Re: Re: [XFree86] Re: Configuring OpenGL support in a new Build of XFree86

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:

>> XFree86's current design and priorities of development weren't 
>> created to match your specific personal needs.  The development 
>> is done by volunteers who basically work on whatever the hell 
>> they are interested in working on, and if someone isn't working 
>> on something, then they're probably not interested in doing so 
>> currently.
>
>I'm copying this to forum.
>
>One of the major critisicms of the way XFree86 has been working
>is that it has been ignoring features that are required to
>compete with MS Windows on the desktop.

Not necessarily "ignoring" per se., but rather not "focusing" 
there.

>It is perfectly valid to extrapolate that if things go on the way they
>are doing, XFree86 will continue to ignore Damian's market sector.

I don't disagree.  However, the XFree86 project ultimately 
decides what the XFree86 project feels like working on, and each 
individual developer - acting as a volunteer is going to work on 
things that interest them for whatever their own personal reasons 
are.  That is simply how open source development works.

Volunteers work on things that volunteers personally feel like 
working on.  That is no different from any other open source 
project.  And from a purely open source project point of view - 
there is no "market sector".  The only place there is a "market 
sector" is in business, and if some business wants to fit into a 
given market sector, and needs a certain feature in order to 
penetrate that place of the market, then whatever business or 
businesses are wanting to enter that sector will basically have 
to step up to the plate and fund the development of features that 
they want to see happen for their own business gain, which nobody 
in the open source community is working on.

It is totally unfair to expect a volunteer coders to drop what 
they're personally interested in working on, and change their 
focus of attention to work on code which benefits specific 
commercial entities revenue stream.


>> I doubt anyone here really cares if you install Windows XP on all 
>> the machines and use DirectX.  Unless you're here to personally 
>> contribute code, or to inquire about how to make contributions, 
>> or to pay to have work done, you don't have a say in demanding 
>> what work gets done, because things aren't done to meet your 
>> personal schedule or agenda, or needs.  They're done to meet the 
>> particular volunteers' own objectives.
>
>Well, I will be very disappointed if Damian gives up on XFree86 and
>uses Windows and Hummingbird Exceed. He has exactly the problem
>that brought me into this game and made me maintain
>  http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna/XFree86-3D-status.html
>(which used to be mailed as a FAQ on the Mesa mailing list)
>when it was an upto date description of the state of play.
>I just regret that I don't have the combination of skills and time
>to have been able to solve Damian's code myself.
>Maybe it is time I reopened that page.

I'm not disappointed personally.  I think businesses should 
choose the right tool for the job, and if a given tool doesn't do 
the job - don't use it.  It's that simple.

Open source software works great and solves many problems.  It is
a very good tool that can be used to solve problems both in
business, and in other areas - but as much as I would _love_ it
to be the case, it is not by any stretch of the imagination an
end-all-be-all solution to 100% of every person or company's
specific needs.  I doubt anyone would argue with me on that.

Open source software is driven by 2 things - personal motivations 
of individuals or groups of individuals, and 2) money.  If an 
open source technology doesn't do something that some business 
wants it to do, and no open source developer is working on it or 
planning to do so, then those businesses have the option of 
paying to have the work done.


>> If you want the software to do something it doesn't, then cough 
>> up some money to have the feature(s) you want implemented, or 
>> your cries and moans are falling completely on deaf ears.
>
>So even if we don't have a constitution where those with the
>money get the votes, money does determine what gets coded ? If
>we had effective leadership, it could be used to persuade people
>and companies to code, and fund coding, to make and keep XFree86
>technically strong.

I'm not talking about setting up a donation structure where you 
donate money and then vote on what you want implemented.  That 
would not get anywhere IMHO.  People are free to set up such a 
structure, and I wish them well in doing so, but I don't believe 
it would result in anything more than a handful of $20 donations 
voting on someone else implementing a $50000 solution.  That 
doesn't leave any volunteer any monetary incentive to do 
anything.

What I'm talking about is company A wants feature B, and pays 
company or individual C an agreed upon amount of money $D to have 
feature B implemented on timeline E.


>Mike, I'm not objecting to you requesting that Damian buts his
>money where is mouth is, but after all the flack XFree86 has got
>for not being what Owen and Kieth P want, I'm defending an
>attempt to pull XFree86 in the other ("my") direction.

That is a separate issue the way I see it.  Are you willing as a
volunteer to start hacking on this feature that Damian wants
tomorrow for him?  No, me neither.  What would your or my 
motivation be?  Would I like to see this feature? Sure.  But I'm 
not interested in working on it personally as I don't stand to 
personally benefit from it myself and have no personal use for 
it.  Most other developers likely fit into the same category.  So 
when will it get implemented?

Answers:

1) When an open source developer does in fact have a personal
interest in hacking on the code for their own personal benefit or
reasons - whatever their motivation is.

or

2) When someone pays to have it implemented - either a company
like Damian's, or an OS vendor who has a number of interested
customers wanting the feature, that said OS vendor can forsee
that paying to have the work done will hypothetically result in 
them gaining a certain number of customers and business which 
provides them with a revenue stream that they believe will let 
them see a return on their investment of having the technology 
developed.

I hate to repeat myself like this over and over again, but I 
think many people just don't get it.  Volunteers don't work on 
code they have no interest in working on.  Volunteers don't work 
on code they're interested in, if they have many other projects 
they are much more interested in working on.

This may come off as a rant to some people, but it is not 
intended that way.  I am simply trying to explain in a clear way 
how things get developed in the open source community.  People 
can't just demand a feature and expect some volunteer is going to 
implement it without having something to gain personally from 
doing so - either money, or personal satisfaction, or scratching 
a personal itch.


>Damian, I'm disappointed that XFree86 doesn't have a leadership
>which is willing and able to go around your sector of the
>industry and whip up a collection (whether of manpower or money)
>to get this important piece of XFree86 in place. Is there any
>way PESI can provide that leadership and coordination ? (I do
>see that reducing the cost of your product may benefit your
>customers by reducing its price, more than it benefits you by
>increased margin).

I don't think this has anything to do with leadership personally.  
You can't expect volunteers to hack on code just because someone 
else wants it done.  I'm sure if someone else does hack on the 
code out of personal motivation, or out of being funded to do the 
work, that it will most likely get into a future release.

The community can certainly draw up a list of cool features they
would love to have, and I definitely encourage anyone to do so.  
But no particular feature will ever get done, until some
*developer* is interested personally in doing it, or has money
thrown at them.

That's not a bad thing - that is just the reality of how OSS
development works.  Actually, it's not even limited to OSS, that 
is how all development works - OSS or proprietary.



-- 
Mike A. Harris