The adopted metric for this seems a little wierd. I checked in my own bailiwick (C++), and noticed that of the top 200, lmms is ranked 103, MuseScore at 122 and Ardour at 192.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with this ranking (even if I do feel personally slighted as the lead dev of Ardour), but ...
These are all end-user applications. None of them are dependents for any other open source project. None of them are libraries, or infrastructure or plumbing. The criticality score has no rating for "uniqueness" or "irreplacibility".
Missing from the list are such notables as:
* boost (the actual boost, not a fork)
* all of the *mm wrappers for the GNOME stack
* sigc++ (C++ standard compliant signals & slots)
Meanwhile, #1 on the list is cmssw which is a library of software components for particle physics. I'm not saying that particle physics isn't important. It's just hard to argue that a widely used component for particle physics software is "the most critical OSS C++ project".
The idea of determining what OSS projects are most "critical" seems like a good one. It's just hard to believe that Pike's metrics, as used here, really accomplish that.
A linear ranking of all open-source software projects, to determine which projects will receive future funding, to improve the security of digital infrastructure for civil society.
Announced on a Friday, not a wonderful day for news coverage.
How are the following input criteria determined for projects which do not use Github as their primary workflow, e.g. those which use mailing lists?
There's nothing necessarily wrong with this ranking (even if I do feel personally slighted as the lead dev of Ardour), but ...
These are all end-user applications. None of them are dependents for any other open source project. None of them are libraries, or infrastructure or plumbing. The criticality score has no rating for "uniqueness" or "irreplacibility".
Missing from the list are such notables as:
Meanwhile, #1 on the list is cmssw which is a library of software components for particle physics. I'm not saying that particle physics isn't important. It's just hard to argue that a widely used component for particle physics software is "the most critical OSS C++ project".The idea of determining what OSS projects are most "critical" seems like a good one. It's just hard to believe that Pike's metrics, as used here, really accomplish that.