I'm the Chief Strategist for Red Hat's US Public Sector group, where I work with systems integrators and government agencies to encourage the use of open source software in government. I'm a founder of Open Source for America, one of Federal Computer Week's Fed 100 for 2010, and I've been voted one of the FedScoop 50 for industry leadership. I'm a member of the Military Open Source working group, the SIIA Software Division Board, the Board of Directors for the Public Sector Innovation Group, the Open Technology Fund Advisory Council, and New America's California Civic Innovation Project Advisory Council. I perk up when people talk about cross-domain security, edge innovation, and interagency collaboration through the open source model. I'm also co-host of the Dave and Gunnar Show. Prior to joining Red Hat, I worked as a developer, systems administrator, and IT director for a series of internet businesses. I've also been a business and IT consultant to not-for-profit organizations in New York City. During that time, I spearheaded the reform of safety regulations for New York State's electrical utilities following the tragic death of Jodie Lane.When I'm not spreading the Good News about open source, I'm wishing I had a dogenjoying time with my dog and my wife.
Authored Comments
I don't know about you, but in my experience, there are very few software projects that benefit from the methods of structural engineers. In some cases, you're right: it makes sense to plan thoroughly in advance and execute perfectly. But don't underestimate exactly what that takes. These folks, for example:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html
I think you'll agree that the effort to bring that kind of discipline is extraordinary. And almost never necessary.
You should read "Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks. They made me read it in computer science 101. I was glad that they did. It's a thorough treatment of your argument. I think you'll like it.
Finally, I wouldn't characterize the development model as "trial and error." It's not a million monkey writing code. It's a bunch of flawed people with imperfect information trying their best, just like every other development model. The difference in open source is that the model expects failures and mistakes, and provides a means of quickly remediating them. In the process, it allows the best ideas from a large and fluid community of interest to float to the top -- something top-down planning simply can't do efficiently.
I'm not an OLPC apologist -- you're right that the OLPC is fraught with problems. I'm not defending the OLPC as a commercially viable alternative. Instead, I'm highlighting the sacrifices we make when we use the iPad as a tool in education. Mr. DiMaio compared the OLPC to the iPad, and I don't believe it's a fair comparison. They have very different design goals: one encourages freedom, the other doesn't.