Comments on: Debian vs. SourceForge – Round 3 /2009/02/debian-vs-sourceforge-round-3/ Delightful digital distractions in free/libre/open source software Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:40:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1 By: The Catalyst Effect in FLOSS Repositories « Computer Floss /2009/02/debian-vs-sourceforge-round-3/#comment-22 Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:26:32 +0000 http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/blogs/kbeecher/?p=45#comment-22 […] changes to a project’s evolutionary characteristics. Indeed, I covered this in earlier posts, discussing the transition from SourceForge to Debian. Here, we saw that the number of developers […] ]]> By: Karl Beecher /2009/02/debian-vs-sourceforge-round-3/#comment-21 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:26:12 +0000 http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/blogs/kbeecher/?p=45#comment-21 Good point about Debian effects, James, I tend to suspect that too.

I agree about finding comparable non-Debian projects. Trying to do so throws up problems, but this, and some of the later research, looks at other repos as well as an attempt to isolate a “Debian effect” only seen in Debian-distributed projects.

]]> By: James Howison /2009/02/debian-vs-sourceforge-round-3/#comment-20 Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:22:58 +0000 http://learninglab.lincoln.ac.uk/blogs/kbeecher/?p=45#comment-20 It would be great to find comparable projects that were not added to Debian and see if the Debian-add event has an effect independent of the passage of time for such projects.

I tend to think that adding to Debian increases distribution and thus users and thus potential pool of developers. I also suspect there might be winner-takes-all effects as similar projects that are not added to debian suffer from user transfer to the debian added project. But hey, that’s all speculation

]]>