3 ms·
More information from 2010 about the way to do that in Linux: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3261965/so-reuseport-on-linux http://stackoverflow.com/question
by sounds 13y ago
More information from 2010 about the way to do that in Linux: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3261965/so-reuseport-on-linux http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3261965/so-reuseport-on-l...
This is an example of a major downfall with free software: a developer decides he needs a feature so he implements it without taking any effort to see what has been done before – and more importantly, why.
It leads to the project sprouting thousands of new features while nothing achieves the polish and completeness of the original idea because the developer moved on to something newer and shinier.
I can't find the original blog post where I read the idea, but I did find one on Coding Horror: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/01/the-magpie-developer.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/01/the-magpie-develope...
The Linux kernel solves this by having Linus, who has the long term perspective and the commitment to keep the project moving forward. I'm not claiming he's perfect, just that having him is the correct solution to the problem. Obviously here is someone who thinks the 3.9 kernel has a new feature he needs all the while ignoring past socket work.
- simonw 13y ago"This is an example of a major downfall with free software: a developer decides he needs a feature so he implements it without taking any effort to see what has been done before – and more importantly, why." Reinventing the wheel is certainly a common flaw of developers, but I don't see what it has to do with free software. Are you suggesting that it's less present in non-open-source software development?
- sounds 13y agoPlease be more specific than "non-open-source software development" – what exactly are you suggesting I'm suggesting? Perhaps I could clarify by defining a cathedral/bazaar axis, and an open/closed axis. A centralized effort can achieve the original idea more quickly than ad-hoc distributed effort. Free software has this common downfall: a developer wants to reinvent the wheel, and nobody takes the time to educate him why that's a bad idea. It's easier to just accept his patch and forget about it. What happens to closed software is completely invisible to the community, so I consider it irrelevant but perhaps worse than what happens to free software.
- simonw 13y agoIt looks like I misunderstood you. When you said "This is an example of a major downfall with free software" I assumed you meant that it was a major downfall that was unique to free software, which implied that you thought it didn't affect other kinds of software development. Your reply here implies that you don't believe this, so I retract my previous comment.
- sounds 13y agoI could have stated that better. Thanks!