Money can't buy you happiness, but Meteor, a web-apps startup focused on enterprise app development, seems to think it can buy it an open-source community. Instead of the standard startup funding announcement, proclaiming that the company will use its funding for product development, marketing and so on, Meteor says it "will use …
The new ajax
Its the new AJAX, the new XML.
Its probably being built to flip.
Linux as we know it benefitted and benefits greatly from programmers paid by companies such as IBM to write it.
On the other hand, great little programs that not many people buy, don't get worked on to add new or improved features, much.
If you build it, they will come, particularly if it's good and free.
Having said that, what is this one for, again, exactly?
Who wrote this article, surely wasn't Matt Asay, I actually agree with it.
Has he outsourced his writing?
Re: Bloody Hell.
open-sourced it maybe?
On the other hand one can use money to hire coders to produce code that can then be used to buy open-source love.
There really are people in this world who aren't solely motivated by money
not with nothing
Linus didn't start with nothing- he started with a tremendous amount of state of the art work.
Linus had certain advantages
University facilities and support plus education. Not having to do a demanding, full time commercial job and no starving if he did not. Rightly he built on existing work and ideas, not least of which are UNIX and MINIX. GNU provided the top layer and much else. BSD provides more.
This does not belittle the work. But it is not a work of great orginality or genius.
The incredible financial support in such cases is: no personal risk, available equipment, technical and academic support, advice and time.
Re: Linus had certain advantages
Perhaps the biggest advantage is his personality (or Finnish culture?) - an egalitarian attitude with a mix of directness, consensus-building, and willingness to acknowledge his own faults.
There is more to it...
Building a community is one thing, knowing how to treat it right is something else completely.
Not directly open source but I'm very deeply involved with synthesizers, sound synthesis and electronic music in general. To that end I follow a few support forums for some of the products I own (Ableton Live & Reason being the best examples here).
But quite frankly these two forums I mentioned above are /much/ more than mere support forums. Because the companies behind these products allow for users to, well, use the forums for much more besides product support. Ranging from product related questions, obviously, right to specific topics which only involve electronic music or sound synthesis in general.
And... And they /also/ allow for people to spout off their negative opinions about the products, services and basically the whole kaboodle. Sure; they keep somewhat of a (light) lid on it so that matters don't get out of hand, but in general people are pretty much free to out their opinions. And /that/ is one way to build a community.
I for one still recall how the Propellerhead forums at one time almost exploded when Propellerhead software (company behind Reason) made some specific business decisions about the way to provide new upgrades to their software.
Yet it survived without little or no moderation and people still enjoy themselves there.
Then there is another forum for a very well known DAW which name I won't mention here... The forum is kept under a tight leash and the very moment when someone shares something which could give the impression of something negative for their product(s) they're usually advised to take it directly up with support and keep things out of the forums.
And that is one way to ruin a community, even right before one has yet to form.
As such my comment: there is much more to building up a community....
Re: There is more to it...
There's some good academic research on how successful open-source communities grow. And yes, the protocols that control how people gain a voice and authority in those communities - whether they're established by fiat, explicitly negotiated by community members, or implicit in the behaviors that develop among members - are very important to the community's success.
See eg Ducheneaut, "Socialization in an Open Source Software Community" - the conclusions are relevant, and the methodology is interesting. (Ducheneaut wrote software to scrape messages from python-dev and analyze them to construct graphs of interactions among participants.)
Anyone who sets out to *build* a community will probably fail. Anything worth calling a community grows because people find the atmosphere inviting.
Try and not be so negative ..
It goves you a warm n fuzzy feeling until you start asking questions.
no security= "Run!"
have the whole db accessable by the client=" ...................<Distant flurry of footfalls/>"
Um good luck guys! your going to need it!
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Massive! Yahoo! Mail! outage! going! on! FOURTH! straight! day!
- Bring it on, stream biz Aereo tells TV barons – see you in Supreme Court