Differences between revisions 14 and 16 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 14 as of 2007-09-21 11:08:07
Size: 1792
Editor: madduck
Comment:
Revision 16 as of 2009-03-16 03:29:40
Size: 1894
Editor: anonymous
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 4: Line 4:

In this list, I attempt to bring together '''all factors''' which could have
''any'' influence on success ''or failure'' of a tool, however small; my
research is about finding out which ones make more of a difference and which
ones are less relevant.

If you feel like adding your thoughts to a factor, please feel free.
Especially helpful are examples of projects in which a given factor has had
a positive impact, as well as those where a lack is having a negative impact.

'''It would help if you'd prefix your comments with your name so that I know
how to contact you if I have questions and can give appropriate credit.'''

Also see ["madduck/adoptions"] for a list of tools which have or have not been
adopted by developers of the Debian project. Feel free to extend/edit this
list as well.

I use the following categories for factors (please extend as you see fit):

* [wiki:/usability Usability]: how usable is the tool? Is it well-documented?
   Can it be used in more than one way? Does it have multiple interfaces?

* [wiki:/maintenance Maintenance status]: how well is the tool maintained?
   Does it distinguish between stable and unstable releases? Are unstable
   releases usable?

* [wiki:/implementation Implementation] (developer aspects): how is a tool
   implemented? This is about code, language, style of development,
   modularity, accessibility to users interested in touching the code, etc.

* [wiki:/direction Direction]: does the project follow a defined direction?
   Is there a manifesto? What happens with new ideas which may deviate a bit
   from a given direction?
##
##
In this list, I attempt to bring together '''all factors''' which could have
## ''any'' influence on success ''or failure'' of a tool, however small; my
## research is about finding out which ones make more of a difference and which
## ones are less relevant.
##
##
If you feel like adding your thoughts to a factor, please feel free.
## Especially helpful are examples of projects in which a given factor has had
## a positive impact, as well as those where a lack is having a negative impact.
##
##
'''It would help if you'd prefix your comments with your name so that I know
## how to contact you if I have questions and can give appropriate credit.'''
##
##
Also see ["madduck/adoptions"] for a list of tools which have or have not been
## adopted by developers of the Debian project. Feel free to extend/edit this
## list as well.
##
##
I use the following categories for factors (please extend as you see fit):
##
##
* [wiki:/usability Usability]: how usable is the tool? Is it well-documented?
## Can it be used in more than one way? Does it have multiple interfaces?
##
##
* [wiki:/maintenance Maintenance status]: how well is the tool maintained?
## Does it distinguish between stable and unstable releases? Are unstable
## releases usable?
##
##
* [wiki:/implementation Implementation] (developer aspects): how is a tool
## implemented? This is about code, language, style of development,
## modularity, accessibility to users interested in touching the code, etc.
##
##
* [wiki:/direction Direction]: does the project follow a defined direction?
## Is there a manifesto? What happens with new ideas which may deviate a bit
## from a given direction?
##

Factors affecting tool adoption in OSS

THIS IS OBSOLETE. PLEASE GO HERE: http://phd.martin-krafft.net/wiki/factors/