Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2006 21:15 UTC, submitted by Herschel Cohen
GNU, GPL, Open Source "If building infrastructure is the true forte of Free/Open Source Software, why is there so much duplicative efforts to build so similar edifices seen in Office Suites? Would it not be better to put the initial efforts into construction a software scaffold as the first fundamental step in building the structure to allow all suites components to be placed upon it from any interested source? While I do not consider myself a competent software architect, conceptually the proposal in the previous sentence seems reasonable. Moreover, it could attract talent that is more attuned to fundamentals of process control, i.e. information exchange rather than the attributes seen in a keystroke binding to an action upon a gui that a class of users expects from an application."
Thread beginning with comment 88017
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Reinventing the wheel
by DeadFishMan on Sat 21st Jan 2006 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reinventing the wheel"
Member since:

And for every one of those, there are hundreds of projects that are duplicates of each other.

How many IM clients are there on SourceForge these days? Is it up to 1000 yet? How many package managers? Have we broken 100? Office "suites"? Shells? Window managers?

Yeah, I know ... it hurts.

I never get tired of using this arguments against dimwits like you, so there you go:

Why there are so many multimedia players for Windows and Mac? Windows Media Player is the best media player in existence as everybody and their dogs know, right? (Yep, now I'm getting ridiculous here... I know...) And as far as Windows is concerned, that's one too many. Right? RIGHT?

The same go to Apple. Let's kill any media player sans Quicktime. Why not? It'll make the noobs lives easier when picking up a media player. Who could possibly need all the features that Quicktime does not offer already? Who, for Christ's sake??? And by the way Apple: pull that iTunes and QuickTime shit that you released for Windows without my prior consent (the horror!), because we already have Windows Media Player.

Let's also tell Corel to pack their baggage and go home, because on the Office suite front, we already got MS Office. Thank you very much. Who needs a WordPerfect Suite? And while we are at it, get that damn Corel Draw Suite with you. Adobe offers everything that we need already.

That's right: Nobody needs Winamp, RealPlayer, Nero Burning ROM, FruitLoops, BSPlayer, etc, etc, etc, because I'm saying so. That's why. Take all that damn options that only confuse this hypotetic newbie that I keep bringing all the time whenever this options subject come up and throw it at Linux land because those idiots love this sort of shit... I mean, if those idiots can cope with KDE (poor bastards!), they surely can take all these extra options that *I* don't need.

We'll let Adobe play on our backyard as long as they behave. I still am not over that Macromedia acquisition thing... Probably they already have software that overlap features from each other. We're going to have a looooong talk later, boy. I mean it.

See how this stupid argument is a double edged sword? Somehow, availability of choice is only a problem when it is related to Linux because everybody knows that MS nor Apple can do no wrong, right? RIGHT?

Edited 2006-01-21 04:22

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Reinventing the wheel
by Tom K on Sat 21st Jan 2006 07:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Reinventing the wheel"
Tom K Member since:


So anyway, I see you completely missed the point. You see, 3 media players are okay. Hell, 5 are okay ... maybe even 10. Once you get past 10 media players for a particular platform, the law of diminishing results kicks in -- after 10 established players, the chances of someone writing a kick-ass media player with some awesome innovative feature are slim to none. The same goes for any other kind of software.

I don't mind having a choice of PowerDVD, WinDVD, VLC, WMP, Realplayer, Quicktime, BSPlayer, and a few others -- they all serve their purpose for one group of people or another. But 20 players? 30? Who the hell needs that? Choice is good only when the choices are mostly all good. What good is choice when everyone has reinvented the wheel and nearly all of the solutions are rough around the edges?

I can't believe that anyone would say that reinventing the wheel 500 times is beneficial to the community, the users, or the developers. Focus on 5, 10, hell 20 projects ... but no more. Not every Mary, Jane, and Bob need to write their own window manager. If there are 20 around, and you still can't find one that suits you, then you should quit being so picky, or else you'll be shit out of luck.

If there wasn't so much duplication of effort in the F/OSS world, there would be a *hell* of a lot of great products around already. Instead, everyone suffers from "I have to make my own" syndrome.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Reinventing the wheel
by superstoned on Sat 21st Jan 2006 11:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Reinventing the wheel"
superstoned Member since:

i don't think linux has any less mediaplayers compared to windows. have a look around, there are hundreds of mediaplayers targeting windows users. just like linux. and linux has several VERY GOOD ones, like amarok, juk and xmms. and yes, lots of small, less powerfull ones, indeed. but even of those, many of them are used, and the authors wouldn't want to work on juk, amarok or xmms anyway... the choice is not "several medicore or one good" but several medicore or none". many people don't seem to understand these developers need some motivation, not payment, to work...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Reinventing the wheel
by anda_skoa on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Reinventing the wheel"
anda_skoa Member since:

Focus on 5, 10, hell 20 projects ... but no more

Focusing on "n" projects assumes that there are only "n" usage patterns. Given that the world population is around 6 billion, I guess "n" really depends on the application's domain.

And remember that a large number of projects are testbeds for not-yet implemented technology.

It quite often doesn't make sense to implement some new idea in a heavily used application.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Reinventing the wheel
by gilboa on Sat 21st Jan 2006 23:20 in reply to "RE[4]: Reinventing the wheel"
gilboa Member since:

For once I actually managed to read one of you posts without feeling the urge to vote it down immediately... Guess it means pig do fly.

More to the point, who get's to choose which are the 20 projects that are "allowed" to continue? You? Following /your/ needs? /Your/ usage patterns?
And what if I have a killer feature that /to me/ warrants a new media player? Who gets to decide if I'm allowed to develop it or not? You? Based on what?

The answer is simple:
Freedom of choice.
Each and every Linux/BSD/OSX/Windows/etc user gets to choose which player suites /his/ and perfectly suites /his/ usage patterns.
Duplicate projects that bring nothing new to the table will slowly drift into the night, while others, that innovate and improve will thrive. Eco-system 101.

You can continue to bash F/OSS as much are you like; but the same free environment that brought us (and I quote) 30 useless media player, also brought us Linux, BSD, RPM, Gentoo, Debian, Xen, OpenMosix, KDE, GNOME, IceWM, Flubox, XFCE, xine, mplayer, FireFox, evolution, vim, kdevelop, anjuta, MySQL, PostgreSQL, k3b, blender, gimp... and the list goes on and on and on.

Each of these project have duplicate project keeping on it toes; If it fails there are other projects that will take his place.

But I'm just wasting my time, ain't I?
You're so used to being told what you need and what you should use that the mere idea of having to select, yourself, between 10, 20 and even 100 different options is something you simply cannot comprehend.

For the likes of you it would have been much easier if you had a single choice, preferably with MS logo on top of it, to choose from.
Simply put, I pity you.


Reply Parent Score: 1