Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.20000824-20010305/[e-mail] _Thu Mar 1 20:49:55 2001.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 4KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
    by monire.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15402
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:49:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
    by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24240
    for [e-mail]; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:31:51 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: [e-mail] (Joe Doupnik)
Subject: Re: Linux as terminal emulator.
Message-ID: <L+G7Wl$[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Mar 01 18:08:34 MDT
Organization: Utah State University
To: [e-mail]

In article <97mn88$jmq$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank da Cruz) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Jeff Susanj <[e-mail]> wrote:
> : Paid developers have little incentive to care about users since they only do
> : what the marketing types say.  I would be much more likely to care about
> : users if I was the one talking to the users and deciding what should be
> : included in the next release.  Being a no-name software gerbil in a maze of
> : cubicles does not engender pride in  the product.  The best software is
> : produced by people who are passionate about their product, not necessarily
> : those who are paid big bucks.
> :
> All true.   However, there's a happy medium -- developers in small projects
> like ours, who are not bossed by marketing managers, but instead are in direct
> contact with their user community, and driven by their reports, suggestions,
> ctiticism, requests, and concerns, to the best of our ability to keep up.
> It's not the only model, but it's a good model for us.
>
> By the way, we don't sit in a maze of cubicles either.  Take a look:
>
>   http://www.columbia.edu/~fdc/timeline.html
>
> - Frank
--------
    I have to add a little balance in this otherwise all-too-true
description. Amongst other groups, the team at Novell responsible for their
Internet Messaging Server product, NIMS, is very much like the Internet
developers of yore. Open, active, listen to user comments up to a reasonable
limit, pride in product. Sources aren't open, naturally, since this is
a commerical product, but the attitudes, product features and quality are
as if the material were open. It is a state of mind on their part, an
active decision as to the best way of being accepted in today's market.
    In most cases open software is changed by very few people, and
millions exercise their vocal cords to play "management." Things used to
work where folks wrote improved code and resubmitted it, pulling an oar,
but fewer people program these days and fewer yet are willing to become
immersed in complex systems before pushing keys.
    Yet, in the commerical arena many groups still thrive on the
concepts of open cooperation, even through such cooperation has to be
disguised under NDA or other filters. It's not as good as the real thing,
but it can and does produce results. Most good stuff comes from a few
individuals in each group, and you have to get a working relationship
established to play the pseudo-open game effectively.
    As Frank points out often, the other side of this coin is coins.
The "outsiders", the galley slaves pulling oars for the common good, are
not rewarded financially and thus the effort comes out of their hides. The
Kermit project is characteristically of the common good contribution kind,
but in real life the hard work is done by very very few people and they
need coins to eat. Rather than paying yet another $10-40 fee for a shareware
item put the money where it makes a bigger difference, where the folks
really care what the product is.
    Joe D.