Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Nov 2009 16:48 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 392866
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why all the filesystems.
by strcpy on Wed 4th Nov 2009 20:50
in reply to "RE: Why all the filesystems."
RE[3]: Why all the filesystems.
by segedunum on Wed 4th Nov 2009 21:13
in reply to "RE[2]: Why all the filesystems."
I'm afraid there is no disconnect between the two statements in the way that you want.
A lot of different companies contribute developers and resources to the Linux kernel and they each work on things that make sense to them, so yes, they do volunteer for projects. They cannot be forced to work on anything by any central authority.
You've tried to argue this line before, and it usually boils down to you trying to insinuate that open source development is turning to some central proprietary development model simply because some people happen to be getting paid to write open source code within the most important projects. Not only is it wrong, it's also an argument that goes absolutely nowhere.






Member since:
2008-08-19
Right, but what do you mean, "Linux should put it's efforts elsewhere"? Linux isn't a person or organisation - it's a piece of software developed by a bunch of individuals all working for their own (or their employers) different purposes.
Reading the article, these two filesystems appear to have been contributed by companies who presumably needed new filesystems for whatever reason. So it's not exactly productive to tell those people they should have been working on something else instead.
For better or worse, that's the open-source way - people work on whatever they want to work on. It's what you get, when all of your contributors are volunteers.