Slashdot Mirror
Kdenlive Developer Jean-Baptiste Mardelle Is Missing
jones_supa writes "Kdenlive's project leader Jean-Baptiste Mardelle, who always used to let people know if he was going to be away for a couple of days, seems to have just disappeared. His last e-mail and blog post were in early July and they didn't suggest any problems. While there's many Kdenlive fans out there for the KDE-focused open-source video editor, it seems new development efforts around the project have ceased. Also the Kdenlive Git repository hasn't seen any new commits (aside from the automated l10n daemon script) since early July. There has been also people in KDE forums and Kdenlive developers' mailing list pondering about the status of the project, being left none the wiser."
He's been kidnapped by a Gnome
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Death; ...Can't think of anything else which would mandate sudden interruptions of this kind. I mean, even if you wake up one day and just say "screw this, not doing it anymore", at least you should leave a message out of respect for your own work, if not the user base.
Family tragedy of some sort;
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Perhaps we can assemble and offer a large pile of underwear as ransom?
Will the gnomes return him unharmed, or is that a different business model?
Open source software sucks
Quite the opposite. Since it's open source, it can be forked and can continue development. With close sourced software, once development halts, for whatever reason, nobody else can work on it.
So this is actually an example why Open Source software rocks.
I did a quick google and found that he posted on September 16: http://lists.kde.org/?a=120532466800019&r=1&w=2 So let us hope that the man returns. On a bigger topic, this is the kind of software that would really benefit from having far more contributors. I am not a programmer but I'd think that working on a video editor is rather cool.
Which is different from closed source software, how?
Take SpaceMonger, for example. There one day, gone the next. Guy's still around, personal blog notes the disappearance, and essentially told people to just not ask. Well alright, then.
I do agree that when an open source software project goes stagnant because one or more active developers quit, it's rather indicative of the fact that just because the source is available that there is no guarantee whatsoever that somebody else will pick it up. But at least they can.
Pretty good reason to stay there
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Given the nature of the Kdenlive software itself, video editing, I think it would be foolish to rule out a mafiAA hit.
Why would it? The rest of the team would just pick up the software and carry on. Maybe hire a new guy to finish (or rewrite) whatever module the deceased was working on. We've had two people die in the year and a half since I started this job, we still release and bugfix.
That's the problem with a lot of Open Source software revolving around the cult of genius. Brilliant coders, but project management skills of a third grader, and often, the software is tied to the personal life of a single person. Witness Slackware's release problems a few years ago when Patrick got sick, CentOS around 6.0, WindowMaker, enlightenment, KDE's backward progress since Aaron Seigo took over, the list goes on.
Better examples of OSS longevity seem to involve meritocracies...FreeBSD and Fedora have had their share of tragedies and personal problems, but still lead the way in bringing change to their respective communities (Fedora _dominates_ Linux-development while FreeBSD is the testbed for new Apple technologies before they roll mainstream).
Can't think of anything else which would mandate sudden interruptions of this kind
I can, maybe he had a kid. Kids tend to put things in perspective. If he had a 9-5 then time really got tight for "Open Source" initiatives, namely diapers, sleepless nights and spending quality time with family.
It took me two minutes to get an address and telephone number for the guy. Maybe it's current, maybe it's not. But instead of just pointlessly speculating, maybe somebody who personally knows him from KDE events should give him a call and see how he's doing. On a side note, I can't believe this is on /. Phoronix? Yes, because its a worthless gossip rag. It's getting really old with /. taking crap articles from Phoronix and putting them on the front page.
Becaus closed source products never cease development and no one using closed source software has ever found it abandoned.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We've had two people die in the year and a half since I started this job, we still release and bugfix.
And you're still there?! Get out while you have a chance!
I've noted in my career that you see this happen to proprietary products (of all types). Unless the product has large well organized team and good cash flow to support it, the departure of a keep person often results in the product becoming an orphan. The hurdle of training up a new staff member is too large compared to other things the company could spend money on, and the product dies.
What are you talking about? He's discovered the holy grail. What do you do with a bad developer? Kill him and the company will hire a replacement. Brilliant.
Having a kid doesn't stop you from posting a message saying "not gonna do this anymore".
Also kids don't happen suddenly. You got nine months to prepare.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Closed source software development will stop when it doesn't make money. It might be because the software is no longer relevant or because it sucks, but always because it is not making any more money for the developer(s). Open source projects can continue on if they suck or if they don't. There is no filter in that regard. The need to make money effectively weeds out undeserving projects and ensures there isn't a glut of half assed copycats. That is, there are a fewer number of properly QA'd more fully featured offerings for any given piece of software. And if closed source projects are good, they generally make money so they continue until they don't. Sure there are some decent open source programs. But for a workstation or laptop, I buy closed source apps and don't mind paying for them. For servers, open source seems to be at least as good as closed source. But it easier to make money selling support contracts for servers (like database servers or JEE containers) than for individual programs. So it still comes down to money.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Oh, so like WinAmp? Gone after Dec 20, 2013.
Shit, look at what happened to the internet since Jon Postel was assassinated... :(
Really? People without kids don't have perspective? I think you may have meant something more like, "people who have kids have less time to do things they want to, in addition to the things they have to."
A lot of people dropped off the Net in July, well at least they stopped posting and doing stuff until they can secure their email, and communications.
/Adoption can be amusing...
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
So, basically OSS programmers program whenever they want, and not just to satisfy the material desires of employers, women, and the pointless treadmill of keeping up with the joneses? Sounds great to me! Hey, the source is out there, if you still need the program, it's available.. What happens when a closed source guy decides his program doesn't get him laid anymore? His site disappears and you're left searching 'oldversion.com' style sites looking for the installer...and you can pray that it'll keep working on future versions of your os.
The filter for OSS is lack of interest. When no one is interested in the capabilities, it is abandoned.
The filter for closed is lack of sustained monetization, whether the software is still useful to users or not is irrelevant. Many times older versions with fewer use restrictions end up being 'good enough', and kill off the 'business model' the developer wants to use/change to, so the whole program is abandoned. SaaS is a perfect example of this progression. Today's feature is tomorrow's monetization killer and is removed. What the user actually wants becomes more and more irrelevant as it finds its way to bottom denominator hell.
Oh, so like WinAmp? Gone after Dec 20, 2013.
no you're not - i use it in linux all the time - only for the usable ui and proper .mod support
Yes, the difference between Open Source and closed source is that often the Open Source project gets visible before it gets finished, therefore you see the projects that failed early on. OTOH closed source is usually not released before the developer considers it ready for use, therefore you'll never get to see most failed close source projects.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
There may not be "the rest of the team". You are confusing "closed source" with "company-developed".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That's more of an indictment of Linux media players rather than a complement of Winamp.
Then read the summary.
However, the difference is with open source, you CAN fork it and keep working on it. Take mg2modeller for example (on sourceforge) It's my project. I originally wanted to make a Caligari Truespace clone (funnily enough Microsoft bought out Caligari and killed Truespace) so I could model on Linux. The project is basically dead, except I still update the code every now and then when I can be bothered to sit down and code (ADHD, and lacking the ability to hyperfocus or be motivated can be a real bitch most of the time.) The project was originally a dead project I pulled from some other guy's website. I cleaned up his code, modernised it, and got it working. Now it's halfway to being a decent poly modeller with an intuitive UI. More intuitive at least than the mess of UI that is other programs. 3D modelling is one of those things that's insanely individualised. You can't just tell someone to use Blender or Maya and have them change their entire workflow. It just won't happen. I know because I've tried. Caligari Truespace is still the only modeller I choose to use. It's what I know and it's what I want to know. Hopefully some other person can take my code changes and build on them. That would make me very happy especially if they could actually finish the project. Closed source can't do any of this. It will always be inferior software because of this.
You're thinking about Norm from Cheers. It's not related to this thread, I just know you're thinking about him.
rewriting history since 2109
That is a very good point too.
This is about my level of faith in the Cloud too. It's out there and it works for you, until it's not and it doesn't.
But it sounds like he's dead. I mean, no one just gives up on an open source project.
I blame a Microsoft hit squad. Or maybe Oracle.
What are you talking about? He's discovered the holy grail. What do you do with a bad developer? Kill him and the company will hire a replacement. Brilliant.
Much better than our company's policy ... which is promote them to Manager.
Umm, not necessarily. I have dealt with as much crap closed source software as i have open source software. The key technologies and standards underpinning the modern internet are open source/open standards. The internet simply wouldn't exist without them. The website you are currently looking at uses open source software to server you the page you are able to so incorrectly comment on. The amount of times our company has bought 'enterprise' software which is missing key features. Sometimes we are told by the sales reps that these features will be added - only for them not to be before the project has its priority lowered or becomes unsupported due to a merger or acquisition. Its one of the reasons why we now attempt to use as much open source software as is possible. At least when i have dealt with OSS i have been in the situation numerous times where some specific use case isn't supported - and we can throw a developer or 2 at the project to make it supported.
One thing that always leads to confusion is a situation like this - where a developer just disappears without a word.
It's usually considered common courtesy to not fork a project if someone just needs to take a break for a while, or for that person to delegate in their absence.
Here, the person behind the project simply stopped with no warning - and at least for a month or two I'm sure any potential replacements were nervous about stepping on this guy's toes.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
You're right, number one is morality. But for most of history it's been an agreement, formally or informally, for warring nations to respect each others' people. That still applies when states are in conflict. But it's dangerous to throw that out when it comes to stateless groups - if you treat their people inhumanely, they use it for recruiting purposes. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are cases in point.
I wish they'd release the source.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Closed source development can stop even when it does make money. The company I work for is run on a serial mergers and acquisitions model. They sell the company to a group of investors which proceeds to buy up a bunch of competing products with the intention of sucking them dry in order to fund development of the next generation. That next generation gets built only to the extent that they can sell the company to the next fool. But in the meantime one or more of the acquired products gets shut down as customers migrate away - to the competition. This amazing business model has survived 6 generations of M&A's.
I'd mod myself 'funny' if it weren't all true...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Great thinking... post anything that even hints about that kind of activity, other than what you pulled out of your ass.
It's dangerous to throw that out when it comes to stateless groups - if you treat their people inhumanely, they use it for recruiting purposes. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are cases in point.
But people prone to savage acts (which can be almost anyone given the right circumstances) are going to claim that the Other are doing horrible things regardless of whether it's true. Saying anything necessary to rile your people up against the enemy has been an everpresent tactic since, well, whenever human beings were first able to muster up the strength to attack the other guys. European Jews didn't need to actually drink the blood of a single Gentile baby to become hated and feared.
It wouldn't matter if America gave every prisoner in Guantanamo a massage and ice cream sundae every day, Al Queda would still say they were skinning them alive and drinking their blood. No doubt the reverse is true to an extent as well. In fact, I may be doing it here. Hm.
Propaganda will be promulgated regardless of the facts. I'm not saying for one second that we might as well do our worst anyway, but there's no reason to expect the enemy to appreciate your restraint. We won't be hearing a Taliban representative say, "You know, Americans and Israelis aren't so bad after all" anytime soon.
For anyone who tortures or orders torture -- GWB/ the King of Terror a la nostradamas included--, the reason to not torture is NOT morality. And such definitely do not care whether others on their own side get tortured: consider Valerie Plame.
No, for such as they, the reason not to torture is to not be caught and punished.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The point is, torturing can only make it worse. That's pretty indisputable, isn't it?
The point is, torturing can only make it worse. That's pretty indisputable, isn't it?
I don't think it matters in most cases. Once stories are being told for propaganda / recruiting purposes, it's a negligible bonus if they turn out to be true. Veracity has a statistically insignificant effect.
I may be a wee bit cynical.
This is a minor quibble, though, and I agree with your point in the main. Torturing can theoretically make things worse from a PR perspective. I wouldn't say "only", and I don't think it's indisputable, because I think the effect is usually going to be zero. I can't think of any way it could make things better, though.