MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Evaluating Commercial Open Source Projects

Thursday April 22nd, 1999

A recent Forbes article characterized Mozilla as a "flop". The article had so many inaccuracies that I felt a rebuttal was required. At the same time, I felt that some light needed to be shed on the differences between commercial Open Source projects and "all volunteer" Open Source projects. What follows (click "Full Article" below) is a rebuttal to the assertions in the Forbes article and my opinion on what can reasonably be expected from a commercial Open Source project.

As always, the opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of mozilla.org (which MozillaZine is not affiliated with).


#11 Re:Evaluating Commercial Open Source Projects

by SomeSmartAss <improv@magma.ca>

Thursday April 22nd, 1999 8:58 PM

You are replying to this message

"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". While that is definately true of QA, and beta/alpha-testing; it is not necessarily so of coding. The more people you add to a code project, especially ones with limited/questionable C++ experience, the more bugs will appear; not to mention potential lost time as one or more people try to "re-invent the wheel", trying to all solve the same problem on their own. Then somebody else has to deside which versions (or which parts of which versions) to impliment. This isn't necessarily the case with Mozilla since they have some quite nice Bug-Tracking and assignment procedures, but the underlying philosophy behind an "Army of Coders" isn't justified. Sometimes "Too Many Cooks Spoil The Broth"