Camlistore is "like Dropbox" only for the purpose of a Wired article. In fact it is one of the most exciting projects around on the internet today.
It is a little like Bittorrent. When Bittorrent first came out there was a large community who were most excited about it because "it was open" - both open source and open in the sense it didn't require servers.
Has that "openness" been important to the success of Bittorrent? Perhaps, but most people now talk about more specific qualities: the fact it resists legal attack and the high downloads speeds that can be obtained without paying for bandwidth. Some of these are actually what people meant when they spoke of "openness" initially.
So "open"="nice", but discussion of specific qualities of that that means is much more important.
I'd note that "open" is only mentioned once on http://camlistore.org/, and that is a very specific quality ("Open Source" - not some general "open" principle).
It is a little like Bittorrent. When Bittorrent first came out there was a large community who were most excited about it because "it was open" - both open source and open in the sense it didn't require servers.
Has that "openness" been important to the success of Bittorrent? Perhaps, but most people now talk about more specific qualities: the fact it resists legal attack and the high downloads speeds that can be obtained without paying for bandwidth. Some of these are actually what people meant when they spoke of "openness" initially.
So "open"="nice", but discussion of specific qualities of that that means is much more important.
I'd note that "open" is only mentioned once on http://camlistore.org/, and that is a very specific quality ("Open Source" - not some general "open" principle).
reply