Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Measuring the true success of OpenOffice.org

Filed under
OOo

What is success ?

Is success measured in downloads, or up-loads ? are bugs filed as good as bugs fixed ? are volunteer marketers as valuable as volunteer developers ? If we have lots of bugs filed and lots of volunteer management material is that success ? is the pace of change important ? Does successful QA exist to create process to slow and reject changes, or by accelerating inclusion of fixes improve quality ? Is success having complete, up-to-date and detailed specifications for every feature ? Is success getting everyone to slavishly obey laborious multi-step processes, before every commit ? Alternatively does success come through attracting and empowering developers, who have such fun writing the code that they volunteer their life, allegiance and dreams to improve it ?

Magnitude of contributions

This graph is more meaningless than it might first appear, the raw data still shows noise like individuals committing obvious sillies copying chunks of OO.o to the binfilter eg. To some extent it is further distorted by us trying to clean this up for the past couple of years before giving up.

So the data is not that useful. Is it more useful to look at an individual to see if they are contributing something ? If we threshold the data we can at least approximate an activity metric / boolean. The graph below shows two developers - the Sun developer Niklas Nebel, and the Novell hacker Kohei Yoshida. Both work primarily on calc, and you can see the large bar when Kohei committed his solver to a branch at the end of 2006.

More Here




More in Tux Machines

Red Hat News

Android Leftovers

PC-MOS/386 is the latest obsolete operating system to open source on Github

PC-MOS/386 was first announced by The Software Link in 1986 and was released in early 1987. It was capable of working on any x86 computer (though the Intel 80386 was its target market). However, some later chips became incompatible because they didn't have the necessary memory management unit. It had a dedicated following but also contained a couple of design flaws that made it slow and/or expensive to run. Add to that the fact it had a Y2K bug that manifested on 31 July 2012, after which any files created wouldn't work, and it's not surprising that it didn't become the gold standard. The last copyright date listed is 1992, although some users have claimed to be using it far longer. Read more

GIMP, More Awesome Than I Remember

For what seems like decades, GIMP (Graphic Image Manipulation Program) has been the de facto standard image editor for Linux. It works well, has many features, and it even supports scripting. I always have found it a bit clumsy, however, and I preferred using something else for day-to-day work. I recently had the pleasure of sitting at a computer without an image editor though, so I figured I'd give GIMP another try on a non-Linux operating system. See, the last time I tried to use GIMP on OS X, it required non-standard libraries and home-brew adding. Now, if you head over to the GIMP site, you can download a fully native version of GIMP for Windows, OS X and Linux. Read more