Worse is Better Philosophy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/2010-11/WorseIsBetter/index.php/Worse-is-better.html | https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/cs181/projects/2010-11/WorseIsBetter/index.php/Worse-is-better.html | ||
=Notable Examples= | |||
*Note that Linux was explicitly built on the worse is better concept when it comes to its monolithic kernel design - a known bad design that works better in practice. Stallman proposed a modular kernel - and 3 decades later - product hasn't shipped yet. | |||
Revision as of 02:17, 4 February 2021
Something that just works, is bare bones, is better for wide adoption than a polished product that takes long to get to market. Put in another way, User Interface comes after Functionality. Aka the New Jersey Approach.
The property that makes for Worse-is-Better being attractive is modularity - easy improvability and adaptability. This is also known as Growable-is-Better.
In the OSE case, since we publish early and often, and make in-progress work accessible for the reason of unleashed collaboration and cultural creation - we de facto operate on the Growable-is-Better version of worse-is-better. We avoid the worse-is-better stage, because our initial design is designed with growability, according to OSE Specifications, in particular, spec 1
Notable Examples
- Note that Linux was explicitly built on the worse is better concept when it comes to its monolithic kernel design - a known bad design that works better in practice. Stallman proposed a modular kernel - and 3 decades later - product hasn't shipped yet.