Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Oct 2010 19:00 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Permalink for comment 447208
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-03-27
Agreed that there is a big difference between community and corporate sponsored code, but I dispute that the corporate path is inferior or bad. Moreover, you can't say "this project is corporate-driven" and then link it to fragmentation or irrelevance. OOo under Sun was a great example of a corporate-driven OSS project (note that I didn't write "FOSS") that the world needed and that didn't meaningfully fragment the field.
And I don't know how anyone can assert at this point that Unity is something that "no one else" wants or needs. Not only do I not know that no one wants or needs it, but thinking in such terms isn't conducive to innovation. Apple has a knack of designing products that we didn't think we'd need until they make it, for instance. At least Unity shows some character and vision.
Edited 2010-10-26 16:12 UTC