Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hackers-il] RE: RFC: A $20 million for the "Better CVS" Fund

Expand Messages
  • Chen Shapira
    ... I didn t find the posts, but I found a nice interview with him: http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=222 I must admit that there are many things I didn t
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Read Larry McVoy's exhausting emails on Linux Kernel why SCM is
      > actually very difficult to do correctly.

      I didn't find the posts, but I found a nice interview with him:
      http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=222

      I must admit that there are many things I didn't think about,
      like moving data over http.
      I certainly didn't think of a hosted service, which is a seperate pain.
      I also didn't get why he had to rewrite sccs from scratch.

      The interesting bit was that he detailed his costs there.
      He claim 25 man years, bay area salaries cost his 4 million dollars.

      Shlomi, for your sum we could buy Larry's company and change
      the license. Was this the plan?

      > > Anyone takes my offer? I'm much cheaper than Shlomi! I'll remain
      > > much cheaper even after I hire a student for customer support.
      >
      > But do you know anything about the subject at hand? (same question
      > goes to Shlomi as well, of course, in the hypothetical situation I
      > would've been evaluating you two).

      Oh, I wouldn't dream of taking on that project. I have very little
      experience with source-control, and very little experience developing
      applications.

      I was joking a bit, while trying to tease Shlomi into revealing his
      formula.
      Happily, Larry revealed his formula, which means I was on the right
      track. You estimate cost by multiplying development time, number of
      developers and salaries. I thought that was the case, but I wasn't sure.

      > You just enumerated *perfect* reasons to release it, but unlike our
      > zealous friend, I don't think *all* software should be free, and will
      > not argue the case further. Someone else certainly could, though, if
      > those are the reasons for keeping it closed.

      Did I? Can someone else enlighten me?

      Thanks,
      Chen
    • Muli Ben-Yehuda
      ... Heh, interesting idea. It even stands a chance, lm has often gone on record that what he realy wants to do are linux clusters, it just that there was no
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 19, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:54:38AM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:

        > Shlomi, for your sum we could buy Larry's company and change
        > the license. Was this the plan?

        Heh, interesting idea. It even stands a chance, lm has often gone on
        record that what he realy wants to do are linux clusters, it just that
        there was no good SCM system and he took a detour to write one...

        > Happily, Larry revealed his formula, which means I was on the right
        > track. You estimate cost by multiplying development time, number of
        > developers and salaries. I thought that was the case, but I wasn't
        > sure.

        You forgot the fudge factors, and several other things (which might or
        might not be included in salaries), such as office location costs,
        business costs, marketing, etc, etc, etc.

        > > You just enumerated *perfect* reasons to release it, but unlike our
        > > zealous friend, I don't think *all* software should be free, and will
        > > not argue the case further. Someone else certainly could, though, if
        > > those are the reasons for keeping it closed.
        >
        > Did I? Can someone else enlighten me?

        In short -

        "We can't throw it out, This software is very in house. It fits
        the exect mode of operation we use here, its not easy to install
        and configure." - this doesn't mean you can't release it... it means
        that you have nothing to LOSE from releasing it, and possibly lots of
        things to gain, such as improved scrutiny of the code, feature
        additions, documentation, easier installation, etc, etc, etc. It all
        depends on who will pick it up, but even if no one does, you haven't
        lost anything...

        "Mercury can't release it without support for the fear it will hurt
        our reputation" - That's a fallacy. You release it with no warranty
        and no support. Why would it hurt your reputation? It will only
        enhance it by showing that you are supportive of open source.

        "and we can't afford to support it." - open source projects with a
        thriving user community are self supporting. There is no need for
        Mercury to support it even in its initial stages, although it would be
        best if it does.

        "Its not in our core business anyway." - which is a very good reason
        to release it and rip the benefits. You have nothing to lose and many
        things to gain.
        --
        Muli Ben-Yehuda
        syscalltrack hacker-at-large
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.