RMS is an extremist. Always has been. In that role, he has fought for the complete freedom of software. IMHO, it's an admirable, idealistic view of the world. Having said that, there are times when his extremism causes him to fall right off the deep end, for refusing to make the smallest compromise for the good of the movement.
McVoy is hardly anti-free-software. The very fact that he gives away *anything* for free symbolizes that. (He doesn't have to give anything away.) He makes the simple requirement that the free users use the newest versions for bug reporting reasons. Not a bad idea IMO.
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money. That extreme view causes great debate in the community (this discussion for one) and that's a *good* thing! However, RMS needs to be less beligerent about this one. The kernel needs a stable base in terms of source control. If Linus determines that the best solution is BitKeeper, then that's his decision. RMS has the right to his opinion, but not to insult the intelligence of all of us by tring to tell us that we're all compromising our values by allowing this.
In a similar vein, am I the only one who is sick of RMS whining about the naming of Linux? The accepted name is Linux not GNU/Linux. It's out of your hands, RMS. Live with it.
Oh, so you expect every poster on Slashdot to be perfectly biasless in all their posts. Give me a break. Everybody has a bias whether they choose to admit it or not. You portray an obvious bias against/. posters in your comment. If you don't like the bias of/. posters then why are you here?
IMHO, in this case, "smart" equals "reacts against the hijacking of copyright law to prevent fair use". Alternatively, if you like RMS-speak, "smart" equals "understanding that information wants to be free".
If you end up unreadable because of too many bug numbers then the original code wasn't very good was it?:-)
You could accomplish the same thing with version control, but you can't see the version control information when you're looking at the code can you? That's the advantage to also putting in a comment.
The ratio of code to comment is not important. It's not quantity, it's quality. The comment needs to say anything that is not obvious from the code that needs to be said for the reader, who knows nothing about the code, to understand what is going on.
Another important feature of comments is a changelog-ish sort of function whereby each software change is documented within the code. Where I work, all of us in Sustaining Engineering write in a bug number with each change that we make so we can go back and find why that change was made later on when we look at the code and wonder why the heck we did that.
These are a few good rules of thumb in my experience at least..
The problem is that the advertisers don't get it. I use WebWasher *because* the ads are too big and in-your-face and in the way of the content. Eventually, they'll figure out that this is the case and make less obtrusive ads that still serve their purposes, but until then, I'm going to continue blocking them.
IMHO, the ads that/. has now are perfectly tolerable. There are ways to put more ads on the page that would be fine and wouldn't make me want to block them. Maybe when the changes arrive they'll be no problem. Then again, maybe not.
Okay, I understand that/. needs to make money in order to keep going. Sell ads. Just don't expect me to look at them. I've used Webwasher on and off for a while now, and if the ads on/. get much beyond where they are right now, I will go to using WW 100%.
OTOH, I think I can count on one hand the times I've intentionally hit a banner ad anyway, so perhaps I'm not the best example....
The issue is that/. has an internet-savvy audience for the most part. If the editors think they can sneak one past the majority of their readers, I'm afraid my shield will be quite operational when their ads arrive!;-)
Not to mention the idiots who are adding up the number for the different distros and saying Linux has that many vulnerabilities, when in fact, many of those holes are probably redundant between the distros...
Security is difficult at best to measure, because if you knew your system had holes, then you would know it was insecure. You might say to believe your system is secure is to live in blissful ignorance..:-D
No, it's the programmer's fault for letting their pointers get out of control. Protected mode would not be needed if not for buggy code that other processes need to be protected from. Those exceptions are caused by bugs in the code that raised them.
The OS can compound the problem by not using protected mode, but strictly speaking it's not the OS' fault that someone wrote buggy code.
Pointers are pretty ubiquitous in C, and a large percentage of existing code is in C, but not 99%. Now, you can write good pointer code and bad pointer code just like anything else. To declare all code that uses pointers to be unsafe is bizarre. The danger with pointers is that you can get them pointing at weird places and get weird results.:)
Java (unless things have changed recently) does not use pointers. That, IMHO, is one of it's benefits, not because pointers make things unsafe, but because the code is easier to follow and understand.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using CVS. Your question raises a larger issue, however. As with any large project, it is difficult if not impossible for one person to have knowledge of the entire scope. Linux has become bigger than Linus.
From its very beginning, Linus has kept a tight rein on Linux, and everybody in general let it go if for no other reason than he's a smart guy and by God, he wrote the thing! Don't get me wrong. That was a Good Thing (tm). Now, however, we are finding that it is becoming less and less practical for Linus to handle all of the patches.
Linux is becoming more and more like a cathedral and less and less like the bazaar. Whether he likes it or not, for Linux to continue to thrive (perhaps even to continue as we know it) Linus is going to have to decentralize the way patches are brought into Linux. I don't claim to have all the answers, but there must be a way to make a CVS-a-like system work and keep Linus' ability to make the final say if he wants to. Another alternative is for Linus to put more trust in his maintainers and let them accept patches for their respective subsystems.
The problem here is the star network topology that we have with respect to patches. If Linus is not willing to release his hold on the center of that star, then Linux could have a MAJOR problem!
Can I hook one of these up to my laptop and get broadband wireless internet? That's the Killer App (tm) for this technology IMHO at least in the short term.
The trouble with this sort of logic is that most people *want* the things that you're suggesting that they leave behind. Now, Gnome/KDE are slow, but it's really hard to determine whether that's because they're bloated or because X is holding them back. I'd be more likely to believe they're bloated, but it could be X. The bottom line is that the features that Gnome/KDE add are valuable. Just because 1995 technology runs well doesn't make X good.
I assume that I'd still need a router or hub if there are more than 2 machines hooked together over this interface given that it's just a power line ethernet interface, right?
This may be slightly off topic, but it seems to me as if the idea of set top boxes could eventually cause the end of a seperate box/monitor for a computer. The only thing I see holding this back would be the capabilities of your average TV.. My question is can HDTV do sufficient resolution to be a serviceable monitor? I know that a regular TV is 640x480, which for a computer sucks, but if a HDTV is something larger, then what would stop someone from doing a whole computer set top box? Perhaps it would have to be a bit larger than your cable box, but still it seems interesting.
And how many network operations do you know of that use the same amount of bandwidth equally for a month?
I agree that the limit is low, but, for the average home internet user this is probably not a huge issue. I know we could operate our home internet connection quite well under that limit.
Well, then do you use XP? Your comments are the best reasons to try using XP practices in your development environment.
Personally, I think that if you followed all of the XP practices it would become impractical. However, that doesn't by any strech mean that I throw all of XP out. I happen to think that pair programming would become impractical for large projects, but I think that automated unit test programs run up front from the start of a project would be extremely valuable.
Myself, I don't turn the knobs up to 11, just 7, but at least I know where my knobs are set. Do you?
I agree.. In fact, I have no problem with this whatsoever. Think about this: Tito has advanced the cause of research by giving the Russians something that they need desperately. Cash to build new parts for the station.
Does the idea of tourists at the station repulse me somewhat? Yes. Does the end of funding the station justify that means? Yes.
I was a database administrator for 3 years, and I think I changed the schema of an existing table exactly once. Now, I'm not totally sold on the idea of OODBMS, but if it has genuine benefits, then making schema changes harder would not be that bad considering how often they tend to occur.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. I merely meant that was his goal, not that everyone agrees with his goals or methods.
Ben
RMS is an extremist. Always has been. In that role, he has fought for the complete freedom of software. IMHO, it's an admirable, idealistic view of the world. Having said that, there are times when his extremism causes him to fall right off the deep end, for refusing to make the smallest compromise for the good of the movement.
McVoy is hardly anti-free-software. The very fact that he gives away *anything* for free symbolizes that. (He doesn't have to give anything away.) He makes the simple requirement that the free users use the newest versions for bug reporting reasons. Not a bad idea IMO.
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money. That extreme view causes great debate in the community (this discussion for one) and that's a *good* thing! However, RMS needs to be less beligerent about this one. The kernel needs a stable base in terms of source control. If Linus determines that the best solution is BitKeeper, then that's his decision. RMS has the right to his opinion, but not to insult the intelligence of all of us by tring to tell us that we're all compromising our values by allowing this.
In a similar vein, am I the only one who is sick of RMS whining about the naming of Linux? The accepted name is Linux not GNU/Linux. It's out of your hands, RMS. Live with it.
Ben
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those things!
Ben
Oh, so you expect every poster on Slashdot to be perfectly biasless in all their posts. Give me a break. Everybody has a bias whether they choose to admit it or not. You portray an obvious bias against /. posters in your comment. If you don't like the bias of /. posters then why are you here?
IMHO, in this case, "smart" equals "reacts against the hijacking of copyright law to prevent fair use". Alternatively, if you like RMS-speak, "smart" equals "understanding that information wants to be free".
Ben
If you end up unreadable because of too many bug numbers then the original code wasn't very good was it? :-)
You could accomplish the same thing with version control, but you can't see the version control information when you're looking at the code can you? That's the advantage to also putting in a comment.
Ben
The ratio of code to comment is not important. It's not quantity, it's quality. The comment needs to say anything that is not obvious from the code that needs to be said for the reader, who knows nothing about the code, to understand what is going on.
Another important feature of comments is a changelog-ish sort of function whereby each software change is documented within the code. Where I work, all of us in Sustaining Engineering write in a bug number with each change that we make so we can go back and find why that change was made later on when we look at the code and wonder why the heck we did that.
These are a few good rules of thumb in my experience at least..
Ben
Um, how will they know when they've found everything?
The problem is that the advertisers don't get it. I use WebWasher *because* the ads are too big and in-your-face and in the way of the content. Eventually, they'll figure out that this is the case and make less obtrusive ads that still serve their purposes, but until then, I'm going to continue blocking them.
/. has now are perfectly tolerable. There are ways to put more ads on the page that would be fine and wouldn't make me want to block them. Maybe when the changes arrive they'll be no problem. Then again, maybe not.
IMHO, the ads that
Ben
Okay, I understand that /. needs to make money in order to keep going. Sell ads. Just don't expect me to look at them. I've used Webwasher on and off for a while now, and if the ads on /. get much beyond where they are right now, I will go to using WW 100%.
/. has an internet-savvy audience for the most part. If the editors think they can sneak one past the majority of their readers, I'm afraid my shield will be quite operational when their ads arrive! ;-)
OTOH, I think I can count on one hand the times I've intentionally hit a banner ad anyway, so perhaps I'm not the best example....
The issue is that
Ben
I found myself looking for the "would be funny if it weren't so sad" moderation button for this one... :)
Ben
Not to mention the idiots who are adding up the number for the different distros and saying Linux has that many vulnerabilities, when in fact, many of those holes are probably redundant between the distros...
.. :-D
Security is difficult at best to measure, because if you knew your system had holes, then you would know it was insecure. You might say to believe your system is secure is to live in blissful ignorance
Ben
No, it's the programmer's fault for letting their pointers get out of control. Protected mode would not be needed if not for buggy code that other processes need to be protected from. Those exceptions are caused by bugs in the code that raised them.
The OS can compound the problem by not using protected mode, but strictly speaking it's not the OS' fault that someone wrote buggy code.
Ben
Pointers are pretty ubiquitous in C, and a large percentage of existing code is in C, but not 99%. Now, you can write good pointer code and bad pointer code just like anything else. To declare all code that uses pointers to be unsafe is bizarre. The danger with pointers is that you can get them pointing at weird places and get weird results. :)
Java (unless things have changed recently) does not use pointers. That, IMHO, is one of it's benefits, not because pointers make things unsafe, but because the code is easier to follow and understand.
Ben
And apparently you are the self-appointed police of that non-democracy. Get a life.
Ben
In a word... Bullfunky.
I have no interest in taking over Linus position. My entire point is that Linus' position is untenable.
I simply want Linux to succeed. I believe that the Current State of the World(tm) is not conducive to the success of Linux. I advocate no solutions.
Ben
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using CVS. Your question raises a larger issue, however. As with any large project, it is difficult if not impossible for one person to have knowledge of the entire scope. Linux has become bigger than Linus.
From its very beginning, Linus has kept a tight rein on Linux, and everybody in general let it go if for no other reason than he's a smart guy and by God, he wrote the thing! Don't get me wrong. That was a Good Thing (tm). Now, however, we are finding that it is becoming less and less practical for Linus to handle all of the patches.
Linux is becoming more and more like a cathedral and less and less like the bazaar. Whether he likes it or not, for Linux to continue to thrive (perhaps even to continue as we know it) Linus is going to have to decentralize the way patches are brought into Linux. I don't claim to have all the answers, but there must be a way to make a CVS-a-like system work and keep Linus' ability to make the final say if he wants to. Another alternative is for Linus to put more trust in his maintainers and let them accept patches for their respective subsystems.
The problem here is the star network topology that we have with respect to patches. If Linus is not willing to release his hold on the center of that star, then Linux could have a MAJOR problem!
Ben
Can I hook one of these up to my laptop and get broadband wireless internet? That's the Killer App (tm) for this technology IMHO at least in the short term.
Ben
The trouble with this sort of logic is that most people *want* the things that you're suggesting that they leave behind. Now, Gnome/KDE are slow, but it's really hard to determine whether that's because they're bloated or because X is holding them back. I'd be more likely to believe they're bloated, but it could be X. The bottom line is that the features that Gnome/KDE add are valuable. Just because 1995 technology runs well doesn't make X good.
Ben
I assume that I'd still need a router or hub if there are more than 2 machines hooked together over this interface given that it's just a power line ethernet interface, right?
Ben
That's why ASP's will never control the market.
Welcome to capitolism.
Ben
This may be slightly off topic, but it seems to me as if the idea of set top boxes could eventually cause the end of a seperate box/monitor for a computer. The only thing I see holding this back would be the capabilities of your average TV.. My question is can HDTV do sufficient resolution to be a serviceable monitor? I know that a regular TV is 640x480, which for a computer sucks, but if a HDTV is something larger, then what would stop someone from doing a whole computer set top box? Perhaps it would have to be a bit larger than your cable box, but still it seems interesting.
And how many network operations do you know of that use the same amount of bandwidth equally for a month?
I agree that the limit is low, but, for the average home internet user this is probably not a huge issue. I know we could operate our home internet connection quite well under that limit.
Ben
Well, then do you use XP? Your comments are the best reasons to try using XP practices in your development environment.
Personally, I think that if you followed all of the XP practices it would become impractical. However, that doesn't by any strech mean that I throw all of XP out. I happen to think that pair programming would become impractical for large projects, but I think that automated unit test programs run up front from the start of a project would be extremely valuable.
Myself, I don't turn the knobs up to 11, just 7, but at least I know where my knobs are set. Do you?
Ben
I agree.. In fact, I have no problem with this whatsoever. Think about this: Tito has advanced the cause of research by giving the Russians something that they need desperately. Cash to build new parts for the station.
Does the idea of tourists at the station repulse me somewhat? Yes. Does the end of funding the station justify that means? Yes.
Ben
I was a database administrator for 3 years, and I think I changed the schema of an existing table exactly once. Now, I'm not totally sold on the idea of OODBMS, but if it has genuine benefits, then making schema changes harder would not be that bad considering how often they tend to occur.
Ben