When I first got into technology I didn't really understand what open source was. Once I started writing software, I realized how important this would be.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The accomplishment of open source is that it is the back end of the web, the invisible part, the part that you don't see as a user.
Companies have been trying to figure out what it is that makes open source work.
One thing about open source is that even the failures contribute to the next thing that comes up. Unlike a company that could spend a million dollars in two years and fail and there's nothing really to show for it, if you spend a million dollars on open source, you probably have something amazing that other people can build on.
I think open source is an evolutionary idea for humanity, this idea of transparency. It played out for us in the technology world, but it also played out with the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission and Wikipedia.
I won't sit here and say an Open Source project will do things faster than a closed source, but one of the reasons why is that it sits on a whole lot of things that came before it.
In open source, we feel strongly that to really do something well, you have to get a lot of people involved.
If you think of the ideas of open source applied to information in an encyclopedia, you get to Wikipedia - lots and lots of small contributions that bubble up to something that's meaningful.
Certainly there's a phenomenon around open source. You know free software will be a vibrant area. There will be a lot of neat things that get done there.
I think, fundamentally, open source does tend to be more stable software. It's the right way to do things.
Many people think that open source projects are sort of chaotic and and anarchistic. They think that developers randomly throw code at the code base and see what sticks.
No opposing quotes found.