Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Software has Special Issue on Linux
khizard writes "IEEE Software special issue about linux is out. It's very high level (no kernel intrinsic or any clue on linux 2.2 architecture :-) and try to place linux in the current computer industry.
So sad you have to be IEEE member to have full access to the pdf file, but you can still read the abstracts. "
(who does all of those???)
Who needs to blow chunks of money to download IEEE's silly PDF file on Linux? Like IEEE knows anything more about Linux than the rest of us? ACM and IEEE are trying to gain a monopoly over CS and EE resources. Those fuckers should die.
Cypherpunks as an ID and password gives you full PDF access.
Can't get a connection now, but downloaded the ;-)
;-)
whole thing earlier today.
cypherpunks/cypherpunks works
so long
Ray
please!
If you knew anything about IEEE and ACM, I doubt you would behave this way. I completely do not understand your "monopoly" assertion. These are non-profit institutions.
And if anybody is lobbying for your interests as an engineer, it would be IEEE.
This issue is an excellent leap forward for LINUX. For those of us who work in places which take software engineering seriously, this gives us tremendous credibility. My manager (and his manager) did a complete turnaround on LINUX when this issue was announced.
I can't download any of the pdf files. The requests just time out. Any mirros?
Granted, you probably know more about Linux than you'll learn reading IEEE Software, but that's because you're not the intended audience.
Money is not everything you idiot. What ACM and IEEE is doing with CS and EE knowledge is no less worse than what what proprietary companies do with software and patents.
it works because a lot of people cooperate :)
:)
if you find a site that doesn't already have "cypherpunk" "cypherpunk", please register using that username/password so other people can use them, too.
ain't it cool?
Was pretty down on Linux and open source. Of
course, this was the "Digital Critic" column
at the back of the magazine. Some quotes
from memory
"Open source has always been the tactic of the weak"
"Windows NT is smothering the Unix (server?) market"
Kind of unpleasant.
-- cary
Micro$oft Site Builder Network (and maybe general registration) needs a cypherpunk nick/pass...
Posted by Forrest J. Cavalier III:
Two IEEE magazines with excellent commentary on Open Source
software arrived in my mail on the same day. Since Mr. McConnell's article speaks of
the difficulty of "striking it rich" after the "surface gold" of new
software markets is depleted, and acid plays an essential part in
extracting metal from low-grade ore, I wonder if the titles were
coordinated.
I agree that there are barriers to "mainstreaming" (covered by Binary Critic Ted Lewis in IEEE Computer) and surviving "After the Gold Rush"
(Steve McConnell, IEEE Software.) These barriers exist whether a product is developed by "two guys in a garage" or companies with substantial capital and marketing muscle. But I think the authors have each missed the essence of open source software.
Mr. Lewis looks at Linux and concludes that it will not cross the chasm to the mainstream. Linux will collapse under its own weight of exponential complexity and inefficiency.
Mr. McConnell states that high risk, new market ("gold rush") projects are vital to the economy and the forward march of technology. Those projects attract the imaginations and efforts
of software the best practitioners. He concludes "Modern software engineering needs to rise to the challenge... [to make] more of these projects successful."
Hello! The natural forces pushing the advance of technology grew tired of waiting for software engineering to increase project success rates. Instead, software developers found a way to make more projects POSSIBLE.
The marketplace is already very efficient at discovering and advancing the best technology and products through "natural selection." With more projects, there will be more successes, regardless of what help or hindrance software engineering brings.
This isn't to say that I disdain software engineering or "best practices." I think software enginerring can shed a great deal of insight into open source development, leading to improvements and lowering barriers even further (getting down to one person in a garage would double the number
of projects.) See "Some Implications of Bazaar Size" http://www.mibsoftware.com/bazdev/ for some ways I think software engineering practices will help.
The success of open source is not dependent on Linux any more than the effects of a rising tide are hindered by a single leaky boat, (which doesn't describe Linux at all.) Linux, the
product, might never cross the chasm. Open Source isn't a product saddled with the need for capital and revenue. It's a philosophy that will continue to succeed because it creates success.
The magazine is excellent.. very few ads vs. content, and a good mix of practical with academic content in it. Steve McConnell's (of Code Complete fame) is the new editor-in-chief.
If you go to college, your library probably has it.. (mine does)..
-Stu
How ironic. Here's an online magazine declaring how great "open source" is and charging outlandish prices to have access. Ridiculous.
support gun control: take guns from cops
/.ed
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
This is the sorta coverage Linux needs... and we just keep getting more and more of it!
Zanthor - Tibbs
Zanthor
I saw in IEEE spectrum that they had an article and I sent it in to /. and then this???
hmmmm of course Spectrum just mentioned Linux...
Only 'flamers' flame!
The first 2 paragraphs of this story basically discredit it in my eyes. NT workstation looks cheaper if you are comparing it to SUN and HP UNIXs. The Free UNIX market is where the action is.
If a non-profit organization such as IEEE wishes to gain a monopoly, no problem -- they have done a lot more for the industry than you or I have, and continue to do so.
Er, wait -- how exactly does a non-profit research institution made up of thousands of non-related members gain a monopoly again?
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Some people are whining about how the ACM and IEEE
don't know what they're talking about. I would
say to them to join either of both of these
societies submit letters or articles. It's
not just a group of stuffy old academics. You can
participate if you want, and you'd be surprised
what good BS filters both of these groups are.
Most of their publications are of high quality
and address important issues. They only care
about your ideas and how well you write.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.