I thought I'd pose a question to you, for academic curiosity.  For example, in my current line of work, cluster computing, there's a lot of possible funding models for supporting maintenance, and they all have different ~unintended consequences.  (ex) You lose customers, waste cycles, delay research schedules, and they all have some other costs associated.  Economics just works that way.

But in general, I wonder what produces the best outcomes for software development.  It's an impossible question to answer without having much time to waste, so don't try too hard :)

Could a open-source project with a funding model lead to better code than a professional solution?

Could you just dangle some cash on the end of a string and the cats will just herd themselves?

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Bernardo Barros wrote:

Hello , Mathieu! Well, I did not refer to implementation of new features, but the maintenance of that code that already works, fixing bugs.

Ok, so, basically, buggy software gets rewarded for requests to fix bugs. Bugless software is not rewarded : it does not pay. Therefore we are encouraged to put enough bugs in there so that we get money. Nevermind the high-reliability ideals.

(Of course, don't let my comments prevent you from contributing money. I'm just trying to say that some assumptions about funding may encourage the wrong things and cause strange compensations.)

 _______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list