highly talented individuals. But that doesn't mean the Open Source way wouldn't result in just as successful a software product. The difference is in how you motivate people, and how to get the hell out of their way so they can be effective.
shadowofneptune 5y ago
The closest thing I can think of is the Debian Project, which does have an organizational structure based on committees: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. Debian is the base on which most Linux-based operating systems build themselves. A lot appears to be done by resolutions, which has its own set of problems. It's at least a counterpoint to the idea of the most successful projects being led by the personality of one person, as leadership has changed regularly.

throwaway984393 5y ago

This is specifically addressed in the appendix of later editions of The Cathedral And The Bazaar. I think what people are missing is that traditional project management does not deliver projects any faster or better. "Oh, it's really big and complicated, so all this inefficient process is necessary!" But then you bring in a Six Sigma or Lean or Agile consultant, and they look around and go, "What the fuck are you people doing?" They write up a list of recommendations and leave, and then the corporation does exactly jack shit with those recommendations. But many of the recommendations are to stop doing so much bullshit process, because it's often making coordination on that big complicated thing even harder. Also addressed by the paper is the fact that, yes, Open Source does benefit from people with very big brains motivated to do what they love. The traditional model of "throw 100 random engineers at the problem" is simply not going to result in the efficiency of 10 highly motivated, highly talented individuals. But that doesn't mean the Open Source way wouldn't result in just as successful a software product. The difference is in how you motivate people, and how to get the hell out of their way so they can be effective.

shadowofneptune 5y ago

The closest thing I can think of is the Debian Project, which does have an organizational structure based on committees: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization https://www.debian.org/intro/organization. Debian is the base on which most Linux-based operating systems build themselves. A lot appears to be done by resolutions, which has its own set of problems. It's at least a counterpoint to the idea of the most successful projects being led by the personality of one person, as leadership has changed regularly.