Heck, you can hack at my replies anytime, Duane :-) You're well
qualified!
Yes, it is not an easy analogy and would have its problems. I'm
idealizing a whole lot. Ten Tec would be at the helm, using
SourceForge for coordination but they would release binary versions of
their fully approved package. Users who do NOT want to tinker or worry
about others' tinkering just download the binaries and forget about it
all. Tinkerers go to SourceForge where there are forks to allow fixing
and addition of features that anyone can fiddle with, IF they are
responsible for their own craziness (and sometimes its just that :-)
They'd have to know how to go back to former, stable versions, stuff
like that. Normal consumers, not interested in messing around, just
stick with the main binary version approved and worked over by the
folks at Ten Tec.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? OK, and I still play a lot of Steve
Goodman tunes, too.
Clark
WA3JPG
On Jul 26, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Duane Calvin wrote:
But aren't comparisons of "open source" code using Linux as a
reference a
bit flawed? Who will be the agency who approves the code module
changes to
an Orion (for example) if this were to be the path taken? Who would
test
each of the possibilities all in combination with the others? Even the
various Linux distro's can't keep the kernels in sync, and, while I'm
not
familiar with the specific implementation, they have an approval body
for
what does and doesn't make it into the various releases. Companies who
specify Linux have to be careful about which releases are picked up,
how
much testing they have before using them, and how to release on a
realistic
schedule for users. This is not trivial work, and to assume open
source
would work without significant effort from Ten-Tec would be inaccurate.
(I'm not responding to Clark here, just making a general observation
based
on my work with proprietary Unix, AIX, and various Linux distro's.)
73, Duane
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
www.ac5aa.com
|