RE: Open Source menu system

Hi Terry,

> The drawback with the "new" strategic direction is that it
> runs on an unstable/insecure platform ;-)

I agree with you there.  It's a major problem for me and my programmers
since none of us use Windows as our desktop.


> I suspect that the patches, project management and potential
> forks would be handled like all other open-source projects.
> Once the code was released it would be out of IBM's hands.

Who's hands would it be in, then?   I'm confused.  All open-source
projects either have someone who is "the authority", or they have a group
of people who are "the authority."

Someone has to decide which patches are keeping within the goal of the
project, following the standards set out for the project, etc.  Usually in
large open source projects there's a core team that decides what the goals
and standards are, and that team appoints "committers" that have the
authority to bring patches into the main body of source.

A "committer" is trusted that he will make sure the code is following
standards, works properly, and doesn't break anything before he adds it to
the main body of the source.

In some projects, like FreeBSD, committers are only allow to install
patches into a "cutting-edge" version of the project.  The idea is that a
large group of people (who don't mind occasional breakage or instability)
get a chance to test a patch before it makes it to the "stable" version.
The only way to bring a patch into the "stable" version is to test it in
the "cutting-edge" version for awhile.

As you can imagine, all of this requires administration.  Who would be the
"the authority" who would administer all of these details on an SDA/SEU
project, if not IBM?


> An iSeries buyer could then choose to use the IBM version or
> the "open" version - whichever suited his needs. Of course,
> they would also have to accept the fact that the "open" version
> wouldn't be supported by IBM :)  In the case of SEU/SDA, the
> only support provided by IBM is for PTF's only, no further
> development is taking place so the buyer also has to take
> this into consideration.

I don't think that's much of a problem.


> The iSeries is a small/niche market and lot of us who work
> on them don't have time to work on projects like this
> at our places of employment.  If an affordable development
> box was available this might change the level of participation.

That's probably true, but are you asking IBM to change that?  If so,
you're asking for quite a bit more than just open-sourcing SDA and SEU.

Corporations are going to reap the benefits of this project, why shouldn't
they do their part and donate an iSeries and relevant software in order
for them to be developed and tested?

There's a problem, IMHO, with open-sourcing things like SEU, SDA,
OfficeVision, etc.  The problem is that the people who want them open
sourced have no interest in maintaining the projects -- all they want is
to continue to get updated software.

Basically, they want someone else to do all of the work of maintaining the
software, and allow them to keep using it for free.   That's not the
open-source model!

Open source implies that people who use it will give back to the project
in some way.  Either by coding, helping with administration, helping with
distribution, providing support to others, donating equipment that can be
used for testing/development, donating money that can be used for
upgrading that equipment or operating system release, etc, etc.

Unless there is a large community of people who want to actually DO THE
WORK of the open source project (as opposed to just wanting to USE it)
it would be a disaster for IBM to release their products this way.