Re: [OS:N:] Developing for developers and users

[Matt Frye <mattfrye@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think you are taking my Outlook example too far.  Also consider that
some of the comments were not my own; it should be clear which I
quoted.

In any case, you can say such things about OpenOffice, but if you
carry that analysis back a bit farther and apply the comment to
StarOffice or even further back, you still don't find that it came
from Microsoft.  If I am wrong and somewhere OO's ancestor is MS
Office, please let me know, but I think billg would have something to
say about it, SCO style.

Point is, somewhere along the line, someone had to look at MS Office
and decided to build something that was, for all intents and purposes,
like it (but not it by invention).  It's wonderful that OO (or it's
predecessors) are feature rich and can export in all kinds of formats,
but that doesn't make it fundamentally different from MS Office.

Keeping on topic...

"Feature rich" looks nice and impresses developers, but products
written in this way (for developers or not) will eventually collapse
under their own weight.  Invent new things, but keep them lightweight
and clean.  Open source is a great opportunity for doing that.  That's
all I'm really saying.

I agree with Charles M's comment about retraining, but perhaps the
best way to do that is to manage the evolution of the application
through the evolutionary programming process that you allude to,
Chris.  When that happens, the retraining is organic.  I know it's not
going to happen overnight, but that doesn't mean it's not
revolutionary.  Afterall, most revolutionary changes actually take 20
years or more.

Matt Frye


_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>