[ILUG] CALIBRE

[Ronan Cunniffe]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Paul O'Malley wrote:

> Perhaps I should have written: The problem with open source is that with
> everything in the open, it can be hard for people to find the door upon
> which to knock to gain access.

I don't understand this metaphor (though I'm not the best person to
complain about that).  The "door" is either a website (from where you
downloaded the code, or referred to in documentation that came with it, or
a developer's e-mail address in the source.


If you wrote the page concerned, then this is my response to the three
points I quoted earlier:


"Code quality is not assured given the 'we accept code from strangers'
principle"

The underlying assumption here is that code is opaque, that it is an
anonymous parcel smelling strongly of dynamite, that OSS developers hand
on trustingly to others.

In reality, good code is transparent, bad code is transparently bad, and
appropriately rejected.


"Maintainability problems likely due to excessive modularity of code"

I *think* the underlying assumption being made here is that all
applications are built out of modules, and the more modules, the harder
it will be to keep things together.

This basically claims that bottom-up design is unworkable.  Somebody
better tell the aircraft industry that a Boeing or Airbus has too many
modular components.


"Unavailability of sufficient developer talent to scale to increased
interest & demand for libre software products"

Assumption: developer pool is fixed both in size and talent.

Reality: To the extent that developer talent is being stretched thin, the
Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese education systems (to name but a few) will
be only too happy to take up the slack.


I'd be happier if there was a clear explanation of *why* this kind of
study is needed in the first place.

Ronan