Slashdot Mirror
The Birth of a FOSS Application
Joe Barr writes "Brice Burges explains why and how he created a new free software application, as well as what he learned from the birthing process, in a story on Linux.com. The story provides first-hand insights into the frustrations and satisfactions of developers working on free/open source projects. From the article: 'I'm always disappointed to hear open source project members say that they had "their developer" modify an aspect of the program without ever hearing from that developer or seeing any of the code. This is not progressive.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
No different from any other software development really.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This article sounds like an advertisement more than anything else.
find / -iname life 2>
One of the very reasons the term "Open Source" was so heavily slammed in the early days was that it meant too many damn things to too many people (some of whom might also be damned). People, as a whole, adopted it despite those objections and often belittled those who raised them. Now we're finding out that some of those same people are finding out that Open Source does indeed too many different things to too many people, and that people really are trying to achieve different results. Congratulations. Should I break into applause or just do a Kerr Avon impression and throw these people out the airlock?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This article sounds like an advertisement more than anything else.
Ah! That would explain the disclaimer: "Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG."
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The checklist on the lower right is probably the best part of the article. It's all pretty obvious stuff when you think about it, but nice to have it all listed.
Maybe not
I'm always disappointed to hear open source project members say that they had "their developer" modify an aspect of the program without ever hearing from that developer or seeing any of the code. This is not progressive.
But he felt it was entirely appropriate to simply start another project because existing mailers didn't have the feature he was looking for? I don't think that's progressive either.
Cute the defence of "but if he feels like it, why not?" Well, precisely. And if other developers feel like modifying aspects of his program without seeking his prior approval, why not? It's Free Software, isn't it?
"birthing process"? Are we talking about software or pregnant farm animals?
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Judging by this definition, I think it's usage was appropriate ^^find / -iname life 2>
You're the one who failed James Joyce out of English class, aren't you?
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
You mean Firefox, right?
You see, son, when two codes love each other very much....
Best Free Utilities for Windows
Luckily, James Joyce is a pleasure to read, one way or another.
Read the source, Luke !
In most of the best run projects you are free to take the code and fiddle ith it. You are not necessarily allowed to modify the project (ie. commit the changes).
Fork all you want, but most good projects are a result of staying focused.
If you disagree, try submitting a patch that Linus does not want and insist that he includes it "because you have the freedom".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
But this has helped someone: me.
Am thinking of starting an FLOSS project and this has provided much needed guidance. Some people have been mean about the article, but whatever they think it's useful to some of us.
they want their article back.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I just find it interesting that there are two mailing list managers, both named similar to art movements of the 20th century.
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
Don't say "FOSS". If you mean free software, write free software; if you mean open source, write open source, write open source; if you don't know the difference, look it up because there is one and it does matter. By using an empty term like "FOSS" you alienate both worlds by you lack of commitment. I bet some people even pronounce it like "fuss". This is removing all the meaning that was left from the term.
Why bother writing another FOSS app? We all know what Lunix really needs: another text editor.
I didn't see anything hypocritical about it. He stated pretty clearly that the reason he didn't fork an existing project was because he couldn't do so and achieve his goals, and he gave several reasons. (eg. Nothing had the right framework for where he wanted to go, he wanted the experience of developing his own project, etc.) Also, immediately after the part that you quoted, he says:
I think he fully understands that people have a licensed right to modify the code, and is okay with this. He simply thought it was disappointing that people who do this often don't bother to make their changes available back to the developers. If anything, he was just mentioning that he wants to make his own project one where people are actively encouraged to do so.
It's not exactly a revolutionary article in FOSS development, but it's handy for anyone who wants a general idea, and hopefully people don't blame him for writing a simple article when it was Slashdot that decided to link to it.
In the OSS project I'm most well known for the community refers to me as 'Dear Leader'. I'm sure they mean well. ;)
Farm animals do not have "birthing processes" any more than they have "excretory processes" or "ruminatory processes". Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
You're comparing that mindless drivel to James Joyce?!?!
And yes, if James Joyce failed to demonstrate an ability to communicate using the rules of English grammar and spelling, I would have failed him and gladly.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
The birth of a FOSS application, my way;
I need a tool for something, or think about playing with some idea
spend couple evenings on it at home
figure someone else might find it useful
publish it on the net.
What's so mystical about this?
Have you read Finnegans Wake, dumbshit?
Okay. I'll admit Joyce may be overrated drivel, too, but I'm not sure I'd call it mindless. You may well find Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" to be utterly uncommunicative according to the roools of grammar and spelling, but fuck you for failing to find value therein.
— Pink Tinkletini
I ran into an annoying little bug with Perl Win32::SoundRec, figured out how to fix it, patched my own system, and then spent 30 minutes trying to find info on where to submit the fix. I finally emailed the author and got no response. Months later, the bug is still there. The fix is three lines of code and two extra calculations.
I had some crashes with Mozilla and tried to get symbols, it turns out that the release build doesn't have published symbols so my effort to repro a stress bug and capture it in windbg was wasted.
In the pre-1.0 kernel days, I had problems getting two 3c509 nics to work in a box at the same time. With the help of a friend, we made a 3c509-2 driver by copying and changing all of the identifiers. The hack worked, but it was a hack. At the time, I didn't take the time to report the limitation anywhere or investigate further.
So, when I as a 99.9% user tries that 0.1% of the time to contribute, why is it always a pain? I would love to contribute. If the bar were lower, if I could take a 1-line fix and get someone to pay attention, or if I could take that bug and get support in debugging it other than "compile it yourself", I am sure my contribution rate would quadruple.
Maybe a college student has enough time to spend decyphering how to contribute. I don't have that much time anymore.
The involvement of the person behind the project is really important. Submitting bugs and patches is one thing, but if none one looks at them, why bother? In fact it's a two way route: the more involved the original developer, the more people will take interest in the project.
I submitted bugreports on several occasions in various projects. Most rewarding was when I submitted a small bug in Magpie. I got a personal reply by mail from the original developer. Seeing how your solutions are considered by the developer and how your contributions matter is big aspect of what's open source all about.
I find it surprising that he was very thoughtful about starting a software project - there are a lot of abandonden projects out there that don't work good enough and wouldn't exists if the programmer just had looked around if its really needed.
But with naming his project he just used his initial and "mail". A simple google search would have shown him that this is no good name.
When releasing something to the public I try at least to find a name that doesn't collide with existing projects (and certainly not collides with names of projects that are similar in *function*) and if possible are google unique. Helps track the distribution quite a bit.
UnNetHack: NetHack Improved!
Flossy is a sheep and a dangerous one at that.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
For my master thesis I developed an extension of the JavaScript engine in Mozilla Firefox to detect possible XSS attacks. After finishing my thesis I tried to find a way to give it back to Mozilla. First I tried the homepage to find out where I could send the patch/details to. Because there is no such contact information I tried the irc-channels. There were some nice people who tried to help me by suggesting I had to file a "bug" (that is actually a feature request) in the bugzilla bug tracking system. They also told me that they would possible only accept patches to trunk (whereas my patch was against a pre-1.0 version when 1.5 was the current official version) and that they would possibly expect me to work on the patch. When I told them that I won't have time in the future or at least couldn't guarantee to have time to work on it (perhaps some people in my former institute would be able to help) they started to flame me that it isn't possible worth the time if I'm not willing to work on it :-)
Probably they were right because the "bug" states it is "Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it" :-)
Most people choose a software program (if there is choice) not form their actual needed features, but a lot based on reputation. For developers this is a strange situation. the "Added Some Stuff Joe Thought Was Cool" feature might be nice for some users who choose just not to use it because Joe stuff has no reputation yet.
In the long run MS is right with their vista development recommendations. Not that i would recommend vista! It is just that their style rules make sense for 98% or the users. Users will go for the stylish look and later decide if memory consumption and stability stuff fits their needs. That does not mean you should build unstable software, it means you should spend some time polishing for dumb first time users and do some graphics.
The best thing linux ever did for this was choosing the penguin as a mascot.
The Open Source Definition was an attempt to formalize the requirements of free software, and any difference between the lists of open source licenses and free software licenses are due to nuances in interpretation, rather than anything substantial.
There is a philosophical difference between the main advocates of "free software" and "open source", it just doesn't matter for the majority of developers who just want to share something cool they have done. From my own days as a free software project leader, I'd estimate that for every developer discussing the ethical implication of various licenses on the net, there are 99 who couldn't care less about the license, and would even contribute their code to proprietary project if that had been necessary to make it available to others. [Of course, for every developer discussing the various licenses, there are also 99 non-developers with the mistaken belief that their opinions matter. ]
In conclusion, stop trying to create an artificial ridge between free software and open source when it isn't there or doesn't matter, depending on your point of view. It is 99% overlap, the remaining 1% is just enough for ESR and RMS to stand alone and feel important.
Up your medication.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
The problem is that they have no incentive to help you, acknowledge you, or even care if you remain a user of their product.
If you go with someone else's application, it doesn't take money out of their pocket. In fact, they would probably end up being happier if you did, because then you would stop bothering them.
This is why FOSS is not an alternative, especially for enterprise-level products. Business needs the assurance that their applications will still be around and supported, and you only get that with a quid pro quo arrangement.
It would be nice if the world ran on good will, but it doesn't.
Dude. Read the parent. He's not calling Joyce mindless drivel, he's calling the OP mindless drivel, and he's got a damn strong case for that.
Or you borrow a leaf from the commercial page and build in automated tool(s) that provide most of the needed information, and the user fills out the rest.
You get the informationn you need, and the feedback loop is nade simpler for everyone.
Dumbshit? I think not. Yes, I have read Finnegan's Wake - up to a point. Didn't particularly care for it. Do I think James Joyce is an idiot? Again, no. I also think James Joyce could have easily passed any class on English grammar that you could give him. The difference is that Joyce was writing from a character's perspective, and the OP (as near as I can tell) was writing from his own perspective and completely giving the impression that he was an ass and moron, to boot.
And since coarse invective is the only language you appear to understand, fuck you, as well.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Not the linked article, but the site of the program that was already named bMail. That's what you get for cease-and-desisting a FOSS project. (not that the author meant to DoS their site, but it's funny that it happened)
It is a little stronger than that.
- The free software philosophers believe that sharing is good for society, and to promote it they share some cool technology.
- The open source philosophers believe that cool technology is good for society, and to promote it they share some cool technology.
Most contributers don't care about what is good for society, they just have some cool technology they want to share. So they subtleties of free software vs open source really is irrelevant to most contributers.
Whether cool technology is a means to promote sharing (free software), or whether sharing is a means to create cool technology (open source), probably has some implications for what kind of society we want to build. But not for those who just want to share cool technology.
A metaphor is like a box of chocolates...
Yeah, sure you did. Way to misspell the title, by the way.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
I don't think that's accurate.
I think its more accurate this way:
- The open source philosophers believe that sharing and cool technology are good for society, and to promote both they share some cool technology, and let people with whom it is shared use it freely.
- The free software philosophers believe that sharing and cool technology are good for society, and to promote both they share some cool technology, and condition that the people they are sharing it with agree to share it and any derivates, if at all, under the same terms.
No, what you describe is the difference between the non-copyleft and copyleft free software licenses. You will find plenty of supporters for copyleft licenses in the open source camp.