--
Seth Juarez
http://www.sethjuarez.com
Ayende,
I apologize, but going to put words in your mouth to see if they fit.
Is it true that for you don't care about any of the following:
* Getting more contributors to your project
* Increasing the velocity of adoption of your project
-Seth
Incidentally, the .NET framework/C# is not necessarily a non-open
platform (migueldeicaza might have something to say about that).
-Seth
I actually quite like what Jay has to say here. And I don't think of
it as an "education" mission. Many projects need help with what
amounts to marketing,
and part of that marketing effort often includes
some degree of open source evangelism.
This is one of these areas where a
centralized effort guided by a trusted voice can have more impact than
alot of little voices individually. The CodePlex Foundation has a ways
to go before proving itself as a "trusted voice", but I wouldn't be
here if I didn't think it was possible.
All this really addresses only one facet of how the CodePlex
Foundation can be of value. This much is really about value to
existing projects.
We are also interested in how software companies
can start new projects
-- something they clearly struggle with -- and
how software companies can get individual devs to contribute to new or
existing projects in a way those companies are comfortable with --
again, something they struggle with.
The scenario that you just described never happened to me.
Oh, I had to talk with the business a lot of time. It is easy to show them why OSS is the safer choice.
I can point out stats like this: http://www.ohloh.net/p/nhibernate
That trying to build something like NH is going to cost you in the order of 130 years and ~15 millions.
I can tell them that going with MS data access method is a good way to throw good money at upgrading their data access methodology every two years.
I can point them to a whole host of people making good use of it.
Arguing for open source with the productivity argument is always the
good argument.
Whatever the specifics of your argument, arming yourself with a solid
understanding of productivity is a solid first step.
That said, the productivity argument is a rational argument, and the
opposition to open source is often irrational. If rationality was all
it took to make a case, irrationality wouldn't sustain for as long as
it does.
Ayende, Jay has a very salient point that is likely a more pervasive
part of the experience of people who aren't Ayende versus those who
are Ayende: when someone is willing to go so far as to hire an Ayende,
they are already predisposed to accept his perspective and input.
Most organizations don't bring in an Ayende, and we can't rely only on
rational arguments against an opposition rooted in irrationality and
perpetuated by the world's most successful commercial software
foundry.
So, I guess these guys are asking you to do something for them - as if
you haven't done enough already :)
best,
Scott
> I stopped trying to fight windmills a while ago.
> A fool & his money will soon be parted, I think the saying goes.
Indeed, but a groundswell of changing attitude toward open source in
the Microsoft space - even if minor - can have pervasive and
transformational impact.
We often underestimate the power of subtle change when that subtle
change is pervasive. For better or for worse, these kinds of things
become trendy, and I'm categorically in-favor of open source truth and
reconciliation in the Microsoft community as a trendy thing. Even
when the trendiness passes on, the long tail of FUD will have been
dealt a solid blow. We will be closer to a meritocracy than we were
previously.
best,
Scott