Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:54:52 +0200
From:  Arthur Sherman <arturs (at mark)>
Subject:  [coba-e:10998] Re: AW:  Re: Progress Development Bluequartz
To:  coba-e (at mark)
Message-Id:  <01b301c8196a$1ce497b0$7002a8c0@dell>
In-Reply-To:  < (at mark)>
X-Mail-Count: 10998

> There are - and no matter how advanced BlueQuartz gets - 
> always will be
> *special* needs of clients and users that are not (yet) 
> covered by BlueQuartz itself. Which leaves enough room for 
> commercial extensions or third party software. Or there are 
> those that need professional help with BlueQuartz beyond the 
> help that the user base or the mailing list provides. Those 
> special needs will eventually get filled by one third party 
> or another, but nobody will be forced to take that route. At 
> the same time: Don't forget there are also companies that 
> will not consider using software (open source or otherwise) 
> if there is nobody around that can and will provide 
> commercial help *if* and *when* they need it.


> > With BQ that never happened, so we now have different people doing 
> > different things. Once again, I am not putting the finger 
> nor blaming anyone.
> The problem with BlueQuartz is not that it lacks commercial 
> background. There are enough very sucessful open source 
> projects without large companies behind them. But the main 
> problem that BlueQuartz has is indeed that there are too many 
> people doing different things, because there is a lack of 
> general organization and direction. 
> Why is that the case? Well, as I expressed in private on the 
> developer list: 
> A TEAM of developers usually speaks among eachothers to 
> determine a roadmap, to find out what needs to be done and 
> splits up the work so that those most suiteable for a certain 
> task (and who are willing to code and contribute
> things) work on certain aspects of it. If someone gets stuck 
> or with his task or runs out of time to make contributions, 
> others can look it over and pick things up. Once something is 
> finished, the code is then reviewed and if deemed acceptable 
> and tests out just fine it'll be commited to the official 
> branch. Final decision lies of course with the chosen project 
> leader and that's usually also the one that should then roll 
> up the code and publish the updates for general usage.
> This is how it ideally should be. BlueQuartz however is and 
> always was far from that. And THAT has always been hurting.

Agree even more.