Re^2: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything

"If you're producing something for other people to use, you should pay attention to your user base."

I think that's actually a major weakness of open source software in general. I've never been involved in Perl development (waaaay out of my league), but I've seen several other projects where the developers seem to have gone a bit power-mad, ignoring suggestions and even bug reports that have somehow offended them.

Comment on Re^2: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 06:17 UTC
There’s a balance to be struck. If you say yes to everything, you end up making unusable incoherent bloatware. Design is difficult, and committees do it horribly, because it is mostly about leaving out everything that isn’t appropriate. As Linus Torvalds says, his biggest job is saying no to new features. But I don’t dispute that few projects find the right balance. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: No, "We" Don't Have to Do Anything
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Feb 23, 2006 at 06:17 UTC

There’s a balance to be struck. If you say yes to everything, you end up making unusable incoherent bloatware. Design is difficult, and committees do it horribly, because it is mostly about leaving out everything that isn’t appropriate. As Linus Torvalds says, his biggest job is saying no to new features.

But I don’t dispute that few projects find the right balance.

Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]