Slashdot Mirror
What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?
An anonymous reader writes "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us says a Pogo-quoting James Turner, in trying to pinpoint "What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?" for LinuxWorld this morning. But he doesn't *just* say that it's we developers ourselves, he also has five hard-to-deny reasons, including 'Open source developers often scratch the same itch' and 'Open Source developers love a good feud.' He also suggests we often approach the whole issue of encouraging migration to Linux from Windows entirely wrongly." There's also a decent rebuttal with this story as well - worth reading.
showering, maybe?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
They're not being paid.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Open Source movement.
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent. Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds, Kai-Shek ensured that everyone worked, and everyone had a purpose.
Within a few short years China was a world power.
With an identical structure, the Open Source leaders ensure a good pool of talent. Millions of identical workers producing code. There's no way the current method of the Cigar-smoking boss standing on the backs of the coders can continue. Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975 but his methods and teachings continue to this day in China.
Open Source could learn a lot from him.
c39052b261506f846895cac6e0724290
is entirely wrong.
How do you know that the same feuds and itch scratching don't happen at Sun or Microsoft? They certainly do, but you don't know this because your only interface to the firm is a PR rep. I like the transparency of the open source community. I want to see the debates and bickering take place in public, where maybe just maybe I can provide some input.
We slashdot each other's sites!
I obviously cannot vouch for the maturity and security level of everyone in the Open Source community, but I disagree with this conclusion. The partisanship and the sometimes irrational emotional responses are a problem (maybe the problem) with Open Source, but are not the result of "immaturity" or "insecurity." They are a natural human reaction to perceived attacks on X, where X is something into which a great deal of time/work/hope has been invested.
I agree that the community could advance more rapidly without all of the competing distributions, standards, etc., but that very same diversity is what gives Open Source its strength. The redundancy may slow things in some ways, but it helps guarantee that -- when the standards are winnowed down -- the strongest and best survive. Calling the members of the community "immature" and "insecure" is mere name-calling that is more likely to induce the exact emotional responses the author laments rather than the needed calm, rational debate on this important issue.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Judging on the usual reactions of most /. trolls, open source is clearly infallible and shall never die. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anything from attempting to convert Windows users to making clones of original apps. Move along.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Why must Open Source migration only thought of as going from Windows to Linux... other Open Source platforms exist, and are just as good if not better.
Well, one of the things that is definitely wrong, is that if you go into an IRC channel for any non main-stream OS (os/2, linux, mac, etc) and ask a question, you're going to get beaten up by assholes.
case in point, i just logged into the #debian channel on freenode, and asked why the package servers hadn't updated in several days.. at least 15 people got really nasty, ranging from "read the fucking channel topic" to some very nasty insults. Strangely enough, the channel topic had absolutely nothing to talk about the package servers, and the link in the topic was broken.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Zealots, excessive geek pride, NIH syndrome, and Slashdot.
The classic essay on "worse is better" is either misunderstood
Before clicking through, you should know about a little bit of background information.
Check this Linux Today article. James Turner wrote an article about how Linux is DOA on the desktop because it was missing two drivers he needed for his laptop. He was scathing and he basically baited the readers into giving him the takedown he deserved (and possibly was expecting, if as is suspected he was just trolling for clicks).
In response, he announced that he was going to use this as justification for another clickbait article about how immature the Linux community is. The article in question is the new one which this Slashdot story is about.
So don't expect any substance here. This is as much about taunting Linux users for clicks as any piece by Rob Enderle or Jesse Berst -- it's merely that this time, we have someone who writes for a supposedly pro-Linux publication stooping to this level.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If we view Free Software only as a convenience, we won't progress. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to develop a Free Software package, or to migrate a system to use Free Software. It makes no sense to put a lot of effort into seeking a convenience.
Idealism is a more long term motivator, and it's not unjustified when the focus of the idealism has already proved to be very practical.
This is party highlighted by the OpenSource Vs. Free Software terminology, but we are not enemies, it's just a choice of where you put the emphasis.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
open source is better.
period.
Nathan Friedly
As for the big complaint about the Microsoft shoulder-chip, I agree. Anti-Windows fanaticism is just unpleasant to hear. The point the author makes is valid - many users don't have any love for Windows either, but don't have the level of dedication to hating Microsoft that they are willing to spend hours, weeks or months futzing with their hardware and peripherals getting them to work in Linux, or learning new applications. Developers should redouble their efforts and their committment to making ease-of-use, hardware compatibility, short learning curves, and usable GUIs key elements of major Open Source projects.
His points on "Itch scratching" are well-taken. However, this is not ever likely to change when developers are unpaid volunteers. The simple fact of the matter is that people working for free will ALWAYS be inclined to work on stuff they're interested in. I'm not convinced this is an entirely bad thing as it tends to avoid monoculture, at least in these popular areas. For instance, I LIKE having a number of mail systems to choose from. This is a good thing.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Holier-Than-Thou, Self-Righteousness BS.
I've been trying to like Linux (and hece the OS community) since 6.1 days and I keep running across the same old tired issues that prevent me from getting anywhere.
,patient, and understanding than the *nix folks I ran across. Hence I stick with BeOS, because when I run into issues, I know where I can turn and not get attitude and flame-fests.
There are, in no order:
(1) Documentation. I get far too many RTFM when the FM was written for software that is 3 versions old.
(2) 404s or links to other links which ultimately end up as 404s on web-based FM.
(3) Tired old sayings such as "Try another distro" (I have a stack of 20 odd distros burned onto CD, everything from the big players, down to things like ArkLinux and Icepak Linux) which obviously doesn't help in any way shape or form.
(4) The attitude of *nix users. When I was making the switch away from windows, I had two choices, *nix or BeOS. The Be community was (and continues to be this very day) more supportive, helpful
(5) The old re-inventing the wheel. You know gang, instead of slavishly coping MS, why not try being different?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I agree totally, too many people try to reinvent the same damned things, just because 'I want it a different color'.
Users only need one wheel, or they are overwhelmed.. Choice IS a bad thing in some cases..
Until there is more unity we are stuck in a rut.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
While painted as a negative i would say that "chip" is a great motivator.
Also, someone should let the author know that Microsoft is second fiddle these days, SCO and firmly, albeit temporarily, taken their place.
Perhaps the author is right about certain things. He certainly makes a good point about the anti-Microsoft zealotry. Most end-users really are turned off by all of the anti Windows speak, and I have never really gotten any results without explaining why Linux is more useful in easy and simple language. If I start mentioning why Microsoft is bad, anti-competitive and so on, that is fine and most people think so too, but nobody wants to learn a new operating system. I disagree with the assertion that there are too many distributions however. Many of them fill niche roles and expand the usefulness of the operating system in unique ways. I would never give up my Knoppix distro for use on the road etc. Two or three distributions would deprive the commununity of one of its greatest strengths: flexibility.
Que tout ce qui est vrai.
Take HP as an example. What do you think some of the Alpha / True64 guys have conjured up against the Itanium/ Microsoft camp and conversely. That should give you a picture of main stream corporate infighting.
Inside corportions peoples job's are at stake and they fight hard and nasty.
Open source is a polite debating society in comparison.
Help fight continental drift.
The author should stop griping about the difficulties of playing DVD's, because the MPAA has not allowed linux users a free, legal way to play dvd's. DeCSS, which is what most dvd-playing software is based upon, is illegal in the US. The author loses a lot of credibility by not having his facts straight....he looks like a damn n00b.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Uh-oh... did linuxworld need to increase its ad impressions?
:)
Seriously, you can't expect to start a reasonable discussion by spouting as many half-assed examples as you can think of, and then not backing any of it up with either facts or history. Although some of your points have a grain of truth in them here and there, your blind assertions do not help your case.
First, let us assume that many developers do "scratch the same itch"... why do they do it? Well, generally it's because there's something about the other solutions that are already out there that doesn't meet their needs. Sometimes it's a licensing issue, sometimes two projects spring up at the same time.
Starting with "sound systems"... the two main ones we have now are OSS and alsa. Originally OSS had two different versions--free and non-free. The free version included in the kernel had iffy support for some cards, and comparatively few people purchased or used the non-free version. Then alsa was born (originally just for better Gravis Ultrasound support!), and it will be replacing OSS in the kernel. What's this? Consolidation of sound systems? Uh-oh... Well, perhaps you meant to say sound daemons or media players or something... let's move on to another example.
BSD vs. Linux, here's a great one. Why didn't Linus Torvalds just use BSD instead? Well, he couldn't at the time, due to licensing issues. He started writing Linux both to learn about the 386 and because he couldn't afford to buy a workstation from Sun. And by the time the *BSDs were unencumbered, Linux was already a viable Unix system on its own, and certainly more functional than Minix ever was. Oh well, I guess he wasn't writing code just to scratch the same itch... let's move on.
Gnome vs. KDE. This one boiled down to--you guessed it--a licensing issue! In this case, it was the licensing of Qt, the toolkit used in KDE, that was the issue. Some of this has since been resolved, but there are licensing issues surrounding Qt even today. That's because Qt was written by TrollTech and is sold as a commercial product, whereas GTK was written for The GIMP, "to scratch an itch". Interestingly enough, The GIMP doesn't have a lot of competition--maybe that's because of its quality, its licensing, and its extensible nature.
Debian vs. Red Hat. Yet again, two different products with two different ideologies, one of which is backed by commercial interests, yadda yadda yadda. Interestingly enough, Red Hat's successor, Fedora, is using Debian's package manager now. So maybe they aren't such bitter rivals as you may have thought?
As for the rest of your generalizations, I resent being painted with such a broad brush. Sure, there are zealots in the open source community; they're present in any and every community. If those are the only people you talk to, then you might get some odd impressions of how that community works. For example, most of the people in the US are Christian, but the few people who come up to you on the street and shout about Christianity are inevitably zealots, crazy people who can't be reasoned with. Does this imply that most of the US consists of crazy zealots who can't be reasoned with? No, it doesn't, the sample size is simply too small.
Similarly, I won't just read this one article and conclude that the people at Linux World are totally clueless about the Open Source Community and its history, that they're all too lazy to do research, and enjoy making grossly inaccurate generalizations instead. That would be unfair of me. Nevertheless, I hope this article is just an isolated incident, and not the start of a disturbing trend. I recognize that this is an opinion piece, but that's no excuse for FUD, or sloppiness.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I don't claim to be any kind of guru of, well, anything, but I've been working with GNU/Linux for a good 5 years now, setting up servers (Samba, Apache, etc).
About 18 months ago, I got a Powerbook, and while I still like Linux on the server end, man oh man, do I like OS X - for exactly the reasons that Mr. Turner brings up.
Simply put: it works.
I plug in a device - and it works. No compiling, no fiddling with conf files - works. I put in a game, and without once having to find Mesa drivers for X Windows and figure out why I can get video in Quake III but no sound - wait, not I get sound but no video, let me try another sound card and figure out of the chipset is the right kind - AGGGHHH!
The greatest strength of Open Source is its ability to evolve and grow and fill in gaps. It's truly software evolution - species of software fill in evolutionary needs, and the ones that work best (or are the luckiest in support/notice) get to grow.
The problem with Open Source, as Mr. Turner observes, is in some ways that same community. How many truly clear, concise, "idiot proof" manuals are written when we need to understand why some piece of Open Source (OS) software isn't acting the way you want? A cry for help will often be answered - all too often by "RTFM", though there are times when a more useful answer is given.
Probably the best thing that can happen for OS is the continued interest by businesses who want things for thier clients - like easier to use desktop operating systems (like OS X), or better office suites that can be used by secretaries (like Open Office) or administrative tools that can help configure the multitude of options easily and quickly (like what I hope Novell will do with their Suse merger).
I think that there will always be the dynamic Mr. Turner talks about - which isn't always a bad thing, but I hope the dialectic of Open Source and Business Needs helps to create a better hybrid software animal more suited to survive the wilds of the computer world.
Just my opinion, of course - I might be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
1) Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
So what? It's not my responsibility to write code for you. I write code for me, and release it under a license that happens to allow for other people to use it. Don't tell me what code I'm allowed to write and what I'm not.
2) Open Source developers love a good feud.
So what? You have no right to tell me how I should be spending my time. Sure it's not the most productive use of it, but again, it's MY time. If you don't like it, go away.
3) Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch.
WTF? Scratch the wrong itch? Maybe I'm not scratching your itch, but see point 1. If you don't like what I'm doing, write your own. That's what I did when I wrote this software that scratches the 'wrong itch'. It scratched mine just fine.
4) In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
Against us? If you want to point out flaws and the people in the group don't appreciate it, you can take the code and apply your own patches and start up a distribution of that code. If the community agrees with you, then you'll be successful. If you end up being the only one who uses your new version, then maybe you're actually wrong about what you were doing and that entire community against you was actually that you were wrong and too dumb to realize it.
5) The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
So? This really is the same point as Point 2. And the arguments are the same. So most of us don't like Microsoft? I don't think there are many that won't admit they do some stuff right, but that doesn't matter. It's my time, and I will do with it as I please. If you want to lead by example and convince people there's a better way, a high road, then please, by all means, do so. But telling people who write software that you can use at no cost and have full access to the source that they need to be doing things differently is about the most egocentric thing you could possibly say.
In closing, go away and write some code. If you can't do that, then just go away.
OSS, for all its strengths, lacks a commercial leadership.
That may sound like an oxymoron, given what OSS is. However, look at the successes in the personal computer world, and who they are led by. Bless ol' Linus, but is he really the leader of all of the Linux community? I'm afraid not. Linux is a distributed OS, with no leaders. Red Hat has come closest to this concept, but is not a popular brand name (yet).
OSS needs a common identity that ties all its parts together into something that can be recognized by the Joe and Jane Users they try to sway. I don't know if that should be a commercial company, or an not-for-profit, but if OSS wants to see itself as a true alternative to MS, it has to look like an alternative in the business and home computing worlds.
Oh, and the writer of the article was quite right in that Windows users aren't tolerant of trash talk, but can and will listen to why an alternative is better. Some Macintosh users work that way and get others to make the move, and so should the OSS community.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
So what if some work is duplicated? One of the things that makes the Open Source community great is that individual developers CAN scratch any itch they want, work on any project they want. Sure, it may not be as efficient as it could be, but that's not the point. The community doesn't exist to gain greater and greater market share, it exists to create open software. Some individual developers may want their project's market share to improve, others may just do it because they enjoy it, others still for reasons not mentioned here. It's all good...
I think it is high time for the community to get over its self-delusion of being "libertarian" and realize that it is, actually, authoritarian communist. Every successful open source project is run in a top-down authoritarian structure. There is no room for dissent (just watch this post get attacked) and alternative (and profitable) business models are attacked ceaselessly and characterized as "evil". You guys are re-living the soviet revolution, only entirely within the confines of the internet. I predict that the open source movement will be just as unsuccessful. Deal with it.
remember folks LinuxWorld.com accepts ads from Microsoft..and other closed Unixes
Don't Tread on OpenSource
So, err, remind me - how many closed-source word processors can I go out and by? How many web design packages? How many commercial IDEs? How many instance messenging networks can I join? Wouldn't they be scratching the same itch too?
'They', whoever the amorphous they actually are, probably do. So do the closed source lot as well. The particular feuds they have tend to be called 'lawsuits', and they leave even the most bitter open source feud looking like a kindergarten spat.
Cheers,
Ian
The problem with every community is the community its self. Its that simple.
TruePunk | Games
just because 'I want it a different color'.
You'll probably like this:
A shed, any color will do
It summarises the observations of a FreeBSD hacker, on feature disputes. Also from the FreeBSD pages, is pretty ontopic:
How many FreeBSD developers does it take to change a lightbulb?
(these articles made me consider giving FreeBSD a try, but I haven't gotten around to it yet..)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Which is basically the same model - lots of different parallel approaches to the same problem, and the best one, or group, wins.
:-)
Closed source companies cannot do this, they operate in a constant state of limited resources. We can. We should consider it a strength and play to it.
Sure, it get's acrimonious, but this is a symptom of fiercely-fought ideas. If someone feels that passionately about something, they ought to be able to convince others, or they are being blinkered - if they're blinkered, they'll wither and die. If they persuade the rest, they'll move to the next stage. Where's the problem, apart from bruised ego's ? Nature is red in blood and claw. We're slightly more civilised than that already
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I am hoping mad at this slanderous disparagement. I think the writer of this 'article' would have been a good Nazi propagandist. His points are totally irrelevant and unfounded.
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Linux currently has a multitude of sound subsystems. making anyone short of a linux expert crazy trying to get things working for most audio apps. If my card isnt supported under alsa then I cant use the pro audio tools without a convoluted and twisted mess.
We can support multiple audio/video/whatever systems as long as someone like linus were to say "This is the way it is to be called,used,etc.. anything else is unacceptable and not allowed." and the problems would slowly disappear.
Scratching the same itch is ok, but let's at least scratch it in a way that makes it transparent to the user.
they are all fat overweight balding fellows with pony tails and no girlfriends and they live in their parents basement.
like me, for example.
This whole article is just coming from the wrong direction. It assumes that the final goal of OS is to make usable software, that has features for everyone, to have an OS that can run all the binary drivers out there, to unseat Windows!...
What OS actually is for is, precisely, scratching an itch. Fixing what the developer wants to see fixed. Providing the features the developer wants. Having fun making something that a hundred other people made already. Many Linux developers (for example) couldn't care less about Windows, or converting Windows users to Linux.
And yes, they like bitching about Microsoft. Because it's so easy to do, I guess.
These things are only "things that are wrong with open source" if you have the idea that OS is trying to be something that it's not.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The "many itches, many scratchers" is a silly analogy. This is the case in not only OSS but also in for sale products. FOR INSTANCE, Musicmatch, Itunes, Winamp, Windows Media player. Enough said.
.plan or a paltry .todo
What is truly missing from the overall product creation standpoint is a universal bounty system. If someone were to create a universal bounty system for the application of new software ideas (that benefited the donor, and also gave incentive to the developers) there would be a drastic change in OSS development. Now all of a sudden your target audience is no longer yourself, but an ethereal goal list and a real cash dollar amount to buy some more raman and coffee.
Yeah sure, these things are "supposed" to be in existence already (sans the bounty) but I don't know how many projects I've seen on freshmeat with an empty
So I'm no professional developer, if I knew there was a series of progressively increasing bounties available for me to freely distribute my ideas to the ether I would be more inclined to spend time doing so seriously. Not all of us are driven by the solution at the end of the problem tunnel, some of us have monetary requirements to fulfil.
Feuding and scratching the same itch is merely one form of competition. In the OSS community, you often find a war of ideas, whether that's Gnome vs KDE or Linus insisting on a plaintext /proc.
I much prefer this war of ideas to the way commercial companies operate -- the war of marketing departments. Is it any wonder OSS turns out better?
is the one who is right.
There are still plenty of problems with linux, including a print system that sucks, and plenty of problems that need fixing. It took us until last year to get fonts that looked good without having to add more. Whats worse is our tendency to mimic features in windows instead of trying to surpass windows. Instead of yet another lecture about how everyone should do everything with a CLI, lets get a GUI that is BETTER than mac or windows. A package system that works automatically (even RPM isnt automatic) and having dependent files included with applications.
Self-honesty is your best weapon.
some of his reasons actually produce better software. Better code get merged together, differing views produce more choices.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
It's a point/counter-point, so don't forget to read the rebuttal linked at the bottom of the page..
(also linked here)
We write software that we want. We write what we want and say what we want. This is the price you pay for software that's Free. Freedom breeds freedom, and that's the main point people seem to forget when they talk about what's "wrong" with the Free software community.
.. as 'open source enthousiasts' often do.
If you really want to change people's opinions, you better phrase your comments in terms of "you're doing great, but you could be doing even greater" than "what's wrong with you guys". I think someone commented this in the discussion about the way us enthousiasts were trying to influence the EU on the patent directive that was about to be passed.
I guess the same applies here...
Maybe you could have checked the article before approving the submission and noted in the summary that there's 2 parts - it's slow as snot right now due to the Slashdot effect, but there is a rebuttal which should be worth mentioning so that those who can't be bothered to read the article will at least know this isn't a one-sided affair.
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett
"4. In the Open Source Community, you're either 'with us or against us'"
Damn straight. Let it be clear. We will make no distinction between Windows proponents and those who harbor them.
sig
These are exactly the reasons why I upgraded to Windows XP from my Debian distro. Wow! Look at these neat cerulean blue taskbars! I've never looked back.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
I didn't get flamed when I went into #debian and asked a bunch of questions. Neither did anyone else that came in while I was there, and I sat on the channel for several days.
/msg'ing the "apt" bot for news before asking your question, as (IIRC) the welcome message to the server asks you to do. Did you do this? And did the channel topic say something about the break-in, but you were unable to connect it to the servers not being updated?
t ml
Perhaps the problem has more to do with your question. The Debian server compromise has been "all over the news", which I believe is why the package servers haven't been updated. It's reasonable to assume that people in #debian might have assumed you knew about the compromise, and they might have been a bit sensitive about it.
Also, you didn't mention
Now, I happen to think that Eric Raymond is a jerk, and wrong about a great many things, but he and Rick Moen wrote an essay on how to ask questions that should be required reading for pretty much anyone, and can easily be applied to fields other than computers. My father is a mechanic, and his job and mine have amazing parallels.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.h
Our LUG has a mailing list, and I've been on it for about 6 years now. I've rarely seen anyone flamed, even for asking really basic questions. One person in particular did ask several basic questions in a row, and was eventually pointed to the above document by several list members. Sadly, he decided to be an ass about it, and some flames were exchanged, but that's the only problem I can remember.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Slashdot also accepts advertisements from publishers of proprietary operating systems. Your point?
Too many developers "scratch the same itch" is a bad thing only for applications/libraries which other software depends on. We know this! This is what standards are for :-) However, for a standard to become standard we need to test lots of options and decide which is best. On the way to standardization we might merge different features, or the standard might require features from different packages which do not exist together at the moment. Different approaches make it easier to decide which feature to keep and which feature to drop.
I personally do not mind having three plotting and five music playing and twelve font editing packages, it does not hurt anybody, and as the author himself points out, people get selfworth from other people using their package. So if we try to come up with a single solution the result will be fewer developers->fewer packages, not same developers->better packages.
ato
they post flamebaiting articles like this one on major-traffic websites, making for pointless debates instead of getting down and coding.
He also suggests we often approach the whole issue of encouraging migration to Linux from Windows entirely wrongly
I've had a pretty good deal of luck with my family and friends getting them switched to Mozilla and OpenOffice on win32 first, and then later on suggesting Linux. Like most desktop users, thoes 2 apps give them everything they need (web, email and and office suite). If they get used to it on win32, using it all on Linux is a no-brainer and they're generally at least willing to try.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
This is unique to OSS? I thought that this was the whole idea behind free-market capitalism? Maybe the main problem with the auto industry is that too many carmakers "scratch the same itch".
From this, we can conclude... DUH.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Uhm...what exactly do you mean by "a package system that works automatically"? Do you mean something relatively nasty that automatically looks for and installs updates/upgrades without user input?
I don't want my system to get altered in any way without getting my personal OK beforehand. I rather suspect that there are a lot of others that feel this way about it too. Unless what you mean by "automatic" is something entirely outside of what I have interpreted it to mean...
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I didn't feel Steve Suehring's rebuttal addressed a couple of James Turner's comments well.
1. Too much competition Suehring doesn't touch on Turner's point that GNU/Linux distributions often can't use other distributions' binary packages of applications. This is a must if we want to attract users of proprietary yet mission-critical applications to GNU/Linux.
3. Scratch the wrong itch "I've worked with closed source software where I had to edit a registry setting or manually change a configuration file in order to make the software work (don't forget to reboot the entire server if you make a registry change.)" However, the average Windows program provides a GUI for a larger percentage of its configuration than does the average GNU/Linux program.
5. Chip on its shoulder Suehring doesn't touch on Turner's point that GNU/Linux support among hardware manufacturers just isn't to the point where I can stick in the driver disc bundled with a device and install the driver.
What if you switched "debian" to "Windows XP" and were talking about a stale Windows Update server? Are you going to go to freenode and get on IRC #WinXP and ask a bunch of wannabes to give you free technical support or reason why they are not as competent as they seem or opportunity to reinforce their position in the #WinXP channel pecking order?
It isn't plain how the example cited in the parent of this thread is related to the general problems of the free software development community. Are the jokers in #debian at freenode actually the developers at the root of this discussion? Uh... NO!
So, pardon me if I am concerned this thread might be a troll.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
No, they're probably bitching about Microsoft because people e-mail them Word DOCs and then say things like "please make this into a web page for me!", or "what do you mean that had a virus in it, it's just a document?!"
:)
Even if (or when) Windows was the only OS I used, you can bet that I'd still have some good reasons to bitch about Microsoft.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
I guess being open is both blessing and cure.
The fact that open source software, being open, thus able to be compiled at the client, causes some minor problems. For instance, to configure a software it needs to be recompilled, not the case w/ "self-configurable" (Windows) software...
Source code takes huge amounts of space too: depending on the software, 100Mb of code (including temp files) for a 5Mb software...
Open source software is not "narrow-band friendly", in the sense that if you download a package, you may need to download several others to make it work
I don`t condemn it being open, but I would expect the same level of easiness (or even better) than proprietary software: Something in the level of unzip - run, not install - run or unzip - compile - run...
how long until
He is NOT worth it to anyone. He thinks that his Senior Editor position gives him a unique insight into "What's wrong with Open Source"...
He had his damn "points" wrong for various reasons that he obviously didn't think about in the previous article that precipitated this stupid "response" (One, I might add, it was strongly suggested that he re-think the idea from the get-go over on LinuxToday's comment section...)- and most everyone on the feedback forum and on LinuxToday pointed out where he'd gone wrong (Myself included on BOTH forums) and most of them were fairly respectful but also strongly questioned is credibility and credentials, likening him to Enderle (Right or wrong, it felt a lot like Enderle's stuff...).
He then comes in with a chip on HIS shoulder claiming that we were all about with a chip on our collective shoulder and accusing us of ad-homninem attacks.
Never mind that the man failed to address the points LEGITIMATELY raised with regards to HIS points. And he still fails to do so now. He won't admit he might have been "wrong" about part or all of his premise and points. He may be right, there may still be things that we have that can impede desktop adoption of Linux, but what he came up with isn't the problem- really it isn't.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
No one is disputing that Apple has great idiot-appeal for people who want something that "just works" - that has never been open source's forte. The flipside to this uber-controlled market is that you get to pay $120 for each point release for the OS, and you get to pay a significant premium for hardware. You also get limited access to source (limited to Darwin) which ultimately puts you in the same "hostage" situation many Microsoft users are in with respect to security.
Stop whining and do it yourself. Finding what's wrong won't help if we don't find what's right to replace it with. Or we'll just have more of the same. Get rid of bad dictatorship just to get another bad dictatorship.
> 1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
> 2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
> 3. Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch.
Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
> 4. In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
> 5. The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Our diversity is a strength, not a weakness.
The open software community is made up of Microsoft bashers, Microsoft apologists, and even Microsoft lovers. We've got Linux gearheads and BSD gearheads. We've got developers who agree with you about which itch to scratch and developers who sharply disagree. We've got runny-nosed kids sitting in their parents' basements hacking code, and we've got professors from world-class universities and blue-suited IBM'ers hacking that same code.
It's a broad community that can't be easily definied or easily dismissed. It's a loose coalition of the paid and the hobbyist, the pragmatist and the idealist, the dreamer and dreammaker. There are disagreements, problems, and much duplicated effort.
Seen from above, the work appears to evolve more than it is built. But the code keeps coming.
> To sum up, the biggest problem that the Open
> Source community faces in taking Open Source to > the next level is not some legal challenge or
> Microsoft marketing campaign. It's the
> immaturity and insecurity of some of the members
> of the community.
And there are those who don't understand our community at all.
None of it matters a bit. The code keeps coming. The code keeps getting better. What to do with it... is up to you.
Some will use it to turn a grid of Playstations into a supercomputer. Some will use it to keep the Internet chugging. Some will use it to solve their own problems. Some will use it to take on the world of proprietary UNIX. Some will use it to take on Microsoft. Of course, these things are already being done.
And those who tend to succeed in these endeavors have something in common: they work _with_ the existing community, knowing that it's a diverse ecosystem of competing interests and individuals, and understanding that this diversity is deeply tied to flexibility and is a net positive.
And you're gonna come and save us all by standing up and shouting "You're all a bunch of nerds!".
But seriously, he's not saying anything new. And saying this isn't going to fix anything: that's just how things are. That's how free software developers work.
He picked something that's very easy to say but in the end means absolutely nothing.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
I was having a problem with configuring my webserver with HTML::Mason. Problem was resolved in a few hours by one of the authors of HTML::Mason. Now a neat summary of my problems and its resolutions is available to the world in the archives.
I am trying to extend PostgreSQL so that it includes efficient Materialized Views. I posted a couple of messages, and the team basically says, "We've all got our personal projects we're working on, but we all want to see M.V. a reality. Here's some pointers and good luck." When I come back with my findings, they point out some more stuff, and the discussion starts to build. I can see having M.V. in PostgreSQL a reality if I keep advocating it.
These are just two examples of things that just are not possible with closed-source software. The HTML::Mason and PostgreSQL teams are really good examples of open source work at its finest (along with other projects too numerous to mention). But imagine getting this kind of support from Microsoft or SUN. (Well, maybe SUN is fanatical about support and encourages its users to contribute to the codebase, I wouldn't know.)
This is why Open Source Software (or Free Software, whatever you want to call it) is going to take over the world. Petty irritations exist, but they exist everywhere and are not insurmountable. Eventually, everyone will see what I see in the open source community. I can't imagine "paying" someone for software that I can't look into or modify. No matter how useful it is now, it won't be useful in a few years. Heck, it won't even be supported by anyone. But open source software is timeless and invaluable. When it becomes obselete, it is updated (case in point: sendmail)
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
1. Not enough PHBs to be ignorant and filthy rich
2. Not enough marketing droids to hype OSS to a proper level of ridicule.
3. Not enough sales weasels to sell an OSS solution to you when you just need a screwdriver.
Only after points 1, 2 and 3 are solved will Linux and OSS be good enough for the industry.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
because they are just a bunch of teenage hackers, not college trained programmers.
</tounge>
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Journalism, thats the real truth, this is just another example of Journalism's continuous need for sensation, almost all journo's are just the worst sort of Trolls, BSD is dying, Unix is dying, Aunt Nelly cat is dying, linux ate my clock radio, I moderate the article -1 Troll.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Worst monday ever :( !
And both histories posted by Hemos. Are you in a bad mood pal?
Imagine if all projects would be like the XFree project. GNU/Linux never would have gotten as far as it is now.
Competition is good. period!
I write free software for a living, and I'm getting paid. I'm writing an application for a vertical market (i.e. a market with very few customers). They pay me to provide the functionality they need, and they don't care about the license.
In the other end, the horizontal market, people are getting paid as well. The Linux kernel, Mozilla, and Open Office are primarily developed by people getting paid to do so.
And in-between these two extremes, people are getting paid as well. Samba, Apache, GCC, GDB and other popular network and development applications are primarily being developed by people getting paid to do so.
It is true that most free software applications, if you count them on sourceforge, are developed by amateurs in their spare time. But most of these applications have very few users as well.
Most of the free software most people use are developed by people getting paid to do so.
No I mean like a package system that offers the easy way out for the people who want it....while allowing "expert" options for people like you.
Its called "automatic" installation versus "custom" or "manual" installation.
Im sure such a system would have "Are you sure you want to overwrite "x" " giving you the option to decline
I have to agree with everything he said in this article. The biggest problem with Open Source today is Open Source it self. It has no strong backing by big corporations. Sure you can say IBM is a backing Open Source, no they aren't, they are using Open Source to drive up profit. They take more than they give. But this all drives to the point, it's hard to make a buck when everybody already has your product and it is free.
Maybe it is because it is a "community" and nobody rules it, maybe it is because it is passionate about what it does and feels the need to defend it when attacked. There are some things that might need some improving, but the Open Source Community has done quite well the way it has been operating since it started. It will improve when it needs to improve, that is how it works.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
EXPORT USE="dvd";emerge mplayer
(to play DVDs on your Gentoo Linux machine)
It seems to me that a problem with a large number of movements is that they are based first and foremost on an oppositional logic and rhetoric. Rather than simply providing a model for open debate and getting things done, the oppositional rhetoric gives us infighting and great wars about the composition of naval lint and the direction of the great social revolution.
Of course, this is just a problem in OSS, it seems to be occuring just about everywhere. People are subdividing into camps based on whatever thesis/antithesis group the rant about, and are gradually losing the ability to community with the rest of the world.
What is wrong is that that everyone is happy to say that it is ok to make money from open source products but it is mostly those that provide a service and that own software patents that will make the money.
Service provider because they take otherss (open source) work and make it work for you.
Software patent because it is a way to contain the open source competitivness.
Too many of the responses (on the counterpoint article) fall along the lines of "The closed source community does it too." Especially for the issue of scratching the wrong itch, where you see a lot of "learn to code yourself and quit whining!"
From a user perspective, it'd be nice if there were a more standardized system to encourage needed fixes, though I suspect as major distributions gain commercial success we'll start to see major projects getting more of their contributions from people paid to listen to the users.
Doesn't webmin take care of some of this? It allows you to remotely alter configuration files, and stop and restart services. I imagine the next generation or two will see significant development, perhaps becoming the "GUI that is BETTER than mac or windows" that you seek.
I haven't installed webmin on my home machines, but I've used it at the university.
I agree with you about package management. In general, package management using RPM is not as useful or easy as it could be, and should be.
Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
Well, I'm sure it is IF you know what the BEST solution is AHEAD OF TIME.
For mere mortals, there will be more than one approach. Then we are free to choose whichever approach is the "best" for us.
As for it being the 'wrong' itch, that is up to the developer to determine.
Sure, it isn't what YOU want them to work on. But that's what this 'Freedom' thing is about.
I'm just positive that if you were in charge everything would be much more efficient and successful.
Get over yourself.
This is Open Source.
If your ideas AND your implementation are better, people will switch to your products.
Go ahead. Show your code.
Lesse:
Entirely Wrongly, what horrible word choice.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Nothing quite like seeing a grown man yammering about how "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" due to a hardware issue and a legal issue that he's having on his laptop.
I especially enjoyed the point that if you installed Windows out of the box on that machine, neither of those would work, either, and good luck getting a DVD player for it. Manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to get Windows working on their hardware; I reinstalled a machine once that supposedly was compatible with NT4--I have no idea how they did it.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
if you go into an IRC channel for any non main-stream OS (os/2, linux, mac, etc) and ask a question, you're going to get beaten up by assholes.
1) This isn't a problem with non main-stream OS irc, this is the fact of (no)life on every IRC channel on the planet, be it #debian, #java ja or #win95, regardless of network.
2) It has a very natural explanation: What do you think you would do if people called to you and popped in to ask the same questions day after day? Without making any kind of effort to solve the problem themself? In real life it's called tech support, and many people get frustrated and burnovered by it. People still pretend polite because they get paid for it.
3) Why do people IRC then? To chat with friends. People may even help on IRC other people they consider friends. Which is analogous on how things work in real life.
If you really want help from IRC, stick at a few channels and chat for a while, and you will not need to ask stupid questions, because you will learn by watching what problems other people have and how they solved them.
but Mao did shower more often.
The perfect world OSS situation:
1. Many developers see a problem (the itch to scratch).
2. Many developers implement a solution.
3. A miracle happens where the best solution is chosen by users to standardize against.
The problem is that the best for you is not the same for the best for me or them. Every software system is standardized against itself so standarization isn't a problem. The problem is the human condition. You'll never get a group of people to agree what the best solution to a free formed problem could be.
The best example of this is in the good old KDE vs Gnome. You will never get both camps to say that either way is the best approach since both designs offers their own pros and cons. So why should either camp abandon their approach? Besides, standardization won't give them any more than what they have now.
IMHO, this is not a problem. There is little value in having Gnome and KDE merge by standards on things that are clearly not standardizable. A search for "the standard" is not a magic cure all fix. After all everything is standard on Windows yet there are many problems. The best any group of developers can do is make their system as sane yet as compatible with other components as possible. Its the differences that keep groups learning from each other. Why kill that with an empty standarzation process?
- the same pundits who downplayed Linux in the early days are again coming out of the woodwork as the software monopoly expends even more capital in trying to maintain its stranglehold on the industry (e.g., increased TV advertising, magazine ads, and 'backdoor' deals to fuel IP litigation) - at first Linux was just a 'toy' OS, only fit for experimentation - next it was, 'there's no support for protocols and standards' - next it was, 'it's not good enough to host a server' - after that it was, 'it's not ready for the desktop' - in the last year it has been 'it violates IP rights' - now we're moving into the 'Linux developer community is self-defeating and immature (read: non-professional)' and 'Linux is wrong for the following reasons' stage - Satan and his minions are everywhere... don't expect the software monopoly to easily roll over - it is fighting (in vain, IMO) for its life... - the next several years will be interesting indeed, but the fact is that Linux has handily won the server and desktop market - only the Evil Empire hasn't realized it just yet...
As much as i would like to criticise James' article but then it has some points that we cannot overlook. If we want to drive Linux to personal desktop, then it is essential that the general user feels comfy with the OS. The GUI developments were a welcome change in that direction. one more thing that i can suggest is that all the distribution should come together and decide on a common "installation and uninstallation" interface which would be more user friendly. (I do like make and make install tho but then general user aren't comfortable with this). Also they should come together for common driver interface. the place they can improve is the package of softwares that they provide thus keeping the competition healthy. The article has OTOH done injustice to the efforts of the open source community. Someone is developing all softwares entirely free for you, atleast the author should have had the courtesy to acknowledge their efforts.
There's no point talking about "The Problem with Open Source" unless you agree what open source is trying to achieve. This guy has implicitly decided that OSS should be a coherent attempt to produce software that is usable by the masses and eventually to replace Windows. Not everyone here agrees with that.
In reality, different people involved in OSS have completely different motivations and objectives. In that light, how can their success be judged as a whole? It seems obvious that such a disparate bunch of folks will march toward any given goal slower than if they were a single organisation with a common aim.
But that's not the point, is it? It might be interesting to establish what most OSS developers think they are trying to achieve. For my part, when I contribute to GPL'd projects, all I want to do is fix my current problem - make X talk to Y, for instance, because my boss wants X to talk to Y by yesterday, on no budget.
Dude, time to update that weblog. Last entry was rumours about the G5 and was made in June '03. (3.5 internet years ago).
Alternatively, maybe it's time to updateyour sig...
The preceding comment has been documented as containing no EPHI and is certifiable as HIPPA Phase II Compliant.
Point number 4 - That the "with us or against us" atttitude of the community is a problem, ignores one very BIG fact - it's an attitude thrust upon the commnity BY those who are against it. I'd be perfectly happy in the imaginary world where other people using Microsoft could work seamlessly with me using something else. I'd be perfectly happy in the world where others could use their own DVD players and I can use my own. It's those who are against open source that are against that world and actively seek to prevent it from being possible. They're the ones that chose to pick the fight and make peaceful coexistance possible.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Open source developers often scratch the same itch'
He seems to be confusing open source with Communism or Microsoft. Communism or Microsoft perform central planning and avoid implementing similar products multiple times. Open source is a market force: people are going to start similar projects multiple times, they are going to compete with those projects for users and developers, and the better projects survive. Open source is based on the principles of good-ol' American free markets. Unlike Communism or Microsoft, that is.
and 'Open Source developers love a good feud.'
And companies aren't? Has this guy ever been in business? Just some examples from the very top: McNealy has some sort of Microsoft size envy (and gets infuriated by the fact that Gates probably doesn't even notice), Jobs is a vicious primadonna, and Ballmer likes hopping around on stage talking about crushing competitors. In contrast, open source 'fights' seem positively high-brow: at least they often involve important issues like licenses, legal agreements, and technical standards.
Yeah, open source developers 'often scratch the same itch' and they 'love a good feud'. The industry would be a whole lot better off if software companies were a bit more like open source developers instead of the mindless monopolies, personality cults, and PR machines that they are.
All these people bitching and complaining about whats wrong. I mean really do you think MS generates this many internal memos constantly beating a dead horse on thier dev model ?
Free Software is done freely by whoever wants, so if they *want* to "scratch the same itch" as others, or fight amongst themselves, I say more power too them. and if businesses can't promote migration correctly then that is thier problem.
The issue is all these "what's wrong" pieces are by so-called Open Source industry people, the fact is the "open source" or "free software" movement, community or whatever is NOT a unified front with commercial interrests. and that is why it doesn't act like one.
For myself I am quite happen with the community being a disjointed group with various sub-groups re-scratching what they want, when do they expect, for us to form a open source council and if you want to start a project on sourceforge you have to request permission (to make sure the itch hasnt been scratched) ? - I say let the people that want to capitalize on Free and open software continue to try and do so, but let's not berate developers because they don't have the same world commerce view as you.
"'Open source developers often scratch the same itch'"
I prefer to think of this as 'diversity', and some people like to think of it as 'choice'. Both exist in the world at large and are considered a good thing. Nature uses it to refine (before we came along) the whole process of reproduction, and business calls it competition.
If anything, it should be pointed out that Microsoft Word is rapidly approaching a monoculture and that more, not less, word processors should be around.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
That last word should have read "impossible", not "possible". Damn me for not proofreading.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
1. RTFM? I've used windows for years and have never required to use a manual. Except for getting internet up and running on the very first version of win95.
2. Games. I, like many many others, wont switch until all the great PC games come for linux as well.
That's basically all you guys need.
Will code a sig generator for food
Why are there so many BSD's? Yes they each have different project goals, but couldn't one project have had ALL those goals? Linux runs on many platforms like NetBSD, and Linux focuses on security ( not as well as openbsd, but it could), and FreeBSD.. well why is there a FreeBSD, cause both openbsd and netbsd are both free. Oh yeah, FreeBSD has SMP support and something else.
Anyway, the arguing is not the problem in open source. The problem is that there is a lack of comprimising and lack of willingness to work togeather on projects. So and so gets upset cause he / she does not get their way and they start a whole new project. What a waste it has become of software as there are now several hunderd text editors that all do the same thing. Edit /etc config files.
I'll admit I have contributed to some of this, but lately I just maintain what I have and am thinking of contributing code to some of these projects.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Haha am I the only one reading hilarious irony into this post?:
... There's also a decent rebuttal with this story as well
'Open Source developers love a good feud.'
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
His current article is a follow-up to a previous article about Linux NOT being ready for the desktop because it didn't work with his 802.11g card and wouldn't play DVD's "out of the box".
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38038.htm
In that article, his solution was to award "kudos" (as you noted) for fixing the "problems" he claimed that rendered Linux "dead" on the desktop.
I believe that the real solution is to only purchase products from vendors that support Linux.
As for developers focusing on other aspects, that would be nice. But I'm not about to ask someone who is giving me their labour for free to work harder for my benefit.
I will contribute financially to projects and I will purchase Linux-friendly hardware and let the vendors know that I'm using it with Linux.
There are so many ways you can contribute to projects you deem worthwhile.
#1. Help with the code.
#2. Money - always appreciated.
#3. Testing & submitting GOOD bug reports.
#4. Helping with documentation.
#5. Maintaining your own "HowTo" for your system.
etc.
#2.
Some other issues that are limiting the ability of Linux to become popular with the masses are:
1. The names of the programs are not user friendly. Where Microsoft calls a media player a Media Player or a photo editor Paint, Linux uses names that have no meaning to the common user. Names such as Gimp, Pia, Ogg123, etc. have no indication of what they really do as an application.
2. Package installation can be a huge problem. How often do you try and install a package just to find out that you have incompatibilities all over the place. Libraries and required package version problems and other such things can make installation of simple things a total nightmare.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
You are, of course, completely right. When we are not getting paid and don't hurt anybody, we should be able to spend our time as we wish.
Nonetheless, I believe it would be in the interest of most of us to develop a culture where it seems more fun/cooler/whatever to 1) help an existing project rather than start one of your own, 2) show respect for and collaborate with each other, and 3) attempt to think of the needs of ignorant end users, not just those of our peers.
I believe such a culture will result in better free software, and increase the chance that we get a job where we get paid for using or even developing free software.
I've read the article (yes!) and there are two implicit assumptions that bother me, even without going into the author's points. The first is that there is an open source community. I'm not quite sure of that. There are many developers that work on open-source projects for so many different reasons and don't necessarily consider themselves part of a community. The other implicit assumption is that those you start flamewars are open-source developers. Most of the time, it isn't the case.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
He's beta testing the new develeopment kernel.
I can't wait for 6.2.0 to come out. What with the telepathic user interface and all.
Don't forget typos.
>There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions
Let's try and find reasons for more than 3, shall we. Hmmm:
-Debian: solid, stable, completely free, at the cost of being outdated sometimes
-Mandrake:Simple distro, ideal for newbies. Not good for linux diehards who like to fiddle with everything
-Gentoo: bleeding edge, compilation optimisations, easy to reconfigure the way you want it if you know what you're doing. Not so many guarantees on the stability.
-Redhat:commercial, certified, expensive, well-supported, reasonably up to date.
-SuSE:somewhat similar approach to Redhat. Keeps Redhat honest through this crazy thing called competition.
-SELinux - security above all else
The difference is priorities. Trying to combine their properties (free+certified? Ultra-Secure and custom compilations?) would be hard.
I've said many of the same things for years.
OSS/Free Software people often argue that there's no need for proprietary software, free software can provide everything.
But when I go somewhere like freshmeat, what do I find? More MP3 enocoders/players/front-ends/rippers/catalogers than you can shake a stick at. What don't I find? drivers for some of my devices like scanners, cameras. Productivity applications, like Tax software for instance, and many other things that I can't think of right now, that keep me chained to Windows. Or if I do find them, they are half finished, and barely usable. Some would say, "So fill the void!". I do write my own stuff, but the re are too many things, and I only have so much time to devote to it.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and need Windows less than ever. But I have a pragmatic approach about it. OSS can do great things, but not everything, there will always be room for proprietary software, and the two should be able to coexist.
The other problem with OSS is lack of innovation. How many things does the OSS community go about attempting to clone only after someone like MS or another company introduced it? Was there a FreeMware before VMware? Was there Linux PVR applications before Tivo? etc.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
1. Too many companies "scratch the same itch."
.Net. HP-UX vs AIX. For every interesting commercial technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
We hear that commercial software companies come up with new ideas because they "wanted to make some money." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the relational databases, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution.
2. Commercial software companies love a good feud.
Oracle vs Microsoft. Java vs
3. Commercial software companies often scratch the wrong itch.
The problem with commercial development is that the developers often aren't the consumers of their products, and thus don't feel the pain of their mistakes. The other problem with commercial software development is that they often don't fix problems or develop new features that aren't going to make them money.
4. In the commercial software community, you're either "with us or against us"
Attempts to point out flaws or places where there's room for improvement in an application usually lead directly to legal action. Attempts to contact the company directly lead to either unqulaified indivduals, fees, or, again, legal action. Direct comment from the companies if laded with fear, uncertainty, and doubt: "The GPL is a cancer." "Linux is stealing my IP." "Hey! No benchmarking."
5. The commercial software community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Although Linux is also a popular a target lately too, the merest mention of MS is like a bull having a red cape waved before his eyes. All reason and sense of decorum flies out the window. And while I'm first in line to throw rotten tomatoes at Bill Gates, it's harmful to the community. The reality is that Microsoft owns the lion's share of the non-server OS market. If the first thing you tell all these people who own Windows is that they are idiots, you're not starting out on very good ground to convert them.
Seriously though, all of this feuding and itch scratching sort of business happens in every developer group, it's just that outsiders don't hear about it because they don't have a kt.zork.net/{longhorn,oracle,whatever} to air their dirty laundry to the public.
P.S. LinuxWorld: I love the "POINT-COUNTERPOINT SPECIAL" title, maybe for the next article you can use the troll^H^H^H^Hitle "WHY SCO WILL WIN" and follow it with 15 Myth-Fact bullet points. Genius!
Read both articles, the rebuttal article makes most of the points in the comments.
My only one is "who cares"
I don't see why people want others to switch, and get all riled up.
Use what you want, let them use what they want
You, like many in the OSS community, are more concerned with competing with closed source than with innovating your own projects. It's the reason people say things like, "Slashdot isn't pro-Linux, it's anti-M$."
creates better code. Evolution occurs in a dynamic environment, not in a static one. Just my 2 cents.
Don't get off the boat. Absolutely, goddamn right.
I completely agree with James. I love what Linux has to offer and I hate Windows, but in the last 5 years I've tried about twice a year to move to Linux and its just rediculous. I think one of the scariest experiences has to be just trying to install new software and once its installed, figuring out where the hell it put itself, how I can use it, and how I can get rid of it when I realize I didn't really want it. I found a lot of nice tools like RedCarpet but found too many packages that claimed stability and just ended up making my system weaker. Especially troublesome was package dependencies. I would want to install something that was in a stable release but it required package(s) that were no where close to a stable release.
When it all comes down to it.. Linux just isn't usable to the desktop users who are NOT Linux server admins for good reasons. That, and support is extremely difficult because trying to ask help from the Linux community on any problem is like trying to face someone with a terrible ego.
How do I get this to work with the DVD menus?
The real problem is that Open Source is to focused on the source.
;-)
What? You may ask...
Open Source developers put out some great software, Linux, Mozilla, Gimp, GAIM, etc. I could go on for some time.
Why are they good? Stable, reliable, secure... most will agree to those. Why is it true? Because good coding, and demand to get it right. No corporate preasure.
So what's the problem? NO END USER FOCUS.
Mozilla now is working towards an enduser focus. That's a big change.
But the majority don't. The products are great, but lets face it. As wonderful as KDE is, it's not Aqua, or even Luna. It's good, but not good enough for an end user. There's still computer jargon in the user's face, and it's not pretty like the others.
Tech support for endusers - missing
Computer jargon in their face
Lack of marketing towards end users ("What's gimp?")
These are the problems.
IMHO, each project should create a group devoted to end-user focus. That group should work on marketing, and viewing the product through an enduser perspective... not a Geek perspective. And judge if it's end user friendly.
Linux won't hit the masses as long as the user gets shown the path's to 100000k different things. They don't care... they just want it to work.
It's great that open source developers are such perfectionists. I personally love it. But what they need to do, is be able to cover it up.
Perhaps the general release pattern should include:
Developer release - more powerful, crude like today
End user release - friendly, hide the ugly.
End users don't like feeling confused. That's the key. That's what Apple Knows when it invented the iPod's interface. That's what Microsoft is slowly learning. That's what Palm knew. That's why Google is so popular.... simplistic yet powerful.
Until open source comes to agree on that ideal, it's not going to get that far.
Again, the products are amazing, and I love them... but I also want them to succeed with the non-geeks who actually have a social life
Troll!
Think back to when Chiang Kai-Shek took over China: before that no one worked, everyone was poor, morale was nonexistent.
True, but -- then again -- no one worked, everyone was poor, and morale was nonexistent _while_ Chiang Kai-Shek ruled China and _after_ he got kicked out. If China has changed, it's only been in the past few decades -- thanks largely to peace and a moderate Communist regime.
Under the benevolent dictator, a term used to describe Linus Torvalds,
Some would describe Chiang Kai-Shek as "an incompetent dictator who permitted graft and corruption among his subordinates; a fool who handed the world's largest country to Communists at the start of the cold war." I haven't heard similar descriptions of Linus Torvalds. (In fairness, Torvalds has a much easier job than Chiang Kai-Shek.)
Within a few short years China was a world power.
China has been a world power for thousands of years. It reached a low point in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Chiang Kai-Shek died in 1975 but his methods and teachings continue to this day in China.
No, they don't.
Linux is based more on a community atmosphere, so it's perfectly reasonable to turn to places like USENET or IRC for technical support advice. #debian is a logical place to get help with Debian.
Also, I can guarantee even if there was a #winxp, it would be a friendlier channel than #debian.
I guess we are all supposed to work on the same projects and corridinate with the thousands of other developers in OSS community so we don't duplicate our work?
The fact that there are so many Linux distros, a number of web browsers, windows managers, email clients, etc is not a bad thing. Even if it were a bad thing, how would you stop people from creating another window manager or email client? Would you require all OSS projects to submit for approval in order to even get started, that's stupid.
Some people liken OSS to communism but I actually think it's much more like capitalism. The best software gets used more than the crappy stuff that often dies on the vine. The fact that OSS users have numerous options to choose from is a good thing. There is always this massive push to create a monoculture in every aspect of life (at least in the US), I truly do not understand people that don't like choice and are afraid of people that do things differently than than status quo - even if that means doing something that someone else has already done but doing it your way. Some may call that innovating, others call it a waste of time.
Other than the debate about software occurring in a public forum rather than a meeting room, I don't see much difference between closed and open software. Go to Amazon and search for an software application, there are a number of web browsers and word processors to choose from - is that bad? Choice is good.
The debate over whether OSS is good or bad, or whether OSS can compete with closed software seems pointless - but I participate anyway (hmm). It's obvious that OSS can create good software and that it can compete against/with closed software. Is OSS going to run MS and Apple out of business, no. Is success always marked by how much money or market-share you have, not if you don't have shareholders.
LoRider
Does it change the fact that DVD playback in Linux is a difficulty?
No. Then his point is valid. End users don't care about legal reasons, they care about results.
eeeeyew. That didn't come out the way I meant...
Don't worry. I have a picture here that nicely illustrates your point clickety click
Man this forum is defensive. But I have to say like it or not this article represents the attitudes of many users, and attempted users of open source software. You don't agree and just want to write the software you want to write great knock your self out. But if one wants people to adopt open source over pay software, then one would be well advised to listen to dissenters at least as often as supporters.
Three entirely different worlds.
#1. Microsoft - 95%+ of the desktop so any vendor shipping a product also included Windows drivers.
#2. Apple - small marketshare so it compensates by restricting hardware selection. That way it can ensure that the drivers are available.
#3. Linux - small desktop marketshare but it doesn't attempt to limit the hardware choices. So YOU have to be carefull about what hardware you purchase. Some work flawlessly, some work okay, some suck bad, some don't work at all.
Now, the problems.
#1. Different vendors write drivers that MAY NOT WORK NICELY with other vendor's drivers. That's one of the reasons that you're told to "Remove the driver, re-install the driver, did that fix it?"
#2. Limited selection. What else can be said?
#3. Better than #1, but still problems with un-supported hardware drivers. The good news is you can easily identify and remove the evil drivers. The bad news is that those drivers might be for hardware that your really need.
James Turner leads off on the "too many itches" syndrome and other problems - Steve Suehring offers his Counterpoint
December 1, 2003, http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38073.htm
By James Turner Steve Suehring
Advertisement
James Turner: 5 problems with the Open Source community
There's no question that the Open Source community has a lot going for it. Besides a staggering amount of developer power that can be turned against important problems, the Open Source movement also has a passion and commitment to its work that the commercial software world often envies. But sometimes, the Open Source community can be its own worst enemy. Here are a few reasons why.
1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
We hear that Open Source developers come up with new ideas because they "had an itch to scratch." In other words, there was some need they had for a new application, and they "scratched" it by coming up with a tool. The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the Linux sound systems, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution. Or in the Java world, look at how many competing MVC frameworks there are now for JSP development.
A little competition can be a good thing. After all, Linux is all about offering a competing vision for the operating system domain. But when too many competing visions exist, and aren't winnowed down to a small number of options over a short period of time, you end up with a mish-mash of conflicting standards, and a user community that ends up having to download and install a plethora of different packages that all do the same thing.
A perfect example of the "too many itches" syndrome is the absurd number of Linux distributions that exist out there. There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions. And because each one does things slightly differently, we've ended up with the problem that applications and drivers are rarely made available in binary form, because there are too many versions of too many releases of Linux to support.
As an application developer, you would have to provide 5 - 10 different binary installs, one for each distribution. Now multiply that times the five or more active releases of a distribution that may be in active circulation, and you see why so few packages are available as anything but source (especially the most recent releases of packages that have not been compiled and included into Linux distributions yet.)
The next question to consider is, why don't we see more consolidation of technology? The answer: because...
2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
BSD vs Linux. Gnome vs KDE. Debian vs Red Hat. For every interesting Open Source technology, there are two bitterly feuding camps that spend as much time taking potshots at each other as in improving their own products.
It's hard to imagine how much better a lot of Open Source software would be if these groups cooperated and consolidated their efforts, rather than act like the Hatfields and McCoys. Unfortunately, the downside of personal
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I can't read the article because it's slashdotted, so I have to go by the title. Sigh.
... when we counted the success stories one by one ... when "using open source at work" meant that you could download the source for "grep" and build your $HOME/bin/grep, as long as you were quiet about it.
... and it's IBM on the open source side?!
The FSF was founded about 20 years ago. Consider 10 or 20 software development organizations that were founded 20 years ago.
How many of them are top-tier or second-tier suppliers in their markets today?
How many of them even exist today?
The FSF, and the Open Source movement, have been much more effective at achieving their goals than DEC, Borland, Pyramid, Go, NeXT, and a whole lot of other organizations that you've never heard of.
I remember the days when just getting mentioned in the press was an achievement
And now:
Apache with #1 market position?!
Profitable public company based on GPL software?!
Linux news sections in the mainstream tech media?!
A legal showdown between a pissant company and IBM over open source software
The open source community has already succeeded several levels beyond anyone's wildest dreams of just ten years ago.
graduate from college too soon.
If people want something, and none of the developers see it as important enough to "scratch", then those people have another option.
Pay someone to write/fix the code to their satisfaction.
It's the user-participation that makes Open Source so great.
Money == Time + Effort
You have access to the developers and the lists. Offer money and see if that changes the situation.
This isn't ego. There are only so many developers with so much time.
They have to prioritize their work accourding to their desires.
Christmas is coming. Buy them a DVD or something to show your appreciation.
Offer them money to help with your problem.
This isn't elitism.
I'm sure there are lots of developers who would, given an unlimited amount of time, help each person with their specific problems.
But there isn't an unlimited amount of time for a developer.
Both of these articles are lacking... well, lacking anything that makes them valid article. James makes the following types of references:
:D)
o "... spend as much time taking potshots at each other
as in improving their own products." I would expect
to see numerous references to emails, newsgroup
postings or web pages to back this up. Nothing at
all was given. He's telling the world, "open source
developers are 'X'", and giving no proof to back that
up. Accusing en masse is irresponsible. It's very
unfortunate he chose to do that and even more
unfortunate that he chose to do so without one stitch
of evidence.
o "Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch".
Once again, not a single example. There are tons of
features in KDE, OpenOffice.org, and even Slackware
(the "bare bones", "geek oriented" distribution) that
i guarantee the developers don't give two shakes
about. For example (note i am using an example...)
as a developer, i could care less that my software
has an installation program -- I am quite confident
in my use of the program "tar". There are a ton of
other examples James (like the support of "wizards"
in openoffice.org -- why would i need a wizard? I'm
the programmer and i'll just make it do what i want).
Start looking a little closer.
o "The posted responses ran in a couple of themes..."
Ahh... yes finally some real "evidence" to back up an
argument. Too bad it's only one example and it's
a personal account from a guy who obviously is biased
and therefore completely unobjective in regards to his
own correspondence. Bravo.
(Oh, and i'm eagerly awaiting James' next article -- "James declares Charles Darwin was a crackpot". Come on James, evolution is competition and evolution doesn't occur over a 2 week period... give it time you impatient little man
So is Steve any better? I think not. Steve makes no real assertions -- which is good because he doesn't have to back them up. But what kind of an argument makes no concrete assertions? A lousy one. I won't cite anything from that article because I'm getting bored, and I don't think I need to.
Basically guys, you've done the equivalent of the following:
"The universe is a bad place", By James:
1) It's dark.
2) It's full of bad people.
3) Coffee isn't free.
"The Universe is a good place", by Steve
1) I refute James' first point by agreeing, except
that sometimes you can find a star or two, so it's
light.
2) It's not full of bad people.
3) Coffee can be free if don't have to pay for it.
You've attacked a "whole", well more like an "enormously huge whole with wicked complexity" with all of the literary power of a haiku.
But this is a growing trend. "Articles" tend to be more and more like this. Everyone and their grandmother can write "articles" nowadays. Remember in the old days when you actually had to research first?
I hope you guys never had to defend a thesis. Now, please go to the corner and think about what you've done. Then after you've thought about it for a LONG time, put it down in an article.
Regards,
Derek
For what it's worth, every Linux zealot I've talked to can't remember the last time they used Windows, and wouldn't want to. Even if they do, they think it sucks.
It seems to me that the people who want Linux to overtake Windows on the desktop are those (like me) who are so used to MS DOS / Windows after using it for 20 years, and are finding it hard to do an instant migration. Instantly my difficulties in transitioning become "what's wrong with Linux."
I'm not a low-level C coder or anything spectacular, but I do enjoy fumbling my way through Gentoo and IceWM, trying to find the grail of replacing Windows, while still having fun with my OS and learning as much as I can.
I think that the people who want things to be "their way" are generally out of touch with what the underlying Linux community's goals always have been.
I could be wrong though. And as more people want to jump ship from Windows to Linux, I imagine that the sides will even out a bit, with a greater influx of novice Linux programmers.
I think something like _that_ would begin to influence the general direction of some projects. The fact alone that so many people want to ditch Windows anyway shows that some distros are trying very hard to make them very user-friendly.
But I find it hard to believe that was the goal of most long-term users/developers all along, or that it even is now.
Of course it's rowdy, noisy, and has filthy dark corners here and there. It's an open marketplace. All can come and haggle. Buy and sell. Argue politics, sex, and sports. At the end of the day the visitor can come away with knowledge and useful items.
Meanwhile in the cathedral down the street, it's quiet and clean. They'll take your "offering" at the door and then assfuck you.
acnosig
If you look at linux as opposed to OSX, where OSX developed a brand new somewhat consistent desktop in far less time then KDE/GNU existed, you can see some of the problems of open source (The open source model has some advantages too) One of the problems is that so many people work on it, it can be hard to get anything consistent. this
Look at configuration files for an example. A lot of programs use different formats for configurations, because the developers think there way is best and they're writing the code so its the way they want it. There is no linux boss telling people use X format for config files. This gives the linux distributions less of a conhesive feel than a OS that says "Config files will look like this.. love it of leave it"
This is why the linux distributions are so helpfull and its painfull to see them leave the desktop market(redhat/ suse etc..). They've been trying to pull everything together with setup tools and a consistent look.
As a newbie, the most difficult thing I find about Linux is knowing about the programs you need. Case in point, I've been trying for about 2 weeks to get DVD's to play in Xine with no success. Then by chance I happened to come across Ogle and about 30 minutes later (plus turning on DMA on my DVD-ROM) I was up and running. No problems whatsoever with the install unlike trying to get Xine to do it.
My point is that there's lot's of software for Linux to do whatever you want but the difficult part is knowing what the software is called and where to get it.
Shh.
This goes back a long way, to when I was using GCC on OS/2, and was having trouble with a GUI version of GDB called PMGDB. I emailed the author, and he sent me a fixed version the next day!
I was so impressed that I decided to give Linux a try.
I use linux and I don't have to. It's free and available to anyone who /wants/ it, just like it's supposed to be. I found linux all by myself when I was tired of windows, just like everybody else.
Patience, yeng one...
Yea, they do not fued with anyone else..SUN
.NET
Yea, they do not scratch the same itch..
Got Code?
When I read your post, this is what I really see:
So what? It's not my responsibility to write code for you. I write code for me, and release it under a license that happens to allow for other people to use it. Don't tell me what code I'm allowed to write and what I'm not.
Translates to:
So what? I don't like to hear complaints, because it reveals how inadequate the state of OSS is. I'm so insecure that when someone mentions a direction I should take, my foaming-at-the-mouth, reptilian mindset views it as a personal insult, as though somebody is wanting me to take responsibility for something, and I don't like responsibility. I'm selfish, and everything I do revolves around me. I contribute code, but expect people to never criticize it. Logically, if I didn't want to hear criticism, I would keep my code on my private network and never release it, but hypocrisy is a fundamental attribute of much of the OSS community.
So what? You have no right to tell me how I should be spending my time. Sure it's not the most productive use of it, but again, it's MY time. If you don't like it, go away.
Translates to:
So what? I take criticism of software so personally that I view it as dictation of my schedule. My completely anti-social, condescending attitude scares away scores of users, but that doesn't matter to me because I maintain a selfish attitude. I tell people to go away if they don't like what I do. Basically, I'm a big baby who can't handle criticism. Users care about results--I care about myself. And then I complain about the non-acceptance of OSS.
WTF? Scratch the wrong itch? Maybe I'm not scratching your itch, but see point 1. If you don't like what I'm doing, write your own. That's what I did when I wrote this software that scratches the 'wrong itch'. It scratched mine just fine.
Translates to:
Hey, if you point out a flaw in an application that is holding it back, fuck you! I wrote what I want. You're just the user, the person using my software, a pawn in my little world of self-control. I expect people to use stuff without question or criticism unless they're uber kernel developers who can contribute code at the drop of a hat. Otherwise, your opinions are meaningless to me, because I scratched my ITCH!
Against us? If you want to point out flaws and the people in the group don't appreciate it, you can take the code and apply your own patches and start up a distribution of that code. If the community agrees with you, then you'll be successful. If you end up being the only one who uses your new version, then maybe you're actually wrong about what you were doing and that entire community against you was actually that you were wrong and too dumb to realize it.
Translates to:
Write code, or shut up. You also can't criticize movies unless you make movies, stories unless you write replacement stories, football players unless you play better football, or music unless you're an expert guitarist. The most important feedback I could ever receive about software--the people using it everyday, end users--I choose to ignore in order to pacify my ego and mindset of being superior to people. And then I complain about the non-acceptance of OSS!
So? This really is the same point as Point 2. And the arguments are the same. So most of us don't like Microsoft? I don't think there are many that won't admit they do some stuff right, but that doesn't matter. It's my time, and I will do with it as I please. If you want to lead by example and convince people there's a better way, a high road, then please, by all means, do so. But telling people who write software that you can use at no cost and have full access to the source that they need to be doing things differently is about the most egocentric thing you could possibly say.
Translates to:
I answer everything with a question. What? Huh? And the ever-classic, WTF? I take it as a personal insult when someone dare
Regarding James Turner, PLEASE check the LinuxToday thread "Is Linux ready for Desktop".
In this thread they discuss two articles, one by aforementioned James Turner. Because James Turner's laptop's wireless adapter doesn't work with Linux, he came to the conclusion that "Linux is Not Ready for Desktop". When he was suggested that his conclusion is completely illogical, and non-sensical, he started jumping around, and suggested his opponents "To Grow Up". Apparently this article about Linux community is sort of continuation of this discussion.
Seems like this is James Turner who'll never grow up.
This is not about a Laptop, even.
It's about his not being able to play DVDs without obtaining the possibly illegal libdvdcss.so to play locked DVDs- or going over to lindows.com to obtain a "legally" licensed drop in solution available for all distributions, $5 for Lindows users, $35 for all other Linux distributions. Never mind that someone that wants DVD playback has to spend about $35-50 for a Windows player in the first place.
It's about his not being able to use the latest and greatest 802.11g card in the laptop, knowing full well that the vendor doesn't support Linux and that the only support for the device under Linux is an experimental reverse engineered driver and the unobtainable closed-source drivers that Broadcom and others made for their Linux based routers in violation of the GPL license grant (Something that everyone involved, including the FSF is trying to amicably sort out with the result being proper official drivers for the cards...).
It's about two simple things not working for HIM out of the box (both of which would have had to been fixed under Windows by adding an application and adding drivers not included in the raw OS install...), and thereby everything being utterly useless in the Linux world for him. I don't know about you, but that's kind of an egotistical and narrow view, if you ask me.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
First off, with a "problem" you also have to define the "goal" that this "problem" is hindering the achievement of.
We are * here.
We want to be --------> here.
The issue(s) stopping us is(are) whatever.
Right now, most of the Open Source stuff IS focused on the code.
That is what has resulted in such damn good code and the resultant security.
----------
Microsoft focuses on the "end-user experience".
As a result, they have some nasty security issues and really crappy code.
----------
So, given finite resources, would it be better to focus on the code or the "end-user experience"?
Again, that depends upon what your goals are.
How about we expand the pie a bit.
The developers can still focus on the code. That's what they do best.
The COMMERCIAL distributions can focus on making the interface prettier and marketing it.
That way, they don't impact the developers (goal - good code), but they still get the items needed to sell their product (goal - increased desktop share).
I've said before that I don't see anything wrong with a distribution focusing on ONE desktop and SINGLE apps. If this makes it easy for them to sell their product.
But I think we need to keep the distinction between developer's goals and distribution's goals (and the people in both groups).
Let each group do what it does best and don't claim that people from one group should stop what they're doing and work in the other group.
Objections?
I don't think there is anything wrong with the OS community. What happens is that the author didn't understand the dynamics of OS.
This is not a firm writing a software product and trying to minimize its cost. It is a huge self-organizing community where everyone does what he likes best, whatever that might be, and there is no central coordinating power to keep costs low or to keep redundancy out.
The beauty of it all is that it *works* and it does work surprisingly well. Most of the "objections" of the author are characteristics which make the community work better and more rationally if you admit the basic organizational axioms for this productive method, called by Benkler the "commons-based-peer-production".
I recommend everyone to read Benkler's paper
Coase's Pinguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm.
to understand better the intriguing nature of the OS Community.
I am also very disappointed with some of the responses on the #debian channel on OPN, and as a developer, it pains me to see this type of representation of the Debian project. Although #debian@OPN can be useful, I would limit your use of it to simple questions no longer than one or two segments in length. If you get flak, just leave the channel. It's not worth your time arguing with pedantic channel ops.
Rather than get beat-up on IRC, send a detailed message to debian-user. There are lots of knowledgable users and developers that lurk on the list who could possibly help you out. Plus, being verbose in email isn't generally frowned upon as long as people can get to the root of your question without reading a dissertation. The chanops in #debian@OPN are far less forgiving.
assert(expired(knowledge));
I am co-leader of an open-source project that has been going for about two years. Just after the code was released someone else started a very similar parallel effort. Our project had a more robust, extendable architecture while the other project supported more "devices". I even wrote a "bridge" to allow service providers from the other project to be plugged into ours. Then I sent an email to the other project leader suggesting we merge our efforts. Best of both worlds. While we remain on friendly terms, he wasn't interested, and I think it was fear of losing his role as sole lead developer/architect/leader. Of course, the "space" has suffered since developers have to choose between two frameworks each with strengths and weaknesses and often get confused. And it also dilutes the talent pool available to both projects.
But the real question is, what can you do? To be fair, the problem space is one that no commercial entity has decided it is worth entering, so in that regard you have to chalk one up for open-source.
The problem is, it's not uncommon to end up with two or three (or more!) different packages doing the same thing. For a specific example, look at what's happened with the Linux sound systems, where there are now several competing packages that have to be supported by each distribution
On with the whole "scratchy itch" point he is trying to make, Linux needs multiple projects that essentially do the same thing, and this type of development should be encouraged. This is one of the reasons why there are very few to none wide-spread vulnerabilities in software- plus some projects might be superficially the same, but might have different uses, performance issues, and the like. I don't know about you, but when I am looking for a MTA server, for example; I like the ability to choose between sendmail, qmail, et all..
This is not a bad thing..
....move along....nothing to see here....
Wasn't he overthrown after about 20 years by Chairman Mao?
What most people don't realize is that Mao was Hitler's stooge. In the 1930s Hitler and Stalin made a pact to partition eastern Europe between them. As part of that pact, Stalin instructed Mao to open a new front against Chiang Kai Sheck in order to help Hitler's ally, Imperial Japan.
That's not what I read in that artacle at all looks like his goal was to point out areas where the OSS movement could improve. a valid and usefull form of introspection.
you and the author of the second part of the artacle both have a point in regard to public debate but the purpose of this type of criticism is to expand on the negative aspects of a situation by exagerateing the scale of the problem it can be more closely examined.
My keyboads not woking popely.
Poor, poor, Rob Malda. :(
But when I write software, I write it for:
a) Myself
b) My employer
c) Other people that ask for a feature, or I know use the software
I'm not writing to replace windows, or even really for the benefit of the whole world (in the sense that I'm not trying to make a magic-button GUI app that satisfies everyone), I'm doing it for my own purposes. Nobody else should assume that those purposes necessarily match their own.
George W. Bush declares the United States a 'one-party nation' after coming to the conclusion that the multi-party system just wasn't allowing the nation to reach its full potential.
He said Linux was NOT ready for the desktop.
But there are MULTIPLE desktop markets.
The LARGEST is the corporate desktop. In this market you have dedicated support personnel, controlled hardware and software (ideally) and playing DVD's is NOT a requirement. Nor is 802.11g connectivity (see below).
A sub-category is the corporate laptop. Again, you have dedicated support personnel and controlled hardware and software.
He's is actually in a very, very small market. He is in The Home Laptop market. Your support is what you and your friends know and what info you can get from the vendor's support line. There is no control on what hardware or software that will be installed.
I see lots of problems on these machines. Our outside people treat their corporate laptops as personal machines (and we can't stop them under Windows) and they trash them regularly. All of a sudden, they won't shut down correctly (because they installed some stupid mouse pointer toy) and their VPN connection stops working (installed AOL to talk to buddies) and then it blue screens on boot and I have to search the Internet for the latest drivers.
Bite my butt!
Linux is ready for the CORPORATE desktop market.
Linux is ready for part of the HOME desktop market.
Until Linux hits 51% of the market, Linux will have problems with new hardware. That is simple economics from the hardware vendor's point-of-view.
For the betterment fo the whole human eco system, I don't mind at all, if both models exist. I think, they serve to keep each other honest. While duplication of efforts theoretically wastes resources, nature and human history suggest, that only competition and a multitude of differing approaches (differences at high level and/or in detail) create future-proof systems.
Therefore I want many closed source companies to do well, and many open source projects to do well, and many shareware and freeware projects to do well, and whatever other approaches there may be now and in the future.
In nature and in human history, things typically have gone really bad, when there was an absence of choice.
However, I think Open Source fundamentally has more potential for diversity, than closed source, therefore I really hope, that it will thrive.
Some people will claim that IRC is inherenly socially flawed because of the abuse of MODEs: "Give it up. IRC is not useful." Other people could claim that Debian should protect and moderate the channel on trusted servers on a trusted IRC network.
Does this reflect on the programmer community in Open Source or Free Software? Are we still in the same discussion, or has our tangent become a new topic?
I'm not so sure Debian's failure to deliver support on freenode #debian is a reflection on the community in general. I am not concerned about this thread being a troll thread any more, but let's be rigorous about the inferences we draw from the facts as we know/assume them.
Sometimes you just get what you pay for. This sort of problem is likely to happen in a proprietary closed-source system when you underpay for services that have no clear service levels guaranteed. I think this is a non sequitur in the problems/culture of free software community at large.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
On the other hand many OSS projects get along generally well and freely steal each others good ideas and code(e.g. FreeBSD and NetBSD).
I can't read the article right now as it has been /.ed, but judging from the comments it seems that you have helped his position. He says that the OSS population is imature. You didn't like a previous article he wrote, and therefore will not take any of his future point into consideration. Humans are not always right or always wrong. The stupidist of us can say the most brillant things while the most brillant of us can say the stupidest that it hardly behooves any of us to judge what is said based upon who said it.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Pretty simple idea:
o) Have a list of things OSS doesn't have
o) Have a list of things OSS has done to death and repeatedly perfected
Then some large company (ie red hat) pays developers to get on with the bits that aren't so much fun, but are needed. The second list also serves to redirect people who are wanting to start their own project to a similar one that's already half done and needs finishing.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I've been telling people this for years.
Sincerely,
Kirk
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
He implied they were rooms for improvement.
Major difference.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The poor bastards.
A passion for "what is right", a passion for logic and truth, an inward focus, fascination with knowledge and patterns, a passion for the quest, for the mission, a need for Truth and Justice, etc etc etc. This all describes marginal Asperperger's Syndrome, and it describes both myself and many of the open source community and the slashdot community....know thyself....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
It facilitates the production of both art and software, but hinders interpersonal interaction....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Commentators. There are far to many of them with far too little of real interest to say.
This is nothing new, it has all been said before and we are aware of these "problems".
Evolution is wonderful!
...if you have a few million years to spare.
If OSS ever wants to become a viable alternative for the "average" user, it isn't going to be by sitting around just waiting for monkey #483,373,029,309,029 to magically code the perfect desktop distro. Even Windows "power users" (like myself) have a hard time switching. I despise Microsoft, but will I switch to Linux? Nope. You couldn't get me to wade into that mess if you filled it full of Playboy bunnies. All the perks to becoming a Linux geek are outweighed by the headaches. Its just simpler, easier, and faster for me to deal with Windows. Yeah, I know its a piece of shit. But at least its a coherent piece of shit. Its just easier for me to live with Windows than try to learn to live with Linux. I don't feel like gambling on 'nix. I don't know how to stack the deck, and in the midst of becoming a graphical designer, I don't have the time to learn. So if I can't find a good reason to switch, what possible hope in hell does a Linux distro have of winding up on my parents computer?! The don't even know Linux exists, never mind finding a good reason to switch! The fact is that evolution, as well as the concept works for creating the "best" anything, is terribly slow. And patience, despite what you may have heard, is NOT a virtue in the 21st century. People want their stuff NOW. They expect it to work the first time and every time. Linux can't deliver that. A dictatorship (Windows) on the other hand, may not wind up with a very good end result, and it may only work 90% of the time, but at least it's available instantly and progresses relatively quickly. Striking a compromise (eg: Democracy) might be a way to speed the OSS "evolution" process up without sacrificing too much creativity. Unfortunatly, I can't imagine the Linux world agreeing on any sort of standards (see: rivalry argument), but it certainly would help. Infact, its probably your only shot at the Desktop market.
So until open source learns to act as a network instead of a puddle of primordial goo, I honestly can't see it becoming a mainstream anything. Sorry guys, but your geek revolution just isn't gonna cut it at this rate.
showering, maybe?
Yeah, here's a description of one particularly fanatical 'open-source supporter' (from PBS).
"If he was busy he didn't bathe, he didn't change clothes. We were in New York and the demo that we had crashed the evening before the announcement, and Bill worked all night with some other engineers to fix it. Well it didn't occur to him to take ten minutes for a shower after that, it just didn't occur to him that that was important, and he badly needed a shower that day."
Please step forward, Mr.Gates. But not too close.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
See what he thinks about X? I stopped reading right there.
Oh, wait...
getSexySig();
Oh, how terrible. those horrible open source developers aren't acting right. I guess we should just do what this anonymous writer says, I mean, he knows more than any of us do. While we're at it, can we set up a dictatorship of the proleriat, just so we have something communist set up for the MS basher bashers who get up on the soapbox too?
Hang on. <coughts>
A GREEDY CAPITALIST SPY STOLE MY IDEA, COMRADE!
Oh yeah. That's not bad.
It's been a long time.
Or as Buckaroo would ferociously point and cry, "EVIL!"
Yes. That about summs it up entirely, no mincing about. The war is on, and Mordor is at your doorstep. Where did I put my light sabre. . ?
-FL
Let me troll this just once, so listen good, you clueless bastards.
YOU are what is wrong with the open source community. Yes, YOU - all you assholes hanging out at Slashdot. YOU are what is wrong - you and His Rotundness RMS, that smelly fat hairy pig of a demagogue.
Programmers (their word for themselves, not 'developers', thank you) are the silent lot. They watch occasionally as you dipheads carry on, wondering how anyone can be so dumb as to hire you, so you can sit all day and masturbate at this decrepit forum with your disenfranchised brains and over-dimensioned egos. but generally, and it's very understandable, they have no opinion.
You, however, carry on and carry on, and YOU ARE THE WORST POSSIBLE PR for open source. Anyone coming into contact with you is IMMEDIATELY TURNED OFF to the whole idea. How could they not be? YOU are what they could look forward to in their new community - and how attractive is that?
There is only one solution, but genocide is a minor misdemeanour even today.
Am I the only one that started envisioning Itchy and Scratchy (of Simpsons fame) going at each other with saws and blowtorches wearing KDE and Gnome T-Shirts?
Okay, maybe I am the only one.
From the article:
.deb-based derivatives)
.deb's are pretty much universal. I can install Knoppix or Mepis and link straight to the Debian package sources, and everything pretty much "just works" when I do apt-get update / upgrade. Not so with suse / rh, which is one of the big reasons I won't go back to RPM.
> There's absolutely no reason for there to be more than two or three distributions.
--Um, right now off the top of my head we have:
o Debian (and
o Red Hat (and rpm-based derivatives such as SuSE, etc)
o Gentoo (and I should add Slackware, after double-checking here.)
--Those are the major families that come to my mind immediately.
--The reason for having distros like SuSE is that they took the RH model and did something a little different with it. Personally I preferred Suse 6.4 / 7.3 over RH's offerings at the time, and went with it. However that's NO EXCUSE for having incompatible RPM's.
--The beauty of Debian installs is that
--I agree that we could stand some merging of distros (Mepis could investigate merging with Libranet, for instance) but there are distros such as Suse that cater to a more European audience, and would never merge with RH - although they did get bought by Novell. What they *should* do is make all the RPM packages from here on work with any rpm-based distro, and concentrate on the value-added distro-specific tools (Mepis has it's own System Center, Libranet has it's Admin menu, Suse has Yast, etc.)
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
I've seen a lot of comments about how open source developers don't get paid, so they don't have any incentive to fix a certain feature or make a package easier to use.
Enter OpenSourceXperts.com, similier to Gnome's recent bounty hunt. Some people are willing to pay money for a feature, others are willing to develop it for that money. This place hooks 'em up.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
The "Open Source movement" can't be wrong if those who participate are having fun. If you're not having fun, then you're doing it wrong ;)
Controversial journalism can be a catalyst for discussion, change and improvement
I bet Per Abrahamsen is just flaming himself to try and get sympathy mods.. as surely no sane person could have really meant the above?
A lot of the article looks like trolling for clicks or to inspire an outrage in teh community, but from dealing with all types of users, I start to see where this is coming from. Half baked ideas, the want of it to 'just work' etc.. this is the view of the common non-technical end user.
not everyone using a computer can or wants to be a developer, technician, etc for other peoples machines, much less their own. They don't want to have to research for more than 5 minutes to find out if their next hardware purchase will work, if they research or buy at all.
How many people do you know have computers and just leave them alone, whose idea of upgrading is to buy a new machine. actually, there is a lot. It seems a lot of people have been blinded by the assumption that since they find replacing cards and memory and more simple and wasy, a large majority of computer users still see it as voodoo and beyond their understanding. look at any mid sized office and you'll find scads of those types. This is the market linux misses entirely.
One last part that kills linux for whole groups of people is the concept that you get what you pay for. If i'm consulting and someone says a job will require about 100K and 18 months and I can get it done in 4 months for 10K, they'll look at me like I'm a moron with no clue and obviously didn't do something right. If most spreadsheet programs are $100, and yours is free, well geez... it obviously isn't enough to even get on a store shelf. what kind of rinky-dink operation cranked out this thing. I won't even waste my time on it. Ok, i'm bored, I'll look. waitadamnminutehere! i have to download what else to use this? i have to modify what? whats debian? is that the new AIM client? Man, I just wanted to get a computer to do my home finances, check my mail, surf teh web a bit and watch some dvd's while the kids take up teh big screen.. screw it, i'm going back to windows.
Yeah, thats the attitude of the basic common user, and theres a HELL of a lot more of them than there are of you.
http://www.linuxgazette.com
/ lg_tips.html
e r.html
An example of their helpfulness:
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue95
Some quick words on why they WON'T help you:
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue95/lg_answ
It's really easy for someone to get annoyed and start with the "RTFM" when they're innundated by people looking to have someone else do their work for them.
I've always found Linux people to be very supportive and helpful. But then I try to be very specific about what I want to accomplish and what I've tried and what errors are popping up.
But I've also found most Windows people to be the same way. They're very helpful, provided that I'm clear in my goal and my previous attempts and the specific errors I'm getting.
I guess the difference most people see is that they need more help, initially, with Linux than with Windows. So it's easier to become frustrated when people who have, themselves, become frustrated tell you to "RTFM".
Zealots exist in both camps. The differences between the camps have more in common with religious debate than any debate based in cold fact. The level of vitriol and passion that the subject tends to embroil is consistent with people attaching a religious significance to their software choices. Even within the camps, various sect-like structures exist, and while these bicker continually, they are united in faith (read source-type) and will readily admit that they have much in common with the members of other sects, especially in view of the hordes of apostates in the other camp.
Apparently in the 21st century there are three things you don't discuss in polite company: polititcs, religion, and source-type.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Or, put another way, what is "right" supposed to be? Harmonious development teams working together? Producing One True Codebase? Taking over the corporate world? All of the above?
As others have pointed out, one would be hard-pressed to find any "closed" source market that doesn't suffer from the same points he lists. Firms/People compete, often have conflicting visions on how best to solve a problem, often duplicate effrots, etc., etc., So, strike the "Open Source" and replace with "Software Development" in the title.
Slightly offtopic mini-rant: articles like this only serve to highlight the current abysmal state of technology media reporting. Come on guys--spend some of that time you devote to rehashing simplistic opinions and poorly formed chains of login and try to dig up the next big thing in tech instead. Write something that's useful. Geez.
While I'm on the (off-)topic: better yet, if the people penning these screeds really are interested in promoting open source development and just have to keep writing op-ed's, as opposed to real investigative/background stories, they should start publishing coherent explanations of why corporate use of open source is a rational and economically wise strategy in today's business world, with arguments structured to effectively resonate with business decision makers, not technologists. So many technology decisions are won by the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, etc., due to an effective TKO--there's no one in the other corner with business credibility counter-punching, or, better yet, throwing the first punch.
(And before the counterstorm of protest on the above--ESR, RMS, Bruce, etc., are eloquent and knowledgeable. But the average CIO doesn't know them from Snoopy. Or worse, thinks of them as "those long-hair, arrogant, typical tech weenies". It sure ain't fair, but the head guys are going to need someone with demonstrated business street cred pitching the arguments for them to work effectively.)
OK, time for my medication...
Good thing he wrote it as an article, tho. Thats the only way anyone around here actually reads anything contrary to the zealot dogma.
I am prepared to be modded down for telling the truth.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Not enough young folk are included in the "traditional" venues so they form their own ad hoc coder groups which is partly normal because nobody but them can keep their pace. Yet the schools aren't adopting open source like they should because schools are still selling out to Microsad. "Can't fight against the youth." Indeed.
Inveigling. Yep that's a word. Too much "on the take" or proprietary software design is pissing off too many talented developers. Granted for the true open source enthusiast there's an acceptable amount of proprietary interface at the Application Layer a group may wish to utilize if they want to protect a substantial amount of their interests. The problem is some software like SuSE linux (8.1) or Redhat linux (Valhalla) gets too complicated for its own good. Not just too many bells and whistles but spyware everyone publicly denies is spyware like kde's .DCOP-server and aspects to ncurses.
In summary the ways and means to open systems technology like nfs, autoconf and cvs to name a few is getting old and younger strains of software both original and invigorating in scope are peaking around the corner to flush the crap down the drain so to speak. Ultimately those youth who communicate their development deeds via the Web means more /. sites! Yea!
Seems like most of the posts are rather in line with what the author of the article expected. He's not saying that the Open Source Community is a waste. He's trying to help you guys (developers and power users) see why just about everyone else doesn't use Linux (or the plethora of other OS's). The OS isn't the problem, its the people. I tried installing and using linux (mandrake) in an attempt to prove that you can simply use it as a desktop environment and not specifically to be a server or workstation. And generally, what I found was that Linux is a few steps behind the convenience (and thats the key word) of Windows. You can cry about how much Windows crashes, or how expensive it is, or how it can't do "X." But to a rather basic user, its right up there alley. I don't want to mess with emacs, or command lines, or binaries (not anymore at least). I want to watch movies, listen to music, play all kinds of media, play games, and search the web and get e-mail. Windows does that, and it doesn't seem to have too many hangups (at least xp is pretty solid).
I tried doing those things in Linux, but its always one of those things that I had to complete 10 more steps simply to install a part of the system that would allow me to install the next part. And in some cases I would be trying to do things that were so basic to using linux that most websites gloss over it. Any time I would ask people online (message boards, etc.) I got unhelpful responses or rather vague answers. Thus, I got tired of being forced to do things that seemed so far away from enjoying my movies and music.
You can write me off as a "luser" or n00b, but people like me will decide the growth of open source projects. I would love to see Linux (or some other open-source OS) flourish and take over the earth. Linux is downright brilliant in concept, and But its obvious that there are some significant barriers to that goal, and most of those barriers are of an internal nature.
Every time I look at linux I just marvel at the complete lack of innovation. Often it seems developers just try to copy products to a tee without making the slightest attempt to improve what is wrong with them. It seems that open source is in the business of making MS clones of products and not really developing anything that great. I will always be willing to pay for software from companies that innovate instead of open source which just follows.
What's wrong with the open source community?
Er, nothing much. We're doing fine, on the whole. Our only potential weakness is laws that make open source a crime (DMCA, EUCD, etc).
A couple of the rebuttals Suehring provides to the points in the article boil down to "The more choice, the better, because in the end the market will decide which choices survive."
Problem is, the people making buying decisions can't wait until "in the end" to make their purchases. They need solutions NOW, and there's too much risk in choosing from upteen different Linux distributions if (umpteen-2) of them are likely to be defunct in a few years.
RTFM
What I see wrong with the opensource community is that the developers, at times.. think too much like developers and what they only see as fit for a common desktop user.. people bash kde and gnome to death, saying they suck, and tel you to use a nice simple wm like blackbox, or waimea.. or something someone from windows isnt familiar with..
my issue is the attitude with the whole desktop setup for linux.. the developers think of what they would want in a desktop (except the developers behind kde and gnome.. they're hitting it pretty much on the head)
but a lot of distribution makers, when they create a desktop system.. they just pop in gnome and kde.. then they include hundreds of apps you'll never use.. and documentation that only techies can really understand. This is why linux cant hold ground in the desktop yet
instead.. they put more eyecandy into things and hope it sells iself..
wont work.. you gotta create a system that works well for the common user.. it's not like you're going to use it yourself.. that's another thing I get off of people.. they go on like THEY have to use the system, so they bash the idea or distribution that has been made easy because it's a "n00b" system..
thing is.. you want a "n00b" system because that's who you're trying to attract.. people who are new to linux.. you need a system with the bare minimum
installed..
another issue with some desktop linux systems, is the fact that they're usually based off of one of the bigger systems, like redhat or mandrake, and use rpm.. which doesnt offer change nor innovation.
You use that same argument when trying to sell OSS solutions to major customers?
CIO: "I don't like this aspect of [whatever]."
Me:"Yepp. That's a real issue. That's what you're paying me 5000 Euro for me to fix it. And not 30 000 Euro for a single CPU license plus 5000 Euro for me to fix it."
CIO:"Yeah, I see. Besides, that other thing realy does suck compared to this OSS stuff, just like you told me. We're actually dropping [fill in hideously overpriced crappy commercial software here] entirely and have a little freelancer team rebuilding the frontend for [fill in groundbreaking free OSS solution with strange UI here] to our needs. But we need x and y to work that way aswell."
Me:"Well, there's a Mister Z who's working on a GPLd solution to that. I recall he needs some funding. We could get him in to the project and have him focus on that specific problem."
CIO:"Gee, yeah. And that could actually be a new product and service we could offer to our clients."
Me:"Yepp. We could sponsor the projects devservers too. We could call it [CIOsCompanyName-FlashyProjectName] and we'd have standard with your name attached to it in no time."
CIO:"Sounds interesting. Market multiplying for free, sort of."
CIO/Me *grin*
CIO:"Write me an estimate on what that would cost in Euros and time, broken down in weeks and required staff, ok? You can bill 6 extra developer hours for that."
Me:"OK, Sir."
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1.) Standards for simple everyday stuff While diversity in implementation is good, certain things simply need to be agreed upon community-wide:
2.) Enterprise database software This is the "killer-app" for nearly all businesses and should be the prime focus for those who want to see F/OSS on the corporate desktop. Trouble is, we don't have a good F/OSS enterprise-class application server! Forget cheesy PHP/MySQL apps. Forget Zope and other web application frameworks. That software has it's place, but it's not up to the task of hard-core database apps. We need something as powerful as J2EE, but without the steep learning curve, alphabet soup of acronyms, sketchy documentation, closed standards, and dependance on proprietary Sun code. Yes, I am aware of JBoss (open-source, non-official J2EE implementation), but it still has the issues listed above. Either a completely F/OSS JRE/JVM/JDK software stack needs to be written or else a completely new application server standard needs to be invented, perhaps using ObjectiveC or Python. GNU Enterprise (www.gnue.org) has a start, but that project seems to be stagnant and uninspired.
3.) More professional developers Simply put, the F/OSS of greatest quality is usually developed by people who are being paid to meet needs. There are plenty of viable business models and market opportunities. Hobby projects won't cut it. If you want F/OSS to succeed, you need to do your part in the marketplace.
i think what causes argument and confusion is that there is no 'goal' of the open source community. everyone who considers themself a member will have a reason for 'belonging'. a lot of members will have similar reasons, a lot of members feel that there 'should' be a goal and become frustrated when they see the consequences of the lack of one unifying goal orientated development process.
smaller groupings of members, whether individuals or organisations have their own goals, often commercial and of course they would benefit from the whole community deciding to commit themselves to that objective. but the community doesn't.
as i write i wonder if the word community isn't itself misplaced if there isn't one overall unifying destination for all its members, but then i think that perhaps the dissimilarities of licences such as the bsd and gpl instances to those of microsoft et al do define an identifiable grouping or community.
back to the article: i couldn't help feeling that the first writer has the goal of 'linux on the desktop for all' or whatever, and the second a goal of 'linux on my desktop the way i like it'; of course they disagree, the first was speaking to the lack of community participation by those currently microsoft bound, perhaps at the bottom of the tech-savvy curve, the second was saying the current members are quite happy as they are thankyou every much!
both potentially true!
'open source', 'free software' use what terms you will, these refer to a development process and/or to an ideological attitude to intellectual activity. abstract concepts such as these do not have goals, merely consequences, or implications. people have goals, and people are different, contrary and sometimes downright irrational.
i like the idea of a community/arena blah blah that encompasses the whole range of human idiosyncracies, it may not appear to be moving in one unified direction but i believe that when something matters enough, and when people have the freedom to act, folk mostly do the right thing, indeed looking at the past decade or so, perhaps folk already have! it's that pesky little 'freedom to act' phrase that matters, i see an allegory between my description here and the wider world of social and polictical engagement (or lack of it), but there my navel beckons so i'll stop.
Executive Summary: What's Wrong wtih the Open Source Community? Too much Freedom!
Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
Freedom of choice is bad. Force the developers to work on what you want, not what they want.
Open Source developers love a good feud.
Freedom of expression and opinion cannot be tolerated. Make everyone follow the party line, which, by the way, I get to make up.
In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
The freedom of the developer to make his or her own decisions about the code that they created is stupid. I guess the author's motto is "you're either with me or against me."
The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder?called Microsoft
Okay, so he's not demanding a reduction of freedom for this one, but he's still wrong. This "chip on the shoulder" may be indicative of Slashdot and some of the more vocal advocates, but I simply don't see it among the developer community.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What does he have to do with the tech world? Are you referring to the outrageous efforts by the RIAA to control our media content? ....we might as well cut off our ears and mail them to Hilary Rosen (or her successor). She just about owns them anyway.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I can see both sides of the argument. I read both articles and the entire time I heard myself mumbling "Yeah, thats true".
I've noticed that 99% of open source programmers are rational, inteligent humans, but put them in a group and create a riotous frenzy.
Our mantra should be something like:
DON'T BETAMAX LINUX!
*Note: For those too young to know or remember. Betamax was a better implimentation of a home video recorder, but dealt with bad marketing, and other issues. Better technology vs better marketing (Overly Simplified)
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
One of the strengths of Linux is that there are many organisations prepared to come behind it. Many more so than Microsoft, after all who but Microsoft can support their kernel?
Now add lack of management and hyper-inflated egos to the mix and you'll get it all.
is not documentation.
'Nuf said
Still, I have some complaints with the open source community that the author missed:
1. There is no central mechanism for routing feedback. If there was a web site where users could complain about ALL open source software, and vote for complaints (think Transgaming), Open Source software would be better.
2. The open source community should have another web site for matching volunteers' skills to ALL open source projects (think Distributed Proofreaders).
3. Generally open source authors are not innovative enough. Most user-level free software is written in response to already existing commercial software. (If anyone can suggest new open source software that is both innovative and useful, please respond).
I see. This then appears to describe Mandrake. You either use the GUI (MandrakeUpdate) or simply run urpmi at the CLI and it does the rest, with an explicit OK if you want to really do what it takes to install X (meeting dependencies without making you explicitly select each and every one for install).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Hmmm. And what are they buying? What are they actually risking?
If you make decisions based on having to do it RIGHT NOW, you certainly run the risk of making the wrong decision, no matter what that decision might be.
This is not a one size fits all situation, each distro has specific goals and targets, if you don't know what those are you'd better find out before making a choice. Might even learn something in the process.
I read the article and found both sides weak. Turner's weak arguments answered with weak rebuttals, which though sufficient, didn't really address anything.
Anything is possible given time and money.
The rebuttal was kind of stupid because it was comparing closed source to open source, yet the original article wasn't comparing the two, it was just pointing out problems with open source.
1. Too many developers "scratch the same itch."
This is excellent that there is all this itch scratching. It makes the community strong because we travel many roads and only decide to use them when they get somewhere interesting. And since its free for the most part, we don't lose much trying it out.
The writer also says there is a problem with the huge number of distros. That's honky. If you aim for the linux standards base target, you'll be fine. If you use an X Toolkit that works on gnome and KDE, you'll be fine. If you statically link in the libraries you use, or at least include dynamic versions of your library in your download/install CD that can be installed localally at configure time, you'll be fine. If you use automake, autoconf, and autotool, you'll be fine.
And there is PLENTY to gain from the huge number of distros. All of them do slightly different things. RedHat? Lots of doc, big company
supporting you, pretty easy configuration. Mandrake? Readhatlike, more community supported, more graphical installers, etc. Knoppix? In and working in 5 minutes, with less than an hour to
install. Debian? Quick to keep updated, powerful, and idealogically sound. Suse? Super internationalization support, great for that computer that's being used in Europe or India. Slackware? You want to get used to normal unix administration, as it was in the early nineties. Gentoo, up to date, and quick as the wind. So on and so forth.
2. Open Source developers love a good feud.
All developers love a good feud. Commercial software however is owned by someone, so they make a decision which side wins the argument, then its done that way, with the other way usually forced to be forsaken. This is what happens in almost any arena when there is no standard for entry (such as getting a PhD in academic communities) or authority (such as a boss in a commercial company)
3. Open Source developers often scratch the wrong itch.
He claims we don't code for the users. We actually code for power and customizability more than intutiveness and low-emmersion use. So? That's one of the things that makes many people LOVE this stuff. Then again, I think it would be an EXCELLENT contribution to almost any project to make quick and easy frontends to hairy processes, a la anaconda for installation of redhat. Then again, I don't really feel like it....
4. In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
I think that often people forget that they can't abuse the programmers in free software world. They assume that if they request features and the like, they can get them, as a manager can "request" features in a company and will get them. Often, when you critisize a work in the OSS world, you're going to be badmouthing something that was partially constructed as an ego-fix. That's one of the prices you pay for software developed for free.
Then again, if you say how you love feature XY and Q, but it might be easier to do Z if steps 1,2, and 3 happened, you might inspire the original author or another author to make a tool/frontend/helpfile/change that will do 1,2 and 3 for you. OSS reverses the normal hirearchy of programmer to customer as far as power goes, take that into account, and you'll go far.
5. The Open Source Community has a huge chip on its shoulder...called Microsoft
Yup. Microsoft is a bitch. Some of their software does cool things, but they also do much "their own way" due to their highly insular culture, and as a result, they do things "the wrong way". This pisses off people who have an appreciation for software as art or just people who want to get work done. Then there are the counterculture posers. They don't like MS for the pleasure of hating the mainstream.
This is one of the writers least empty points. I'd point out to most people that there are MANY uses for PC's around the house, especially ones that cost less that $400 total.Most people think that will cost around $1000 to add a PC to do somethiing neat, countin
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
There's also a decent rebuttal with this story as well - worth reading.
Come now, could we perhaps see an editorial addition noting that something isn't worth reading, just once in a while?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The same motivations that drove van Gogh play a part in driving some open source software developers......
Therefore, art approximates open source software
eat shiat and bark at the moon
as one united front, so that we can accomplish my goals:
(pick one)
[ ] destroy microsoft
[ ] create great software
[ ] build the best IRC client *EVAR*
[ ] bring computing to everyone
[ ] beat up this one really annoying guy
It's ironic but apropos that this essay only talks about the "Open Source" movement which dismisses software freedom and embraces practical development methodology in an attempt to talk to businesses. All of the interaction and software development occurs when people have the freedoms of Free Software (and other freedoms too, such as free speech). People will fight over technical aspects of programs, development strategies, and people will reinvent the wheel. But it's how people have worked since time immemorial in virtually every field of endeavor. These debates reinforce the importance of being able to express ourselves freely (and championing these freedoms widely).
Digital Citizen
those 3 things are what is killing the open source community.. pure and simple. i want to be able to put in Halo, Neverwinter nights, and 50 other video games in the CD-ROM and it starts or either i hit install and it installs. same thing with Maya, any Adobe product, or anything other software package i want to run. thats all the work that i want to do or should have to do. when i want to watch a movie, i want to pop the DVD in and for the movie to start. no ifs, ands or buts..i dont want to look for drivers, libraries etc etc. i like linux and windows, but lets face it, all this i say is true. The slashdot community is a small SMALL percentage of most of the computer users out there. So what if they get the blue screen every once in a while and so what if the machine locks up every so often. You know what most users do? they reboot and 2 minutes later they are back on and everything works. In short, most users would rather reboot then spending 30mins+ looking for libraries, drivers, etc etc and figuring out how to install them, pre-compile them and all that crap. Oh yeah and cant forget the broadband spectrum...with the rise of broadband more prevalant, Windows again shines. when you plug in your ethernet card in your laptop, or set up a router at home(or set up a LAN) you want the card to recognize the network, you want the other computers to be online, no downloading, installing, compiling.. no no, you want it to work and work then and THIS my friends is what most computer users' attitudes are. like it or not, this is fact.
First, we have automatic packaging. It's called 'apt', and it's in debian. Gentoo also has 'emerge', and I've heard good things about Mandrakes 'urpmi'.
Next, the Unix way of doing things is fundamentally different than windows. The CLI is a great example, but since you'd write that off as "another lecture", lets talk about window managers and X. There are a large number of window managers that don't work anything like windows. AFAIK windows still doesn't provide virtual desktops. There is no equivalent to a dock in windows. And there is no 'windowshade' mode in windows. X itself is also fundamentally different than windows, case in point, network transparency. This is a fantastic feature, which windows doesn't provide, though it could be a little better. So IMO the linux GUI is better than windows.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Damn, now that's *truly* insightful.
RTFM -- there's nothing wrong.
Now go away.
There are a lot of criticisms here, and maybe some are valid. Great. Look at how keenly the open source community (that includes all of us slashdotters, in one way or another) embraces the discussion of its own weaknesses. Maybe we're sometimes sensitive about it. Great. It's because we ACTUALLY GIVE A DAMN!
More power to this self-critical community. We can handle criticism from anywhere, because no-one heaps it on higher than we do to ourselves.
That rocks.
But when you're a new Windows user, there are all kinds of people you know who have already been through the learning curve.
Not to mention that the machine you have probably already has Windows installed with all the toys working. You don't have to do much to work with your machine.
When you're learning Linux, it's more likely that you're the first one of the people you know and you'll be installing it on your machine.
Plus there are issues that you never had to deal with under Windows. The previous example had a problem where a symlink wasn't provided by the library package. This is something that Windows users have NEVER had to deal with. It's a completely foreign concept.
Linux User Groups (LUG's) can be a lot of help for the new Linux user.
But the biggest problem is learning a completely different operating system. Like you said, it is a step by step process.
I don't recommend that people take up Linux unless they have a friend willing to help them through the rough spots. Or they really feel confident that they can read a few books or take a class and do it on their own.
Unless they buy a pre-installed machine. Then I believe that anyone who can handle Windows can handle Linux.
Huh.
...) programmers who also were all dig in the dust with newer, and newer Visual Studio releases? In every new Windows release, or every new Visual Studio release we could see a new ideas locking mechanism, which they prepared for the rest of us. And these newer versions also had built-in stopping mechanisms to older technical methods favored in earlier releases.
Without Open Source software too many people wouldn't had a chance to participate in software development. In all monopolistic views only developers employed by the Monopolistic companies could do that. All others could be only application users.
Do you think that it would be possible to survive in battle using MS products? They had a too many breaks in ideas, which they promote. Only developers employed by the MS could know what's in next we could do. And they had an unfair advantage against rest off us.
Who can remember of an advanced MS DOS application programmers who were all dig in the dust of newer Windows products? Who can remember of an advanced Visual C++ 1.x (or 2.x, or Visual Studio 2.x-5.x,
This is a really danger which tend to make technical slaves from all of us. We only had a chance if we help Open Source Software to survive. If we don't do it, we had lost our and our child's jobs chance.
We couldn't all live and work in Redmond. Or for Redmond.
None of his points are valid or even close to being reasonable.
My god, look at all the Microsoft ads on it, should give you a clue (cuz the editor of that article sure didn't have one).
I love the "microsoft windows services for unix"...
Uh, just which unix are they talking about? Must be SCO... eeesh
the guy has no clue what the hell he's talking about, yes, if posted here, it'd be modded down into oblivion. It's all wrong, totally off-base.
it's flame-bait, and trolling at it's lowest.
I mean come on, get a clue. sheesh. He's obviously been paid by M$ to say that stuff, to try and pump SCOs stock. ugh. I hate the FUD machines!
Yup, there are usually restrictions based upon legacy applications that contain business data and/or logic.
We're currently looking at handling these via Citrix and moving to web-based systems.
His point would be more accurate if he said that Linux was not ready for the desktop because of those specialized, legacy apps.
But that would lead to the statement that Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, but not all corporations are ready for Linux on the desktop.
Yes/No?
If you wrote REALLY GOOD documentation. So good that other people at other projects asked you to help with their documentation.
Or if you did REALLY GOOD testing. So good that the developers would get your sign-off before releasing "stable" versions of their code.
And so on.
It's possible, but you have to put in a lot of effort and be really good at it.
But I don't think that many non-developers will be inclined to do so.
www.linuxgazette.com
Look up The Answer Gang. They don't have the recognition that Linus or Alan do, but their names are known because of their tech support.
Something is only wrong with the Open Source community if you are an outsider trying to use it to make money or save money using Open Source code. Otherwise the Open Source community is just what it is-a bunch of programmers who share their work, and often collaborate, simply because they want to. It's very self-serving, but that's ok, because for the most part, the Open-Source community isn't pushing the rest of the world to give Open-Source any special privilige.
If China has changed, it's only been in the past few decades -- thanks largely to peace and a moderate Communist regime.
Troll.
June 4, 1989, was hardly the act of a "moderate" regime.
deus does not exist but if he does
Fuck you, Slashdot.
/. grumbled at me about being unable to process it, and my being behind a firewall (I think my session expired, I'd been writing all day during free moments at work, but then how did even Preview work? No clue what the firewall has to do with anything).
I actually did set that to "plain text" the first time I posted it, all nicely paragraphized. Hit the Preview button to make sure it looked right. It did!
Then
So I copied, pasted, re-posted. It grumbled about me not taking 20 seconds between "reply" and "submit" (and also mentioned the firewall again, who knows why). Sweet holy mother of fuck, that's annoying.
So I posted it a third time, with a nice long wait, and forgot to switch from HTML to text.
And according to community dogma, that's entirely my fault. (Well, I should have hit Preview!)
THIS is precisely what's wrong with the open-source community in general, at least the face of it -- and yes, the face does matter, regardless of what's underneath. A perfectly profound example, far better than the rambling explanations of my first post. Thanks for that, um, maybe?
Unless all you want to do is email, surf and write letters.
:)
While this may be 50%+ of what most home users do, there is still the issue of games and new hardware, like you mentioned.
I'm still convinced that Linux will take over the corporate desktop before making major headway into the home market. And that all comes down to commercial demand for Linux drivers.
Once hardware vendors have to support Linux to get any corporate sales, we'll see an explosion of Linux drivers for hardware.
Once the hardware is supported, the home user will have that obstacle removed.
Then we will start seeing more games and junk programs on the store shelves.
Well, that's the way I see it. I could be wrong.
re: spyware
I'm waiting for the flood of spam offering Linux services and crap.
****LEARN KERNEL OPTIMIZATION AT HOME*****
SEcRETS OF THE DEVELOPEERS!!!!!
$$$MAKE BIG MONEY WITH LINUX AT HOME$$$
ADV: WEBCAM HOT NAKED COEDS INSTALL DEBIAN
SINGLE WOMEN IN YOUR AREA $9.95/minute ANSWER YOUR LINUX QUESTIoNS!!!
.... of private companies trying to make a buck out of OSS.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You know, what's sad is not just oyur fundamental misunderstanding of of the evolution theory, but you misapplication of it to the current situation.
You are one of the (many) unfortunate fools who confuse a viable current business model (MS) with a future business trend. I'll bet you even have a pension and life insurance. Do you read the small print? Do you understand it ?
Oh well. History always has the last say....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Too much free beer. That's what's wrong, that is.
Just one look at the penguin after a few lagers and you know exactly what I mean.
Do you? See? That's the problem.
(If you don't get it, why not grab a cool one and join the discussion?)
Disclaimer: 100% sober posting - and that's what's wrong with it.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
One thousand, one hundred and sixty-nine
I added all the numbers from the description, and I got 1172. Someone want to confirm?
Speaking of software, the H1b visa program is great, and if anything is too restrictive.
There is NO good reason to stand in the way of individuals who can do the job better from getting rewarded for this..... even if they are "brown" people so hated by the racists who oppose free-and-fair trade.
Seeing the situation as "duplicated effort" is too simplistic. There is structure behind the apearance of chaos. One or two leading implementations, many also-rans, and a continuing fizz of new and abandoned efforts. Popular generalists, niche but viable specialists. This is exactly the sort of structure you'd expect from an evolution-like process. Far from being wasted effort, it's highly effective, both at fulfilling everybody's needs, and at keeping the lead competitors on their toes.
WTF?
MY fundamental misunderstanding? Where in my post did I write a detailed explanation of evolutionary principals?? Really, please point it out because I must have typed it while I was sleeping or something.
And while we're on the topic, would you mind highlighting the section of my article where I claimed Microsofts business model will be viable well into the future? Because i'm not seeing ANY of those things. Ironic that you should mention "reading the small print" when you yourself are apparently incapable of reading regular sized text. I could photocopy my post and blow it up for you if you'd like. Is poster size ok?
What I said (in a nutshell) is that the current chaotic evolution of Linux is never going to become mainstream. To appease the masses you need to set standards and create rules for your product. You need focus towards a common set of goals before you can make timely progress. Fact is, not many people are capable - nevermind willing - to dig through the endless libraries of 'nix crap to find what they need. But since rules and standards are against the very principals of open source, I can't see that happening. Got it?
"Moderate" is very relative.
They can't code.
I wonder what the author is trying to say. The "open source movement" just is. People are free to use it or not, people are free to contribute it or not. When I first started using Linux, I recall that Linus didn't really care if people used it or not, he created an alternative for himself and put it out onto the net to share his work around. (I'm not saying this was the start of the movement, but it was a defining moment)
If there is a problem with the "open source movement", it is that we forget why it came into being in the first place. To give us a choice. It didn't need to be huge, it didn't need to be well thought of, it didn't to be used by fortune 500 companies, it just had to be there.
And I say to you James Turner and your 5 points, and to Steve Suehring with your 5 rebutals...so what?
"Look at the automotive industry, can you imagine if all the cars ran on gasoline but Chevy's needed one brand of gas and Ford needed another brand of gas and so on? You would have to carefully plan your trips to make sure the right gas stations were at the right locations so you could get you specific brand of gas. This would lead to a lack of competition among gas companies (what competition there is now) and more outrageous prices without any method of check to see if the cost is justified."
The petrol in the cars is more akin to the CPU under the hood... you've got Unleaded/Diesel fuel(AMD/Intel) which dictates the type of engine (motherboard) that the car (Computer) needs to use.
After this though, cars may do the 'same' thing, but they do it in any one of a number of ways... different ways of steering (steering assist, power steering, drive by wire, old-world rack and pinion), different suspension methods, different sound systems, different seats.
Same for computers... you've got your basic building blocks there and you can whack in different hardware and software bits to make it do things in different ways, but with the same end goals.
You've used a flawed analogy that doesn't help anyone understand anything better.
To my knowledge, only one closed-source program currently plays Real Media. I also believe that only Windows Media Player plays wmv, though I could be wrong about that. Programs that attempt to solve the problem the right way somehow go wrong -- xmms is an order of magnitude faster than WinAMP (subjective opinion).
There are open source things that suck, like OpenOffice. Yet you still have two other choices, by your list.
But here's the good part. xmms plays pretty much any format I throw at it, even if I have to install yet another plugin -- and it's _fast_. It loads faster than my IM client, which is saying something. Then there are commandline utilities.
mplayer and xine both seem to support any video I throw at it. In fact, I can only see people using xine for an actual DVD -- everything else I just pop open a console and type "mplayer ". And mplayer is fast enough that with a playlist of movies, there's sometimes serious doubt in my mind as to whether to bother trying to feed it to one instance of mplayer, or launch it over and over again -- because mplayer starts in about half a second.
And even where there are too many projects, they are almost all good. Mozilla is too big and too slow -- but Galeon, Konqueror, Skipstone, Firebird, and even Epiphany all seem very fast and reasonably full-featured.
In some places, there is only one real option, and it seems a real benifit -- for example, aside from numerous rarely-heard-from individual IM clients, there's Gaim, which supports every IM protocol I've ever tried (aside from bolt.com's chat).
Yet how can I complain when, if I want to get myself an email client, I can get thunderbird, balsa, evolution, or even pine, and have them all work amazingly well?
And in some places, there are clear winners. DNS, for example, has djbdns. Although many people still use BIND, the truth is, one developer can write one tiny program that is a usable product.
As a user, then, this argument is moot. As a developer, it's considerable. Do I contribute to GNOME? KDE? Enlightenment? Of course, what we really need is a big enough user base to select clear winners, instead of vague "good things".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
People I know spend 50% of their at-home computer time surfing and reading mail and such.
The rest is spent playing games and such.
That means that Linux won't move into the home market until Linux gives those people what they want for the 50% of their time that isn't email, surfing, etc.
Games.
Yup. Microsoft is going to try ever trick it can to stop corporate deployments of Linux desktops.
Oh, I should include governmental deployments in that category, also.
Personally, I don't think Microsoft has a chance. It will be a long, bitter battle. But the economics just aren't there.
WinXP offers nothing for the end user that wasn't available with Win95. Microsoft has hit the wall in desktop "innovation".
Now it is all about software patents and crap like that.
"What's wrong with the open source community":
1. We don't get laid nearly enough. For some reason, chicks don't seem to dig us (or at least, me).
2. We don't get paid nearly enough. IT is in a shambles, and will be for a while yet. Sigh...
3. People look down on us because instead of watching senseless, pointless games like football, we play senseless, pointless games like Doom -- the thing that would improve MY life 100% would be for the bar-going, sports-snarfing public to suddenly realize, "Hey! Watching 22 grown men bump into one another ISN'T more mature than playing video games!"
4. People just don't seem to get the fact that programming is an art. They still treat us like a bunch of low-skill manual laborers.
Sigh...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Yeah, but the political executions and imprisonments continue. The current leadership are the ideological children of the old guard -- if it wouldn't stuff up their business interests they'd happily kill a few million to remain in power. Power moderated by greed; still, I guess it's better than it being moderated by nothing at all...
deus does not exist but if he does
Er, I didn't write that reply. I don't agree with you, but I also don't insult people like that.
Time to change my password, I think...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I am constantly reviewing the MP3 players for Linux.
1. Xmms: stable, good plugins, no real theme support, Alsa implementation is lacking.
2. Zinf: unstable, good design but also no theme support like newer Win-amp versions, Alsa also lacking, Programmers can't decide how to continue
3. AlsaPlayer: good design but lacking important features.
Should I continue with the Video players? The OS-developers start from new every time, don't re-use, have no processes and sometimes no clue how to program.
If you don't belive me I can prove it!
I lost my trust in Open Source and I only keep to Linux and it's tools because I am a fanatic.
China has been a world power for thousands of years. It reached a low point in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Wrong. China has been a nation for thousands of years, but it's hardly been a world power. China's influence outside of its own borders has been minimal until very recently. Why do you think the West ended up rediscovering or reinventing things a couple of thousand years after China did? If China was a world power all this time, the West would have simply taken those inventions.
Of course this was partly their choice (China being quite xenophobic at times), but compared to the British, French, Romans, Russians, and even the Mongols and Nazis, they have never been a world power in the sense of making other countries quiver beneath their mighty conquering armies.
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
... the bitter rivalries over vi and emacs, ...
;-)
:g/RE/s//.../ command. Or laboriously moving stuff around in a file that could be done with a single :'a,'b!whatever command. Sometimes this can be painful to watch, and I'd really like to stop them and teach them a few tricks. But usually there's a fire to fight, so I don't unless they ask.
This is an excellent example of why I think that such rivalries are for the benefit of all of us.
Early on, I went with the vi side of this one. And I learned to look for the vi/emacs flames. Why? Because they were usually of the form "Emacs can do FOO; vi can't." The replies would often include a description from a vi expert of just how to do FOO. My reaction would be "Hey, I didn't know vi could do that; now I know how."
As with most software, both both vi and emacs have documentation that, quite frankly, sucks. Yeah, there is good stuff for the rank beginner. But the really powerful stuff is usually only mentioned in passing, if at all. The only good way to learn it is from other people who have somehow learned it (or stumbled onto it).
One of the disappointment in recent years has been the death of some of these flame wars. This means that newbies no longer have a good way of becoming power users of such tools.
Very often just asking how to do something doesn't work; you just get RTFM. But if you claim that tool X can do a job but Y can't, Y's supporters will try to tell you what an idiot you are, and in the process, some of them will answer the question. So you thank them and proceed to get your job done.
Sometimes you have to put up with offensive characters. There's an excellent example over in the perl community. One of the prime movers is Tom Christianson, who is known as a very abrasive and insulting character, especially to newbies. But, while being abrasive, he almost always answers the question. And usually with very good answers. So he is tolerated and respected for his contributions. (And the rest of us quietly send apologetic email to his victims.
I've often sat watching people laboriously going through a document with some editor (occasionally emacs or vi), doing a lot of work for what to me would be a simple
Anyway, in my mind, the public debates over such things are one of the real strengths of the hacker/OSS community in general. If you stifle this, you'll reduce our effectiveness to the primitive level of a corporate development environment.
It does help if you can learn a bit of tolerance.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Let's face it no club wants large numbers of people who don't do anything.
The reality is of course more complex because people contribute in lots of other ways with regard to the whole society (all projects rather than a particular one). Be it money, introducing friends to it (some of whom become the best kinds of members) and so on.
The ones who do more are simply worth more than anyone else. They are also more important because without them the projects just would not exist they are the sorts who actually do work in creating these things rather than just using them.
It just depends on the contect of "important" really. You might consider Bob The Anchor of the Universe quite important if the Universe could not exist without him also existing and hence without Bob no one else could exist!