Hadron Quark <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Modularity? Do you know what that means? OSS SW invariably uses NO
> modularity : dont confuse it for copying other peoples code - that is
> not modularity.
Yes, modularity. Open source software, particularly Linux, tends to
stick with the Unix philosophy of individual, loosely coupled components
intercommunicating via open standards. This is why you can run multiple
window managers and widget sets over X, run multiple shell programs on
ttys, use pipes to tie output from one app to the input for another,
you can replace the mail handler, web server, DB engine, news reader,
web browser, mail client, calendaring agent, or any number of other
components that use standard protocols with another similar component
and not break your system. You can trim your Linux box down to nothing
but a kernel and a single app that runs at boot (I've done that), or load
up to an ultra-desktop that has every open source program known. The
kernel supports loadable modules. Many applications use plugins to
allow for custom skins, visualization modules, or various codecs. Even
user authentication in Linux is done via a replaceable module (PAM).
It's really not surprising when you look at the huge, geographically
distributed groups that work on major open source projects. The only
way to make those sorts of projects work is to design in modularity
from the start, partitioning the work into logical functional groups
with well defined interconnects between them.
In contrast, proprietary software providers often vertically integrate
their offerings, making it more difficult to swap out one component with
a competitor's component.
So, modularity... yeah, we do that. :)
Thad
|
|
