I think that jwz enjoyed a reputation beyond his deserts. I don't find him particularly insightful. I also don't seem to take your point in mentioning this? Is this really an "open source" thing? Is it a bad thing, or merely an effect of a normal software development practice?
Although I don't know what "a reputation beyond his deserts means", I do know that focusing on jwz is not relevant. Either the message is true, or it isn't. Anything else is classic ad hominem and a digression from the point, you know?
> Is this really an "open source" thing?
Well, that the source be open to hack on is something that's pretty much a precondition to the situation where some random person finds themselves attempting to contribute to someone else's project. If you know of a way that's possible with anything that isn't open source, then maybe give an example? (If you interpreted my comment as one intended to be an argument against open source—and in favor of closed source, say—then you interpreted it incorrectly.)
> Is it a bad thing
A project that seeks contributors but exists in a state where contribution is more difficult than it could be is very much something I would call a bad thing.
> normal software development
"Normal"? Maybe. Yes, even. But not an intrinsic side effect of trying to develop software or run a project.
You could have made your point yourself, but you quoted jwz at length because you felt it loaned more credibility to the idea than if you had used your own words. I guess that was your intent, and I could be entirely wrong, but I don't blame someone else for making that conclusion.
> Either the message is true, or it isn't.
This is a discussion board. People discuss ideas. He did address your point, but he also discussed a tangent you introduced.
As this is partially a matter of opinion I believe that the character and prejudices of jwz can be called into question in a relevant manner. He was once renowned as a wise and talented programmer. That was a while ago. He's most famous for negative and somewhat inflammatory opinions. I'm not going to say that I think his argument here is bad by virtue of that, which I hope excuses me from ad hominem, but I question the applicability and the degree to which his wisdom can be generally applied. There's few enough people who don't know something I don't know, but if this is one of those things then I'd like to hear a bit more corroboration of these opinions.
(apologizes for responding to you and not GP directly with some criticisms. I had a response typed somewhere...)
