OSDDP: Involving Students With Open Source Docs

License by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-10-23 18:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License? Are those licenses compatible? For example, would it be possible to made that work available on Wikibooks and parts of that documentation incorporated into relevant Wikipedia articles? I hope so, becuase it is going to be a magnificent project and Wikipedia is a central respository of free knowledge today.

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Re:License by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-23 18:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux? :)

Related to topic (and more related to my field of study) is the question of journal articles. Most journals are contributed to by academics, and the academics don't get paid to write in the journals. However, the journals are copyrighted to the teeth, and for an academic/researcher/scientist trying to get access to the journals you have to pay.

That seems like quite an outdated method to me, but it hangs on because of the prestige associated with the older journals (MISQ is a big one in Information Systems). I hope to soon see some prestigious journals coming along with something like a creative commons license, or even better (though much less likely for financial reasons), a big journal swapping all their content over to creative commons.

It just seems ludicrous that these publishers, who no longer serve a purpose, get paid as the gatekeepers to knowledge in so many fields when it would otherwise be free. Most of the Editors of the Journals are luminaries that get paid nothing, and the contributors to the field get paid nothing as well. With web access meaning you can hit a huge audience virtually instantly at a low cost, why not free the information?

--
Iran has endorsed
Re:License by stoborrobots · 2004-10-23 18:43 · Score: 1

Possibly because the ShareAlike licence is more "Free" and in the spirit of the GPL than the FDL is?

--
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Re:License by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2004-10-23 19:39 · Score: 2, Informative

There is not ONE Creative Commons license, there are many Creative Common licenses. Some are more like a BSD style license than an GPL.

That is they are more free.

--
Just saying it like it are.
Re:License by metlin · 2004-10-23 20:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually that is not necessarily always true lately.

For instance, these days submissions in Physics happen by people writing a paper, and uploading it to arXiv -- where it gets peer reviewed and you get inputs. And more importantly, you establish in public that you were the first person to come up with FOO.

Not only that, the process is a lot more open than it used to be. Although some J Random dude at Physical Review can (and will) reject your paper for unknown reasons, it's quite unlikely that would happen if it has received excellent reviews after it's put up at arXiv. The process is a whole lot more transparent.

And since only the final editions go to the journals, the paper is still available at arXiv. And arXiv has been working on making several other publications available online - however, this has only begun for papers from and after 1992, so that is indeed a problem.

However, although arXiv does have a CS section, it's not frequented as much as the physics or mathematics sections. Which is a sad thing, IMHO.

And oh btw, in arXiv - the authors own the copyrights, so no question of the journal asking the arXiv to retract the papers. In fact, sometimes authors post their papers after acceptance for a journal publication.

Not too sure about conference publications, though.
Re:License by Hortensia+Patel · 2004-10-23 23:17 · Score: 1

Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License?

There are severe problems with the GNU FDL, primarily the fact that it's incompatible with the GPL. As I understand it, that makes it problematic to put docs into code (e.g. Doxygen comments) or code into docs (e.g. API usage examples).

The "invariant sections" provision of the FDL is also a worry, and has already been abused by people making their entire contribution an invariant section, which kind of defeats the object.
Re:License by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 00:13 · Score: 0

Considering Debian's rejecting pretty much every Creative Commons license as being non-free, that should give you a bit of a hint as to why not use Creative Commons licenses. Documentation written with these licenses will get thrown out. GNU FDL isn't without its problems, either (invariant sections), but can be free with the appropriate exception nixing their use if I remember right.
Re:License by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 00:20 · Score: 0

Check out the Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/. They're doing this kind of open publishing for journals in biology and medicine.
Re:License by r2q2 · 2004-10-24 02:48 · Score: 1

The reasoning behind the CC license is much less restrictive thatn the GNU FDL. Possibly a much better idea is asking the owners to release it under a dual licence. I believe the CC stuff is able to be released under the GNU FDL. Also if they aren't compatible you could just have a wikipedia entry giving a description and then linking to that site for the original content. This is a much better idea because it isn't wikipedia that controls this it is the original authors.

--
My UID is prime is yours?
Re:License by cel4145 · 2004-10-24 06:02 · Score: 1

"Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License?"

Yes. Because the project encompasses more than just documentation writing for software. Technical writing students are the smaller part of the mix; the project is largely composed of business writing students who will not be constructing software documentation, but instead will be working with clients, some commercial. So, for instance, Creative Commons has better branding and more useful marketing materials for working outside of open source communities.

Additionally, CC licensing is more easily explained, both conceptually and in terms of putting it into practice, to students within the project. Having two different licenses--one for software documentation, and one for everything else--introduces additional complexity. What the instructors want to do is focus on the writing, not overly complicate the task of understanding the project.

However, that does not mean that students would not take on a project involving expanding existing documentation for an open source project, and in doing so, would obviously have to work with the licensing structure used by the community. And in the case that OSDDP would be creating new documentation for an OSS community, we would contributed it to the community under their license, while also providing a version on our site under CC licensing.

Meanwhile, Wikibooks and Wikipedia could always make use of any documents written and posted to the OSDDP Guide by supplying the license we are using with the text.
Re:License by Matt+Perry · 2004-10-24 07:54 · Score: 1

Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License?
Because the GNU FDL isn't really free. Even Debian rejected it.

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:License by bcrowell · 2004-10-24 09:11 · Score: 1
The Attribution-ShareAlike license is the closest in spirit to the GPL. The Attribution license is the closest to BSD.
There are two big problems with the GFDL, which caused me to change the licensing on my own books to CC by-sa:
1. The GFDL requires the work to be distributed in a form that's editable with free software. That's very hard to define. For instance, my books have illustrations in Adobe Illustrator/EPS format. This format is theoretically editable with free software, but in reality it's going to be a long, hard road for me to convert them to Inkscape/SVG and fix all the stuff that gets lost in translation.
2. The GFDL's own bearded-hacker community seems to have ambivalent feelings about it, as shown by Debian's decision to reject it as unfree.
A more minor objection I have to the GFDL is that it's very long, and contains some of the same kind of ideologically oriented material as the stuff that begins the GPL. If I'm going to expect my readers to agree to a copyleft license before they download and copy my books, I'd rather not expect them to read an overly long, ideological license. I also don't like the fact that it's so clearly designed as a license for software documentation, rather than being designed from the start for more general use like the CC.
Someone actually approached me about using some of my materials in their own book, which is GFDL-licensed. It turned out that the licenses were not really compatible, so I had to offer it to them under GFDL (which I did).
--
Find free books.

Pros and Cons by fembots · 2004-10-23 18:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can see a couple of advantages such as independant, objective and professional documentation for Open Source.

On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

I mean, will we see a similar case like "The marketing department never understands what we IT is really doing!"?

--
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.

Re:Pros and Cons by bstadil · 2004-10-23 18:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.
I don't understand this. Why wouldn't the people incolved in the project add the In-Depth later sparing them for the grunt work and using their knowledge much better. It seems like a win -win to me

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:Pros and Cons by robbyjo · 2004-10-23 19:30 · Score: 1

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't the people incolved in the project add the In-Depth later sparing them for the grunt work and using their knowledge much better. It seems like a win -win to me

Agreed. IMHO, for 99% people out there, they don't need in-depth FAQ for many programs. They just need on how to use the program for their purposes. However, when it comes to programming-related tools (like compilers, compiler-compiler, linker, etc), in-depth docs are a must.

--

--
Error 500: Internal sig error
Re:Pros and Cons by _Sprocket_ · 2004-10-23 20:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, will we see a similar case like "The marketing department never understands what we IT is really doing!"?

It doesn't matter. If the OSDDP projects don't produce usefully material, it'll sit unused. If it does prove to be usefully, it'll become widely adopted. Just like OSS, OSDDP material will live or die on merit - not corporate politics.
Re:Pros and Cons by lordcorusa · 2004-10-24 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

This may be a blessing in disguise. Often times, software developers do a poor job of writing manuals for their own software; they are simply "too close" to the project. Since they know the project too intimately, they assume that intimate knowledge is shared by users. End users should never be forced to learn implementation details of a program in order to use the program, and having documentation written by an outsider may help to make the documentation more task-focused and less detail focused.

An example is the case where a developer makes a program extremely flexible, usually configured manually through a needlessly complex and difficult to understand configuration file. (I won't name names to avoid embarassing anyonr, but this sounds like many open source projects.) The developer thinks nothing of the configuration process, because he understands all of the intimate details, so he writes a huge document describing every little feature and option. Due to the size and interconnectedness of the options, users typically find such documents impossible to understand. In many cases, most users want generally the same few features and are not interested in every option under the sun. (Once again, if you use open source extensively, you will know what I am taling about.) They generally find such focused and useful documentation written by someone without intimate knowledge of the program.

Also, outsiders will be less likely to forgive and shrug off defects in a program. For example, let's say program FOO has a bug whereby any file saved with a name greater than 8 characters causes FOO to fail to save the data. The lead programmer knows the technical reasons for this and the difficult/kludgy steps needed to correct it, so he simply writes in the documentation that users must remember to use names with fewer than 8 characters. On the other hand, a 3rd party documentation writer would not know this, so he would tell users that a bug existed in FOO with respect to file naming, and encourage the users to pressure the developer for a fix.

Finally, a little theory. In my Software Engineering courses, it is stressed as best practice to write documentation before ever writing one line of code. It is also stressed that when code was written first, (as is the case in almost every professional and open source project on which I have worked) a 3rd party should write documentation to avoid just the problems I have desribed.

--
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Re:Pros and Cons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 09:20 · Score: 0

On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

What will actually happen is just the opposite.

For example, look at the "Missing Manual" series for Mac OS, and all of the programs that come with it. Not to belittle Apple's documentation (which isn't bad, as documentation goes), but these manuals are great.

I think all programmers have a fear that nobody else can do anything right. In fact, most programmers aren't great at everything. This is why open-source projects tend to get much better when they get invite artists, user-interface designers, documentation writers, and translators on board.

Translation is the most extreme case of this: most programmers would not be very good at localizing their program to Turkish, no matter how well they know their own program.

Even if they weren't quite as "in-depth", I'd still prefer actual documentation written by writers. I can't count how many times I've had to look up a manpage, and been nearly overwhelmed by the number of useless options documented there, or simply the poor writing.

Kinda different approach... by Skudd · 2004-10-23 18:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

From what I know of the open source world, documentation is one area that people make money on the free product.

Although, I suppose it does make sense, given the fact that what is published could most likely be printed, bound, and sold, just the same as any other documentation.

Re:Kinda different approach... by _Sprocket_ · 2004-10-23 19:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

From what I know of the open source world, documentation is one area that people make money on the free product.

A couple points.

First, I some of O'Reilly's tactics quite intersting. For example, they sell a book on Subversion called Version Control with Subversion. The very same work is available online. The book is licensed under Creative Commons. This hasn't been the first work done in this manner by O'Reilly. And that would imply that there is something else to this business than hording documentation.

Secondly, even proprietary software produces a considerable market for technical books. Even for software that comes with complete, professionally writen manuals, etc. (sometimes even some degree of support).

Finally, documentation isn't new to Open Source. There are actually projects with some very good documentation (as rare as that may be). Yet publishing houses have began publishing an increasing number of technical books covering these as well as other Open Source projects.

I doubt better documentation is going to destroy the technical book business model for Open Source software.
Re:Kinda different approach... by erick99 · 2004-10-23 20:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

O'Reilly's tactics make sense when I think about all of the ebooks and I have perused online and then bought a hard copy because it's more convenient to read and much easier to carry around. Perhaps this has worked for them in the past?

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Kinda different approach... by Skudd · 2004-10-24 03:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's a good couple of points.

I wasn't trying to imply that it was going to destroy the business model, nor that hording the documentation was the only way to make the money. I am fully aware of professional support, packaging, and non-open source software that is bundled with the open source software.

There is really a very lucritive market out there, even though the product itself is free or the documentation is freely available.

Great in many cases... by doormat · 2004-10-23 18:29 · Score: 1

Its only good for big projects though. Stuff like Open Office is a good place to start, but I dont see them diving into apache anytime soon...

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.

Re:Great in many cases... by emil.ede · 2004-10-23 18:59 · Score: 2, Funny

What do you mean? Is Apache not a big project? ;)
Re:Great in many cases... by ndunn · 2004-10-23 19:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its ironic that you mention that. Apache is a tool that needs great documentation (as opposed to sniffing through newsgroups), as opposed to OpenOffice, which is, for the most part, self-explanatory.
Re:Great in many cases... by doormat · 2004-10-24 06:42 · Score: 1

Apache is probably a lot more complex than they'll manage to comprehend and write good documentation. Maybe mediocre docs, perhaps better than nothing, but nothing earthshattering.

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Re:Great in many cases... by jennie.bender · 2004-10-26 06:55 · Score: 1

If you post on the OSDDP website about Apache and talk about projects you feel need to be done, you might have a few takers. We have classes focusing on Writing for the Computer Industry and others that are populated by CS students. We can't take on any new projects this semester, but if you post on the front page, our students will be able to consider Apache next semester. bender PU Tech Writing Instructor

Simpler is Better, Plus Liquid Oxygen Bonus by pipingguy · 2004-10-23 18:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Isn't Perdue where George Goble teaches?

He's an engineering and BBQ legend that had to remove his site about lighting and enhancing flames with liquid oxygen.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that open source education thingie is probably a good idea. I'd have to buy a Linux for Dummies book and then look for the "if you are still too dense..." part.

Re:Simpler is Better, Plus Liquid Oxygen Bonus by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 18:48 · Score: 0

No; it looks like he's at Purdue.
Re:Simpler is Better, Plus Liquid Oxygen Bonus by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 18:54 · Score: 1, Informative

Isn't Perdue where George Goble teaches?
Actually, he doesn't teach here. He's a systems administrator for the engineering computer network. However, I do believe he has patents on refrigeration compounds and equipment, so the engineering part is pretty accurate.
We use a hand-built refrigerator unit he built to keep sodas at a cool 32 degrees F in our EE lounge.
Re:Simpler is Better, Plus Liquid Oxygen Bonus by Arrogant-Bastard · 2004-10-25 05:20 · Score: 1

Actually, it's Purdue (Perdue does chickens).

But yes, GHG has been on the staff of the Engineering
Computer Network there for many years. But it'd be
a pity if all he was known for were the BBQ experiments:
GHG was part of (a) the first multi-cpu Unix system,
the dual-cpu Vax, and (b) one of the first Unix networks --
which featured interactive login, load balancing, and so
on several years before TCP/IP came to town.

Not to mention a *ton* of work on all kinds of things
relating to Unix. GHG may not be as well known as
some other folks, but he probably should be.

correcto by Nexcet · 2004-10-23 18:42 · Score: 0

sounds completely reasonable, take to though that must college work is research and done by use of college funds. Not Enterprise.

Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 18:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is a bad idea. What good is a degree or certification in "OSS" documentation going to do you? All some future employer is going to think is "Hm... open source.. this guy sounds like trouble.. better that I avoid him".

All corporations hate open-source. At best, they begrudingly tolerate or court it - but in their ideal world, it would be obliterated and it would be business as usual.

Having this degree or certificate would be like joining the military with Green Peace on your background.

Re:Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:14 · Score: 0

This isn't a degree in OSS documentation, just a course where they are learning about technical writing by doing OSS documentation. I was in this program a year ago when they were toying with the idea of doing documentation for Abiword in a Writing For The Computer Industry course. Writing OSS documentation is a really good (and cheap) way to give technical writing students practical experience in workplace writing, much better than having them write a job aid for Word (like I had to. ugh.)
Re:Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, right. I've had nothing but good experiences from listing my OSS work on my resume. Employers like it when a youngster has done something more than academic work, and like it or not, OSS is for the most part non-academic software for the real world.

So, imagine an employer faced with two fresh out of school graduates, neither of whom has done any paid work on technical documentation. One went to a school that gives the students toy examples designed by the instructor (and you've all seen what academic examples are like...). The other went to a school that gives the students assignments to work on the documentation of large OSS projects. In the final analysis, the employer would be a fool not to choose the graduate that already has experience on large-scale real-world documentation work, who cares what the license of the software or the documentation was.

Fault Fixers. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 19:02 · Score: 0

""The Professional Writing Program at Purdue University recently began the Open Source Development and Documentation Project (OSDDP) where students and instructors across multiple sections of business and technical writing are producing documentation for and about open source applications (see the press release or a mirror)."

I've always believed that if you want to know were the faults lie. Just wait, someone will come along and fill them. Windows is a good example of this. Look at virus/spam/snoopware. Or registry fixers, program uninstallers. Now it's Linuxes turn as it becomes popular. What will they find? Stay tuned.

License-Gatekeepers! Set my information free. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 19:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

"It just seems ludicrous that these publishers, who no longer serve a purpose, get paid as the gatekeepers to knowledge in so many fields when it would otherwise be free."

For all forms of knowledge there are gatekeepers. Even your beloved Internet has a gatekeeper know as an ISP.

"Most of the Editors of the Journals are luminaries that get paid nothing, and the contributors to the field get paid nothing as well. With web access meaning you can hit a huge audience virtually instantly at a low cost, why not free the information?"

Yes, lets hold up as a good example of what we'll get, The Internet. OK so you've just read something on the web. So how do you know it is correct? It's free, that should be good enough for everyone, right?

Re:License-Gatekeepers! Set my information free. by _Sprocket_ · 2004-10-23 19:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

For all forms of knowledge there are gatekeepers. Even your beloved Internet has a gatekeeper know as an ISP.

My ISP is being a poor gatekeeper then. I can change service to another ISP. I can go to my local internet cafe. I can go the the library. I can wait until I go to work. In all cases, I can access the same information without my ISP either being aware of or having any say in that access.

Yes, lets hold up as a good example of what we'll get, The Internet. OK so you've just read something on the web. So how do you know it is correct?

Something gets printed in a Journal. How do you know it is correct? The same process of peer review and established trust can be done with the web. And, in fact, has been done for quite some time.

Pros and Cons-Commenting career. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 19:13 · Score: 0

"On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects."

Indepth, not out of date. Is this the same group that hates commenting their code?

Enough Docs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 19:39 · Score: 1

OSS does not need more docs. Just design software that would work with default parameters. Look how much need for docs is eliminated in a typical distro. Most people don't need docs on how to build the kernel. They just need to install the OS and it would just work.

Re:Enough Docs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 10:46 · Score: 0

OSS does not need more docs. Just design software that would work with default parameters.

I like to use docs as a weapon to achieve this goal.

For example, suppose there's a program that has an "unbreak me please" flag --foo: there's no reason anybody would ever not use --foo (or not check a checkbox, or use a menuitem, or whatever).

So write some good documentation for this program, slap it on your web page with "-mini-HOWTO" appended to the end. And be sure to include something like: "The authors of the Foo program have decided to force you to type --foo every time. Maybe they'll fix it in the next version. In the meantime, I suggest you make an alias so you don't forget."

Eventually they get the picture.

Nice concept, cudos to the one that thought this by KZigurs · 2004-10-23 19:39 · Score: 1, Troll

So now we have a "document flanky open source projects" in undergraduate curriculums?

I'm impressed. Altought it may seem quite idiotic and useless on the first sight, after all, you take a bunch of uninterested students and give them idiotic and generally useless task (after all, WHO does read the documentation), but on the other hand - imagine, back to the basics. Student driven economy. Software wars between universities. Sabotage projects by seniors on the competitors cvs.

Ah, the future. It looks so bright with this nonsense ideas available on the grounds of creative commons licence. Better back to building that shelter.

Right Tool for the Right Job(TM) by networkGhettoWhore · 2004-10-23 19:46 · Score: 1

At the risk of being modded down into oblivion I will say that your question touches on one of the very reasons that the now almost defunct jabberdoc.org saw such great demise. Despite pleas from the Jabber community to release JabberDoc under the Creative Commons, the JabberDoc team decided to go with the GNU Free Documentation License instead. This led to many restrictive policies as well as bureaucratic confusion. You can read more about it on old Jabber mailing lists.

Obviously, there was a lot to be learned here, but it is really just a matter of using the right tool for the right job, and in many cases the GNU Free Documentation License is not the right tool for certain jobs. Even RMS himself stated this when first interviewed on the scope of the license.

--
Natural Selection: self-destruction of the poor and lazy

Re:Right Tool for the Right Job(TM) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 21:02 · Score: 0

I guess some people ( being polite here ) (Will Kamishlian and Robert Norris ) stole the GFDL licensed text and transfer them illegally to common license ( even do they might be the maker/creator/maintainer) of them .

With the GFDL its once its GFDL it stays GFDL ...
Re:Right Tool for the Right Job(TM) by PastaLover · 2004-10-25 00:27 · Score: 1

With the GFDL its once its GFDL it stays GFDL ...

If you're the creator of a copyrighted work you can license it under any license you see fit and keep relicensing it under whatever suits you. If somebody happens to have a copy under the older license this license still remains valid off course.

This is a GoodThing(TM) by DLR · 2004-10-23 19:46 · Score: 4, Informative

The biggest weakness of OpenSource in general is the documentation. And while no one can argue that you can get more in depth documentation from the author of the software, most of that documentation is difficult to read at best, and so totally obscure that it would be easier to just read the source and figure out the app at worst. When the programmers write the docs they tend to take too much for granted. They'll tell you about the leaves on the trees and the patterns on the bark, but neglect to tell you what type of tree they're telling you about, so to speak. This is why most companies have a different team writing the docs than wrote the application.

Having said that, I'm very glad to see someone addressing the need for documentation on OpenSource software. If Joe User can grab a manual (even a virtual one) and read up on how to use (for example) Open Office he's far more likely to try to use it if the latest commercial offering is out of his budget. And if some members of Management happen to try reading some decent documentation on a given package they might be persuaded to run a "test copy" at work as well. This shortcoming (the lack of good docs) has probably been one of the larger stumbling blocks to the widespread adaptation of Open Source software by business, and this is a novel way to get some people to work on this area for free.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH

Re:This is a GoodThing(TM) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 22:10 · Score: 0

When the programmers write the docs they tend to take too much for granted. They'll tell you about the leaves on the trees and the patterns on the bark, but neglect to tell you what type of tree they're telling you about, so to speak.
I agree 100% with you. Usually OSS documentation seems go directly to the little details and sometimes it might be hard know what the project is about.
Re:This is a GoodThing(TM) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 04:44 · Score: 0

While I whole-heartedly agree that it's a good thing(TM), I'll take the side of saying OSS has good docs for a bit:
1) We have man pages. Windows has a little dog and useless Q/A help systems that never seem to give relevant answers.
2) We have free docs (usually). The problem is when people like JBoss artificially restrict/make crappy docs. If they really had something to offer with their support, you think they wouldn't have to do this.
3) If something doesn't have docs, there's always an alternative. Like in the above case, I just switched to JoNAS.

It just whenever I get on a windows box, and something doesn't work, there are almost never any helpful docs. So whats are we comparing OSS docs to when we (I've said it myself) state the their in need of improvement?
Re:This is a GoodThing(TM) by DLR · 2004-10-24 07:32 · Score: 1

I can't agree more on the Windows Help docs. Whenever I print a test page and the dialog asks "Did it print?" I click "Yes" before I even bother to check the printer.
The problem here is that Windows has no incentive to make better docs, they hold the lion's share of the market. For Open Source to change that they have to give the market a reason to want to change. I have found that most Linux man pages are hopelessly obfuscated, whether deliberately or just because they were writen by the programmer (see my original post) is irrelevent. At the risk of repeating myself, this has got to change if there is going to be widespread acceptance of Open Source.
I saw a cartoon a while back where a group was touring Microsoft and they stop in front of a room labled "Error message encoding" or some such. Their guide says "Must be a mistake in the plaque" and they move on. Last panel shows two guys passing a joint, one of them saying something like "Register Corruption: A15F2E" or something equally obscure, and the other guy laughing and saying "Oh man, that's great! They'll never get that one!"
I wish I could find that cartoon online, I'd have posted a link. But I think you get the point.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Re:This is a GoodThing(TM) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 10:43 · Score: 0

The biggest weakness of OpenSource in general is the documentation.

I thought it was usability.
Re:This is a GoodThing(TM) by DLR · 2004-10-24 13:58 · Score: 1

While I'm about half certain this is a troll I'll respond as if it weren't.
Three things are required for anything complex to be usable. First, the user has to be intellectually capable of comprehending how to use it. Second, the device has to able to accomplish the task it's designed for. Third, the user has to know how to use it.
The third item is where adequate documentation comes in.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH

Involving students with open source code by Diomidis+Spinellis · 2004-10-23 19:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

In my course Software Comprehension and Maintenance I ask students to contribute to an open-source project, by adding a new feature or fixing an important bug. The course's grade is entirely determined by their performance on this project.

The course is an elective, and was offered for the first time last year; not many students decided to take it. Those who did, got hooked; some commented that it was the course where they really understood what it meant to program.

The following projects were completed last year:

Support for PDF actions in PDFBox.
Improvements to the GUI interface of the ZGRViewer
The addition of a new question type in the ETH Lecture Communicator

This year the course will be taught in English and will be offered to students across Europe through the EU's Erasmus student mobility programme. I hope to be able to report on new exciting results through slashdot next year.

Re:Involving students with open source code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:07 · Score: 0

Students being forced to contribute their work to an outside group in exchange for a grade? If that isn't "free as in freedom" I don't know what is.
Re:Involving students with open source code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:13 · Score: 0

What part of an "elective course" do you not understand?
Re:Involving students with open source code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:20 · Score: 0

He must be a republican ;-)
Re:Involving students with open source code by sien · 2004-10-23 21:49 · Score: 1

That is so fscking cool. Just had to say so.
Re:Involving students with open source code by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 23:45 · Score: 0

Very Cool =)

If they're ever stuck for which project they should contribute to, send em on over to have a looksie at asterisk, The Wishlists and bounties on the asterisk wiki, and the asterisk bug tracker! [/shameless plug]

Seriously though....

wikipedia by marafa · 2004-10-23 19:48 · Score: 1

Wikipedia is a central respository of free knowledge today.

true but not always accurate or unbiased just check out the israeli propaganda or any massacre of palestinian or islam related material. or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction in israel.

go ahead mod me as a troll

--
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist

Re:wikipedia by Fnkmaster · 2004-10-23 20:14 · Score: 1

Well, I guess it depends on what you think "biased" means. I think the entries on the topics you mention represent a reasonable consensus of the Wikipedia community. Apparently they seem biased to you, perhaps because you don't share their viewpoint. Within the Wiki community there are specific rules and definitions to deal with the issue of bias.

If there is a genuine lack of information that you feel would accurately represent facts (facts I'm talking about here, not opinions) that would be seen as favorable to the Palestian POV, then feel free to add those facts into the discussion in an appropriate NPOV manner - this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. If your facts are documented, and your writing is in the proper NPOV format, then you shouldn't have too much trouble convincing the active participants on those topics from throwing it out whole hog.

Are there problems with articles on contentious issues? Yes, sure, but there's also a long term consensus building that goes on.

I find a more likely explanation here that you consider facts and information that doesn't present a guilt-free picture of an oppressed Palestinian people to be "Israeli propaganda" (whatever that means - the very word propaganda is entirely loaded and intended to undermine the factuality of real information by suggesting that it is mere fluff). If that's the case, I'm sorry to say that Wikipedia isn't going to make you happy, and probably neither would a traditional encyclopedia.
Re:wikipedia by metlin · 2004-10-23 20:17 · Score: 1

While I agree that some sections of Wikipedia are probably quite sensitive and keep getting changed, the peer-review process has worked *excellently* there.

For instance, such pages are often marked to be watched, and when some inflammatory comment or incorrect information gets posted, the people looking over that section/page take note and set it right. And guess what? If you are gonna act like a jerk and post your opinion all over the place, your IP will just get banned.

Sure, they can't do this for everyone - but do it a few times and the rest shut up. It's almost similar to how Slashdot attempts to decrease the noise to signal ratio. Sure, it's not that great a system, but it works fairly well enough.

And guess what? Even an OBSCURE topic like GNNA can stay alive, because of peer review. It was put to vote several times for deletion and editing by anti-GNAA folks, but still it survived. I can think no other proof of true freedom of speech than that.

For an example more closely tied in with what you said, consider Palestine - the website itself says:

Stop! The neutrality of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information.

And the differences are usually settled by people with NPOVs - or Neutral Point of Views. If you act like a prick, you'll just get your IP banned and lose your editing priveleges.

As simple as that. So yeah, the information there is usually NEUTRAL, and even if idiots from either side try to jazz it up, their damage is quickly undone - within minutes, in most cases.

Wikipedia works, and works very well. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
Re:wikipedia by metlin · 2004-10-23 20:29 · Score: 1

And oh, I forgot to add - neutral points of view may not necessarily be agreeable to everyone, but that does not change the truth.

Wikipedia tries and presents the truth as it is, and that may not be liked by everyone.

From your tone, it sounds like you want unbiased information as long as it is sympathetic towards what you believe. Facts just are, and sometimes they are unpleasant.

If you are expecting a sympathetic and opinionated information, you will not find that at Wikipedia - they just seek to provide facts as they are. And I find your accusation quite ridiculous, especially since Palestine's entry gets changed both ways - pro and anti Israeli.

>israeli propaganda
>massacre of palestinian
>islam related material
>nuclear weapons of mass destruction in israel

HAHAHAHAHAA!!!

Just look at your OWN comments - they are so biased towards Islam and are anti-Israel that it is obvious. Well, sorry mate. You won't find information at Wikipedia that will placate you. Wikipedia is a source of information, not bias nor sympathy.

History is unsympathetic towards facts - it presents them as they are. And wearing rose colored glasses isn't going to change those facts.

And I do hope you get modded down, for spreading FUD on Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia does not cater to YOUR opinions does not mean it's wrong. In fact, the fact that Wikipedia can present the truth as it is and infuriate people on both the sides proves that it works.

Boo to you, and stop spreading FUD.
Re:wikipedia by DLR · 2004-10-23 20:31 · Score: 1

Having attempted to edit several controversial articles on Wikipedia over the course of about a year, I have to say that I find Marafa's viewpoint much more in line with my own experience. My 20 years of research into certain areas, and careful verification of various historical facts, mean nothing compared to the "popular opinion" on controversial articles. I would have to say that I have found more revisionist history on Wikipedia than anywhere else, and more would-be authors who wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up and barked at them if said fact was contrary to their pre-existing beliefs.
Having said that, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for non-controversial information and cultural tidbits that are outside a one's personal experience. In fact in these areas it frequently gives far more information than a paper encyclopedia. I have not compared it to "professional" on-line encyclopedia but I suspect that it would come out on top of that comparison as well.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Re:wikipedia by metlin · 2004-10-23 21:05 · Score: 1

Although I would agree with you that there is a certain resistance to some information that may contradict the popular belief, putting up the article for peer review with reference to the facts usually settles it.

Yeah, there is some amount of bickering that happens but in the end I've usually seen the crowd settle on some non-opinionistic view-point or the other.

Take the Palestine article for instance - it is quite neutral for the most part. Go to the edit history, and you would notice that the names editing it are mostly either Jewish or Muslim - while there is some arbiteration by both or neither of the parties. It's almost a cat and mouse game, and the arbiters trying to sustain a neutral viewpoint.

Usually, arbiters are from a third place who are not sympathetic to either sides and that helps the information to be quite neutral (I do not know in particular reference to this entry, but I do know this with reference to several other entries).

Controversial information - like the name suggests it - well, it's just that. Both the parties are to blame, and it's quite inevitable - but from what I've seen Wikipedia has done an excellent job of sustaining a neutral point of view, to the extent possible.
Re:wikipedia by DLR · 2004-10-24 07:37 · Score: 1

The problem is that the information contradicting the popular belief is the correct info, just as it was with Galileo. And just as it was with Galileo's peers, the Wikipedia authors have no desire to change their cherished misconceptions.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Re:wikipedia by bcrowell · 2004-10-24 08:56 · Score: 1

Having attempted to edit several controversial articles on Wikipedia over the course of about a year, I have to say that I find Marafa's viewpoint much more in line with my own experience.
Mine too. I even went through their dispute resolution process regarding the article on astrology. It didn't really work, because there were too many True Believers who wanted the article to read like an attack on rationalism and the scientific method.

--
Find free books.
Re:wikipedia by DLR · 2004-10-24 16:39 · Score: 1

I just read the Wikipedia article on Astrology and I am absolutely stunned. While the article was certainly informative about the beliefs of astrologers and about variations in the art of astrology I can not believe that someone hasn't hasn't performed a simple test of taking a dozen or so "respected" astrologers and 500 people. Have each astrologer draw up a chart regarding some aspect or prediction for each of the 500 and then, without letting the chartee see the chart, make two copies and seal it into two envelopes. Mark one envelope with a date and the other with the name of the chartee. Open the dated envelopes on that date. Open the named envelopes when the astrologer says to or when the named person dies. Measure your accuracy against the specificity of the predictions and the odds of them happening, all have statistical methods of determining certainty. Make the success rate of the predictions known, end of story.
Mind you I don't believe in astrology but I'll certainly say there's more going on in this universe than we currently understand. But to call it an Art and work from 2000 year old data is just.... well it boggles the mind how any rational could give credence to this with no proof.
Which brings me back to the original point. Wikipedia is good for obscure, non-controversial information. Don't try to look up anything about current US politics or controversial historical information.

--
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH

Its the portfolio, stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:44 · Score: 0

You may be right, big corporations may sometimes have their Machiavellian secret policies, and/ or their clueless HR drones. But the typical small or midsized employer is going to care:

1) Do you have any good, professional-grade work you can show me?

2) Do you have any NDA's left over from previous employment that will prevent you doing what is needed on our project?

To both those questions, Purdue's project allows the best possible answer. Volunteer and community work isn't considered all that dangerous by most interviewers.

OK, I’ll bite by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-10-23 20:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux?

I know this is a trendy thing here to insult Richard Stallman, but please at least stick to facts. First of all, he is not an "MIT drop-out." Back in 1971, as an 18 years old freshman at Harvard University he was hired by MIT as a hacker in the AI Lab. If working as a teenager in The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early '70s is not "cool" than I seriously don't know what is.

Second of all, it is slightly more complicated than "Linux really being GNU/Linux." You might want to read the GNU/Linux naming controversy article on Wikipedia for a good start. Do you remember the Seattle Times interview with Linus Torvalds which was posted here just a week ago? This is the first sentence of the opening paragraph: "Linus Torvalds [pronounced LEE-nus] started a revolution of sorts in the computer industry when he created the Linux operating system and decided to share it with fellow programmers on the Internet."

The problem is that Torvalds didn't start any revolution in 1991. The revolution had already been happening becuase that very operating system had been being written since Linus was 14 years old. Eight years later he wrote the final piece, the kernel, and finally made GNU usable.

This was a great achievemnt. But the fact that taking an 8 years old project and renaming it after one's name can often start flame wars should not be surprising to anyone. Do you remember the recent outrage with CherryOS and PearPC? There are a lot of strong emotions involved where one puts many years of hard work into a project. But that is even not the most important thing here.

It is not important whose name is on the project. It is not important who started it, but it is very important why. The GNU project was started because of some ideals. Those very ideals made it possible. And those ideals made it needed in the first place. When people read such intervies and get the impression that Torvalds wrote the entire operating system starting a revolution and don't even know that GNU has ever existed, they read "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" Torvald's autobiography and get the impression that it is all about fun. Meanwhile, the real revolution has started because of freedom and nothing else.

And this revolution was not about starting something new, but rather saving something old.

I strongly urge you to read Free as in Freedom written by Sam Williams to know how, when and why the revolution was started. The entire book is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available on-line.

Stallman, an MIT hacker in the 1970s, wanted a source code for his printer drivers to fix them. A fellow programmer refused to give it to him because of an NDA. It outraged Stallman who considered it a personal insult and who repeatedly refused to get software which was offered to him for free but with an NDA, alienating himself and making his life as a programmer much harder, because at the end he was pretty much the only person in the AI Lab with no access to all of the proprietary software there.

There are strong emotions involved. There are ideals, fight for freedom at the cost of personal sacrifices. It is not "just for fun." Richard Stallman was not an "MIT drop-out." He r

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Re:OK, I’ll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 04:37 · Score: 0

You, regardless of the controversy, I have noticed I tend to forget about the contributions of GNU until it's not around. It didn't really hit me until I had to sit down on some old solaris box at my job:

$>grep -R something *

And realized the grep didn't have recursive option.

$>tar -xzf

And realized the tar couldn't automatically unzip for you.

$> [hit up arrow]

And realized I was in ksh.

My God. what a pain in @ss. After this I began to realize just how nice GNU tools were. It's just little annoying crap to be sure, and can be easily adjusted to/scripted around, but I just went and installed the gnu tools. My managers were more impressed by this "cool!" "recursive!"
OTOH, the notion of linux is ever-present in my head while I work on my windows box. I know this isn't really the point, but it seemed relevant (by slashdot standards) all the same...
(Ok, and yes Solaris/JDS/Scott fans, I realize Sun prolly has products 10x better now and everything can be swapped in and swapped out on the fly dynamically, and migrated across.....). But GNU is free! Like Beer! And Speech! But I like beer better.
Re:OK, I’ll bite by Zebbers · 2004-10-24 05:20 · Score: 1

Ummm. No. Linus wrote the kernel and the kernel despite what yall may think is the core and most important piece of the OS. Just because he used already freely available tools does not mean its any less his development. RMS hasnt ever made an os.

If I build something new using already available tools no one would ever question me and say: Well you should really name it all after so and so who made that hammer freely available.

Fuck that.

Even more clear is the fact that HURD still is useless. If you want to claim that Linus' achievements are miniscule compared to RMS and GNU then a quaility equivalent os just have been easily put out by gnu.

But wait. It hasn't.
Re:OK, I’ll bite by Thing+1 · 2004-10-24 06:32 · Score: 1

RMS hasnt ever made an os.

What about Emacs?

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Here's your cookie, little troll by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 20:57 · Score: 0

No, I don't really mean to address any point the parent made (did he make any?) Sorry to feed a troll. But this is as good a place as any to say:

Better them than me.

Yes, people do often look at the documentation. At the very least, they look *for* documentation. If they can't find at least a little of it, they generally won't even touch the product.

Because of that, I have often wanted to volunteer to help OSS programmers clean up the slipshod documentation that comes with their otherwise brilliant products. But as a clueless programmer myself, I can't even work out the answers to my own questions, so it's not like I have a lot to contribute to improve the docs.

Way better to have the writing done by Purdue tech students who can read the source and are getting graded for it, than by a clueless noob part-timer like me. Trust me, you would rather read theirs.

Re:Here's your cookie, little troll by KZigurs · 2004-10-23 22:47 · Score: 1

Ok, Agree. Good point.

But that doesn't changes the fact that this approach, in essence, breaks the open source promoted approach "join, if you want to" and makes quite a dangerous precedent. I don't care how sweet or sensible it reads in the article, in real life fanatic professors with their "GREAT AND THE ONLY" open source project can make quite a lot of damage.

(Interesting, why does everyone who doesn't agrees with the common slashdot policy - OSS == world domination get's marked as a troll. Add to this total lack of sense of humor, irony or sarcasm. And I just have to levitate between good and bad carma all the time :D. But nobody sees the irony in the words "their otherwise brilliant products".)

Re:Pros and Ex-Cons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 21:10 · Score: 0

Given that the hot-shot volunteer programmers in an open-source project usually CAN'T BE BOTHERED to write the documentation themselves (heck, maybe they don't even know English--nothing wrong with that!)...

Why shouldn't other people help them out? There are hordes of little projects out there that have produced great tools & toys, that are difficult if not impossible to use just because they are undocumented! Even doing an amateurish job would usually be a big improvement. I am really surprised to see all the negative comments in this thread getting modded up.

Has anybody here heard of BugOS? Wouldn't it be a sweet toy if it at least had a little documentation?

Yes, this business of communicating with the outside world is the most foobar aspect of most software projects, corporate or voluntary. Kudos to a project that is putting some students where they need to be, and where the world needs them.

Other documentation projects by 2bluemike · 2004-10-23 21:32 · Score: 2, Funny

I heard the business school is also helping to write documentation on how NOT to lose to Wisconsin and Michigan. Go Boilers!

Confusing Bill Gates with Richard Stallman by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 21:36 · Score: 0

Bill Gates was a Harvard drop-out, while Richard Stallman earned a degree in physics from Harvard.

Richard Stallman never was a student at MIT.

And Gates and Stallman were just two years apart.

Students by BillsPetMonkey · 2004-10-23 21:54 · Score: 1

I thought this was going to be a discussion about getting students to get out of bed early and do stuff, and making them work on things instead of going to parties.

Now that would have been useful.

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

and I'll bite back by TAGmclaren · 2004-10-23 22:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

You assume I know nothing about the whole controversy, when in fact I do. I've met RMS, I've heard him speak about what drives him.

The quip at the start was meant to be humour. You asked why they're using creative commons - I said because RMS is a hippy-looking MIT drop-out (using the second definition of the word), which is all true.

Now, without wanting to disturb you up there on your soap box, what matters when picking sides over this for most people isn't reality. It's perception. Laurence Lessig is the foremost authority on electronic IP right now, known widely amongst the community for his ideals. RMS is known mostly only within the IT fraternity, and even then people think of him as some smelly monk whose interesting but for the most part to be avoided.

So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?

Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

Regardless, the original quip was meant humourously (note the smiley). So just relax a bit, ok? :)

--
Iran has endorsed

Re:and I'll bite back by spuzzzzzzz · 2004-10-23 22:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

And yet I have never heard RMS argue that developers should be prevented from writing free software. His arguments revolve around the idea that users should refuse to use non-free software. So it doesn't deny freedom for anyone because no one is prevented from doing anything. It's more of a boycott thing, I guess.

As for the semi-communist comment, free software can promote competition in certain ways. If you have some free software that you need support for, you can shop around for support and let market forces do the work. On the other hand, if you want support from some piece of proprietary software, you can only get support from the original vendor. I prefer to think of the difference between free and non-free software as the difference between capitalism and monopoly, not the difference between communism and capitalism.

--

Don't you hate meta-sigs?
Re:and I'll bite back by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 23:00 · Score: 0

As for the semi-communist comment, free software can promote competition in certain ways. If you have some free software that you need support for, you can shop around for support and let market forces do the work. On the other hand, if you want support from some piece of proprietary software, you can only get support from the original vendor. I prefer to think of the difference between free and non-free software as the difference between capitalism and monopoly, not the difference between communism and capitalism.

It's semi-communist in that he thinks people shouldn't be paid for writing software... only for supporting it, etc

as for monopolies, there's no monopoly on support of Linus's model either. but developers can still get paid, because Linus advocates that developers choose their license. RMS says users shouldn't use proprietary software, but if they do should ignore their licenses
Re:and I'll bite back by cofaboy · 2004-10-23 23:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought that RMS referred to GNU/Linux that way because he is still hopeful that HURD will become fully operational, this would give 2 systems GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD.

Both parts are required to make an operating system, GNU provides all the support, bells and whistles whilst Linux and HURD provide a kernel.

What is it that people find so damn difficult to understand about that

--
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
Re:and I'll bite back by FooBarWidget · 2004-10-24 03:57 · Score: 1

You're also wrong. The GPL explictly allows you to charge money for software. The GPL FAQ explicitly states that you can charge as much as you want for the software. The point is freedom, not price. In fact, I'm making money on selling Free Software myself.
Re:and I'll bite back by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 05:38 · Score: 0

how? (and though I'm an AC I will be coming back)

by making modifications that rich customers want, or by writing the software and offering out to people?

because if it's the latter, you're really only making money on distribution - shipping it, burning it to cd, etc. because if it's free, people have no incentive to pay, do they?

I guess you could take donations, but that's no way to make a living.

if the GPL was everywhere, I can think of a number of software houses (with some great software) that wouldn't exist. period
Re:and I'll bite back by the_womble · 2004-10-24 07:21 · Score: 1

On the other hand, if you want support from some piece of proprietary software, you can only get support from the original vendor.
In addition free software implies open standards which prevents lock in to a single vendor, thus protecting the functioning of a free market from network effects.
Re:and I'll bite back by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 18:53 · Score: 0

When I sell custom software for people I sometimes can take more money for making it GPL instead of closed license because that way they know that when they don't like my work in the future they can always hire someone else to fork it, or redistribute the software, etc. Also ironicly when they know that they won't *have* to pay me for upgrades and new features, they are more likely to do so. They know that I will have to do my best. The upside is that I get more money and more clients. The downside is that I indeed have to do my best because there is no "job security" for me. I like it, but YMMV. I once got hired by one company to add features to my software which I sold to someone else... The company I sold my program to sold it to other one for even more money that they paid me... Piracy? No way! I got more money than I would get if I made the reselling forbidden. :-) It's a win-win for us.

I'm also AC and <arnold>I'll be back</arnold>. :-)

why not support LDP? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 22:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

This project seems to have larger scope than LDP but it seems it could still live inside LDP. Some of the documentation producted by Linux Documentation Project isn't really that Linux specific.

Re:Nice concept, cudos to the one that thought thi by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-23 22:51 · Score: 0

Ok, One, FUCK YOU. Two, Have you ever contributed to an open source project. I didn't think so. So don't bitch.

Re:Nice concept, cudos to the one that thought thi by KZigurs · 2004-10-23 23:07 · Score: 1

Oh. Are you a nice looking girl in early 20's? Then we just might consider that "fuck you" part.

On the other hand - yes, I have contributed. Mainly with bitchy feedback about bugs or ineffeciencies. As for the programming part - I choose to code a bit more serious software that:

a) Puts food on my table
b) I, as a team/project manager, can control the code quality, I don't have to deal with coders changing each week and can predict what their capabilities and weak spots are, I can, surprise, answer for the projects I have completed, instead of listening how my code sucks, after some "open source expert wannabe" (generally to improve his CV with the first entry) has "contributed" to it "by improving it a bit".
c) The design stays pretty consistent and I don't have to deal with proposals to "change that part" each iterations just because someone has no clue about design patterns or cannot understand what exactly happens behind the scenes.

I'm not telling that OSS is bad. No, far from it. Especially kernel developers - hats off to the magnificent job they are doing.

But seeing it being promoted as the REAL thing (especially in userland), well, dream on. And gain some social and arguing skills. After all, after receiving such a welcoming, just because I have expressed my opinion (guess what, without rude words, and, I would like to believe, in quite humorous and ironic form), how could I WAN'T to contribute to anything now?

Awesome idea. by Aldric · 2004-10-24 01:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd have loved to do stuff like that for my grades when I was a student - I hated doing pointless programming like most assignments force a student to do.

Beautiful! by Lee_in_KC · 2004-10-24 01:19 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm not sure if the true implications are really sinking in to some of you:

Imagine being free to write whatever you want and not having to document! Write whatever you want and some guy that slept in on registration day and missed out on a popular development class will document it for you because he got stuck in the documentation class. Finally a reward for those who actually get up on time in school!

That's just ... AWESOME!

many scientist pay to publish their work by dankelley · 2004-10-24 01:26 · Score: 1

In a way, academics do get paid to write in journals. They get their salary, part of which is payment for doing research.

But there's another way to look at it. In many fields, academics pay to publish. The "page charges" for my latest paper amounted to 1/4 of the median federal grant in my research area. That's just insane. Since I was a graduate student in the 1980s, I've seen page charges go up and up and up, and I've seen the value added by the journal fall to zero. The reviewing is done for free, and the authors submit professionally typeset documents.

In my field, Oceanography, we have not moved to the Arxiv model used in Physics ... yet.

Re:many scientist pay to publish their work by SgtChaireBourne · 2004-10-24 19:43 · Score: 1

In my field, Oceanography, we have not moved to the Arxiv model used in Physics ... yet.
You could easily start one among your friends and colleagues and then get a grant to continue. (There is still funding for that sort ofthing). Or you could join and existing initiative like the Public Library of Science. Either way, something's got to be done.
Right now as it stands, scientists work on getting their grants, doing the research, hiring and supervising researchers, writing up the research, submitting articles, and editing and reviewing articles for publication. All that is done for "free" as researchers must publish.
In exchange for all that, they then pay for the privilege of accessing their articles in the form of journals. However, as budgets shrink, the prices of journal subscriptions has been rapidly increasing. In response to the price increase, fewer journals are purchased making the remaining ones more essential. Since these then become essential, the prices increase even more to what the market is able to bear, not what is appropriate. Some of the annual subscription fees approach the cost of a small car. Access to electronic versions often cost extra and don't give you the option of keeping a copy on the shelf after the subscription runs out.
None of that is conjecture on my part. Next visit to your university or corporate library, chat with the staff and you'll hear more.
No one said life is fair, but then again no one says that it has to be stupid as well. There's plenty of blog or content managment software out there. Try it. If it's boring or too much work, drop it or hand it off. If it takes off like Arxiv did, learn to delegate authority (one can never delegate responsibility) and get some help seeking extra hands / funding.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

The real reason: GNU's marketing sucks by UnConeD · 2004-10-24 02:16 · Score: 1

GNU have no-one to blame but themselves if everyone talks about Linux rather than GNU/Linux. If Richard Stallman is their idea of marketing, then good luck (yes, I've heard him speak): they'll be stomping their feet in anger for years to come.

Take a look at http://www.gnu.org. Wow, what a smashing site! Gotta dig that retro HTML 1.0 look.

GNU is aimed at geeks and programmers. Regular users will keep on talking about 'Linux' because GNU doesn't directly deal with any of the things that are important to them. Compilers? Shells? Drivers?

GNU needs to market free software in a way that regular people can understand. That means explaining how free software will not prevent you from ripping your CD to your iPod with DRM. It's telling managers that the expensive software package they had developed will be safe from the whims or bankruptcy of the developer, because it is GPL licensed. Telling webdesigners how Mozilla's open development gets bugs fixed rather than letting them linger on for years.

This would do infinitely more for GNU than the hippie with the harddrive platter on his head will ever achieve in his lifetime.

Computers and Typesetting by Ann+Coulter · 2004-10-24 03:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Knuth's Computers and Typesetting material should be taught to students who want to learn about documentation. Knuth's writing style is very straightforward and direct. Every student who wants to develop a well documented project should at least scan over one of TeX or METAfont program books to learn how to document code. The two programs also deal with orginization, making the most of a given implementation, and good general natural language composition in general. All students who want to pass on knowledge to others should learn from Knuth's example. Knuth is an excellent teacher. I can make that statement from just reading his books. Anyone who want to write clear and concise papers, programs, books, and anything that is meant to teach others should at least study some of Knuth's works.

Re:OS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 04:26 · Score: 0

Why is this a troll? Undergrad students in technical fields typically have to take a technical writing course. We would all be up in arms if a requirement for such classes was to write documentation for MS Word as part of a larger project. So why is it OK to make students write docs for open source projects under a Creative Commons license?

When I took technical writing at a top 10 CS school, I had a very good instructor who told us we could write stuff for an actual or imaginary product/company. We had all sorts of things to write, from product proposals to specs to end-user docs. I came up with the fictional "Acme Software" and it was really one of the most fun and useful courses I took as an undergrad.

But I suppose when you have a captive audience and some big project you want done for free, it's better to leverage them for the cause than teach them anything.

The real reason: GNU's marketing sucks-Looks. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 04:55 · Score: 0

A bit of Irony here then. A group of people known as geeks who supposedly don't care about what you look like (meritocracies aren't usually vain). Arguing that they don't like RMS because of his image. My how the community has changed.

The Linux Documentation Project - TLDP by wehe · 2004-10-24 06:50 · Score: 2, Informative

There is already The Linux Documentation Project - TLDP, offering many high quality Linux HOWTOs, FAQs and guides in different languages.

Image != looks by UnConeD · 2004-10-24 07:08 · Score: 1

Wearing a hard drive platter on your head has nothing to do with how you yourself look, and everything to do with your image and how you present yourself to others.

Please point out where in my post I crapped on RMS for how he looks, rather than what he says and does.

Those of us that actually leave our parents' basements know that in the world outside, presentation does matter, and geeks are just as shallow in that aspect as regular people. Unless this isn't Slashdot anymore, and suddenly there are no more Natalie Portman jokes?

Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 07:25 · Score: 0

What the students get out of the activity will depend upon the documentation they produce, of course. But more documentation is better than hardly any, which is what you get out of most OSS these days.

Relicensing request by Andy+Tai · 2004-10-24 10:29 · Score: 1

Can you also give us the permission to redistribute the documentation created by your project under the GFDL? This way it will be easier to combine them with other documents created by the community.

--
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!

Re:Relicensing request by cel4145 · 2004-10-24 12:41 · Score: 1

I can't give anyone the permission. Someone would have to contact each contributing author with each text. And even considering trying to effect such a change in the project globally would be very difficult.

However, any member of the OSS community intereted in having documentation--whether software user documentation, market analysis, white papers, promotional materials, etc.--can come to OSDDP, post a story about their project to the main page, make particular requests to the issues module, and become involved as a client for OSDDP. Then those specific requests could be supplied with the documentation license requested.

great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 11:02 · Score: 0

This is a great idea. I think it will be really popular with the students because they will get to do something real, instead of exercises. I wouldn't be surprised if it caught on in technical writing programs around the country (and the world).

This is an absolutely fantastic idea by Catullus · 2004-10-24 11:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Universities (in Europe, at least) are mostly funded by the public purse. Why not give students the option of giving something back?

Almost every computer science degree involves some kind of group or individual project. Just imagine the amount of free software that could be produced if all of these projects were released as open source.

Also - forcing the students to handle e-mails saying "your s0ftware is cr@p! where can I get l33t cracks?" is good experience for life :)

As the sysadmin of pw.english.purdue.edu... by allanc · 2004-10-24 13:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

...I am amazed that the machine stayed up under a Slashdotting.

So did everyone just go "Documentation? Screw that. No way I'm clicking on that link" or what?

--AC

OT question, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-24 17:04 · Score: 0

This question is off-topic for this thread, but I'm having trouble finding an answer.

If I use documentation covered by the GNU FDL to write software, can I use any license I want for the resulting software? Or must the software be GPL (because it's a derived work)?

Pick what? by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-10-24 17:48 · Score: 1

So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?

So what do you actually want me to pick? A license or a guy? Because in either case the answer might be different. Of course if you want me to pick a guy, then obviously I will pick the prettiest one. However if I was going to base my opinions about texts I read only on the appearance of their respective authors, a priori excluding those "in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly" as you suggest, I would never read the Bible, or the United States Constitution, for that matter.

Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

If it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong, then it's probably pointless to argue, since that who is more popular is rather obvious, and that who is handsomer is a subjective matter.

Nevertheless let's not confuse the difference between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds with that between GPL and X11/BSD-style licenses. Linus Torvalds has released Linux under The GNU General Public License written by Richard Stallman and considers it "one of the very best design decisions" he has ever made, so the freedom of their users and developers is exactly identical.

And to be honest neither one of them has ever denied me any freedom--as a user, as a developer, or any other one. They may say different things, but their work is equally "communistic"--they both use the very same license.

First of all I respect opinions of both Stallman and Torvalds, even though I tend to agree with the former more often, which makes me a saint in the Church of Emacs, if nothing else. The important thing to understand, however, is that in any practical terms the free software/open source schism doesn't really matter. Both movements have very different reasons and slightly different goals, but their means are exactly the same.

The first version of the Open Source Definition by OSI is nothing more but Free Software Guidelines from the Debian Social Contract with words "free software" changed to "open source" and every "Debian" changed to "project." I urge everyone who wants to know the difference between free software and open source to read both of those definitions very carefully.

In other words open source software and free software is the same thing, even if backed by two movements. Those movements do essentially the same even if for different reasons. One of those movement is a "fork" of the other one, made relatively recently, only six years ago. They may have different opinions on many important issues, but at the end every single line of Linux can be legally used in GNU and vice versa.

What I have observed is that people usually stick to one side of the percieved conflict--be it Linux vs. GNU/Linux, free software vs. open source, GPL vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE or anything--and fight stronger than those people who have started that conflic

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

True by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-10-24 18:37 · Score: 1

I thought that RMS referred to GNU/Linux that way because he is still hopeful that HURD will become fully operational, this would give 2 systems GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD.

True. Debian is a good example. There is Debian GNU/Linux but also Debian GNU/Hurd and those are hardly different operating systems. Everything is the same except for the kernel. As soon as both versions are equally mature it will be quite hard to tell the difference even for a typical administrator who doesn't mess with the kernel, because everything else, from the libraries, shells, low-level tools and the filesystem to the packaging system, desktop environment and web browsers will be identical.

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Optional Features of the GFDL by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-10-24 19:14 · Score: 1

There are severe problems with the GNU FDL, primarily the fact that it's incompatible with the GPL. As I understand it, that makes it problematic to put docs into code (e.g. Doxygen comments) or code into docs (e.g. API usage examples).

If it is your code than you can always dual-license it, or release code examples in the documentation (or documentation in the code) explicitly into the public domain.

The "invariant sections" provision of the FDL is also a worry, and has already been abused by people making their entire contribution an invariant section, which kind of defeats the object.

Invariant sections and cover texts are Optional Features of the GFDL. For example, this is the actual license of Wikipedia: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Slashdot Mirror

OSDDP: Involving Students With Open Source Docs

116 comments