Re:Why Wolfram Tech Isn’t Open Source
by coldtea on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @03:40PM
(#19566532)
>Keep in mind that "FOSS development model" does not equal "bazaar-style" development. Case in point: the BSDs follow a more cathedral-style development model.*
I think it does (equal "bazaar-style" development).
Else it's not a product with a "FOSS development model", but merely a product with a "FOSS license".
But he talks of "FOSS development model" (as opposed to "FOSS license" or "FOSS business model").
>Reusing my previous example, BSDs are shipped as operating systems, not a kernel and a hodge podge of packages.
For their core (kernel + userland) yes. But on top they are still as much "a hodge podge of packages", with uncoordinated development and releases as Linux (e.g. the desktop environments, applications, window managers, compilers, app servers, etc -- it's just the kernel and basic UNIX userland that's coherent in BSDs).
I think it does (equal "bazaar-style" development).
Else it's not a product with a "FOSS development model", but merely a product with a "FOSS license".
But he talks of "FOSS development model" (as opposed to "FOSS license" or "FOSS business model").
>Reusing my previous example, BSDs are shipped as operating systems, not a kernel and a hodge podge of packages.
For their core (kernel + userland) yes. But on top they are still as much "a hodge podge of packages", with uncoordinated development and releases as Linux (e.g. the desktop environments, applications, window managers, compilers, app servers, etc -- it's just the kernel and basic UNIX userland that's coherent in BSDs).