> The question becomes which more effectively maintains and improves Linux: a legion of programmers working
> in one language or a much, much smaller group working in another (Oberon).  If, as we believe, Oberon is
> superior to C, then rewriting the Linux kernel in Oberon could lead to increased interest, especially if
> it was demonstrably eaiser to maintain and improve.

There is a project at ETH named BlueBottle. It would be good to compare 
Linux with BlueBottle in order to avoid sweeping statements not based on 
hard evidence. In fact, an experiment is under way. Hard evidence is 
therefore available. Or it should be.

Could someone knowledgeable about BlueBottle please post a summary? 
Adoption figures and number of users would both be of interest.

> I recall a study by IBM which showed that productivity of programmers did not scale well as the number of
> programmers on a project was increased.  As the numbers increased, a greater and greater proportion of
> resources were diverted to managing and communicating within the group.

It is my suspicion that the most astounding achievement of Linus Torvalds 
is not technical but rather social. Linus organized a huge crowd and gave 
it a sense of mission. We are now witnessing more such "compu-social" 
movements (Facebook and such), so perhaps this phenomenon is less 
surprising today as it was a while ago.

The Linux developer crowd is very well organized. Linus remains the 
authoritative figure who approves major contributions and gives a sense 
of direction. The technical phenomenon of Linux cannot be divorced from 
its social components. I am of opinion that the latter are even more 
important than the former. Linux is not quite a religion, but it is 
getting a step in this direction. It has it cult figures, its mantra 
("cathedral versus bazaar", Linux is evolution, not an inteligent 
design"), and its mission. What more is required for a cult?

Wojtek

----
To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV@LISTS.OBERON.CHh Mi