4 ms·
In a non-sarcastic world it's called "community" and it increases the chance of getting collaborators contributing to your project. You know, the point of open
by josteink 12y ago
In a non-sarcastic world it's called "community" and it increases the chance of getting collaborators contributing to your project.
You know, the point of open-source being that everyone should be able to contribute and all that.
- sfk 12y agoIn a naive world it's called community. These days open source is a vehicle for multinationals to get suckers to write and test their software for free. Microsoft has caught on to that, hence the move.
- sfk 12y agoThe downvoters should educate themselves: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
- josteink 12y ago> These days open source is a vehicle for multinationals to get suckers to write and test their software for free. Lets for arguments sake accept your statement as fact. If that is a fact, is that inherently a bad thing? If I use a piece of software, open-source or not, will I or will I not benefit from that software somehow obtaining better test-coverage? Ofcourse I will. If that software is important to me, being able to contribute with tests or other "boring" or "light" material means that the core team can focus on further development. And I honestly don't have a problem with that.