then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB......I think even some of the geekiest computer users start to not care when bombarded with all this
Any time new features are implemented across all major browsers (yay CSS 2.1 in IE8) it makes me quite happy, as I'm just waiting to see how much functionality we can eek out of the web before the entire effort splinters apart into such closed non-standard vendor-specific solutions like Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX, etc.
Now that CSS support is maturing, if we could just get SVG and a standard audio/video tag with Free codecs, I think we would be OK for the most common use cases.
It's kind of ironic in that Canada has historically had a problem with what we call the "brain drain", where students graduate and leave for the US or overseas for higher paying jobs. Nice to see us on the other end of that for once!
I am a fan of Free Software and the *freedom* I get from using it.
If you look at Java vs.NET in a Linux world, against a Free Software background, I think it quickly becomes obvious which one comes closer to sharing the Free Software ideals/benefits/mindset and which one doesn't. Mono may be a free implementation, but the platform they are emulating is as proprietary as ever.
The.NET platform and C# looks like decent enough technology, but I just don't think it's compelling enough to prompt a switch from Java.
With these back-room Novell/MS deals, the patent situation around Mono continues to be as clear as mud, and with Java I get it all under the GPL (with a clear and written patent grant) right from the source. Not to mention Sun's process for advancing the platform (JCP), while not perfect, is far more open and community driven, catering to much wider variety of vendors and platforms than Microsoft.
With Eclipse and Netbeans, the Java tool support on Linux is fantastic as well. With RedHat and JBoss, the server platform is also well supported on Linux.
The company I work for *is* an Enterprise customer, and we do have access to the private SVN repository.
And that has nothing to do with this thread.
Is that code GPL'd? Can I package up the SVN branches from the private repo into SRPM's and send updated packages to Fedora/RedHat then? Can I share it with my friends? Can I ship a new product based on it and charge for support myself? I think not.
This is exactly why I dislike the term "Open Source". Just because one can access the source doesn't mean they can do anything with it. Free Software for freedom.
- Releases of the Community Edition have open source (GPL'd) code available, but those releases receive no timely stable branch bugfix or security updates, and thus are not supported for enterprise use.
- Releases of the Enterprise Edition do not have open source (GPL'd) code available, but those releases do receive timely bugfix and security updates, and thus are supported for enterprise use.
So, in summary, one can choose between unstable Community Edition with GPL'd source, or stable Enterprise Edition with no GPL'd source.
Since, as we both pointed out, no real enterprise customer is going to want a system which isn't supported - that basically narrows the summary down to:
There is no GPL'd source code available for releases suitable for enterprise use.
Got it. Thanks for helping clarify. Err... nevermind the fact that is exactly what my original post said.
I'm sorry, I was running on the incorrect newbie assumption that there would be (perhaps delayed) follow-up point releases for the Community Edition in the case of critical bugs or security vulnerabilities. Thankfully, you have brought to my attention the total lack of recent Community Edition point releases, and the fact that there probably never will be further stable releases (ie, 2.2) because, as you say, it's not meant to be "suitable for Enterprise use", and that, with no public stable branches in community SVN, it's pretty much impossible for you to make such stable source releases at any point where that doesn't equate to SVN trunk.
So, I wasn't "malicious trolling", I just honestly still somehow had my expectations too high.
Now, before I continue, posts on your forum from a company email address are one thing, but posts on here from my personal address are my own opinion, not necessarily that of the company I work for. That said...
You really attempt to frame this as "my particular issue" and "my specific problems and requirements", yet I linked to 20+ threads on your forum from many other people asking about basically the same thing.
"endear me to the company"? I had this crazy impression that The Company is paid to serve the needs of The Customer, and if anything, The Company is the one who needs to do the endearing. Maybe that's just another one of my newbie assumptions.
As for characterizing my posts as not being "reasoned", "rational", or "professional", anyone is free to read the postings in this thread and form their own opinion about why you would want people to think that.
If a member of the community can't access the source code to recreate the "Community Edition" release, how is that possibly open source?
And anyone who thinks "not open development" is a "good thing" just flat out shouldn't be involved in the Free and Open Source community at all. You just plain don't Get It.
Feature-rich??? No "real" enterprise customer prefers to run a production server based off an untested SVN trunk for extra features, instead of the stability of a tested branch!
Any project that doesn't supply source code and security/bug fixes for stable releases is absolutely no good for production use and might as well not be open source!
There is a source revision in SVN for the initial 2.1.0 release, sure - but then after release, they immediately bumped it and started pushing code for the 2.9/3.0 features - you don't have any way to retrieve a tag for any follow-up branch minor releases like 2.1.X or even 2.2.X. Sure, you could try to back-port fixes from those branches which were eventually merged onto the trunk - but the trunk differences might prevent them from even being applicable, and without actual source access, there is no way for you to know exactly what went into the real branch release before being merged to trunk. This basically makes it impossible to use the open source version for production use.
Alfresco does not supply source code for releases!
The Community Edition release binaries don't come with source and would be impossible for a "community" member to (re)create! The release SDK's don't have source for nearly the whole server either! The only complete server source code available is unstable SVN trunk - where they provide (delayed) merges from their private internal branches! No public access to their stable branches/tags or anything!
Keep that dupe site up as a mirror universe to "our" slashdot. There, evil and conquest will reign supreme over discussion and civil discourse. Let all of our darkest thoughts and perversions run wild without editorial control! A no holds barred Darwinian process of devouring the weak will replace moderation. http://www.kuro5hin.org/
In the first afternoon on a new project for a company, in the time it takes me to download, install, and configure Eclipse, and use it to create and check-in the project structure, they will have already payed me enough money to buy more RAM than Eclipse will use during the rest of the year I spend coding with it.
aka: Get some better hardware - the cost is _irrelevant_ compared to quality programming labor!
"He [Miguel] also said that discussion and haggling over OSes and patents slows the industry as a whole's move to fully take advantage of new Web 2.0 business models"... "The patent piece is such a small piece of it," de Icaza said.
Miguel, get a clue! You can't just ignore patents because you want to run off and write code to quickly take advantage of some great (Web 2) business model. The WHOLE POINT of patents is to keep you from stealing others idea - and you continually treat them like they are some kind of annoying technicality we should just ignore!
I think C# is a great language, and your projects like Mono and Moonlight provide great features for developers which make building great applications easier - but it is exactly that, coupled with your (waning) popularity, which makes you the most dangerous person to the Free Software world! Your naivety in regards to patents is going to get the Free Software community sued into oblivion if you ever manage to get core stuff built using it.
Until Microsoft ships Mono/Moonlight themselves, providing a direct first party license with a patent grant like the LGPLv3 (just like Sun does with Java), all Free Software developers should STAY AWAY.
I think most people hate their computers a lot of the time - spyware, rootkits, viruses, crashing apps, etc.
Linux isn't taking shortcuts for usability, but rather building the desktop the right way, on a solid secure foundation without compromises. It's the long hard path, but when it gets there, I think it will win out in the end.
I like the Free Software community - how we all create software together, out in the open, and anyone can jump right in and contribute. I like the Fedora community, how transparent Fedora has become, and how I can basically use the Fedora tools to roll my own personal distro.
What I don't like is fancy high-paid high-level executives flying around in jets and having closed door "we can't talk about it" board room meetings regarding the status and future of what our communities create. If there are issues surrounding community software, the discussion should take place with the community who created it, not in some private meeting. A Free Software contributor shouldn't have to wait for some SEC filing from some company to find some glimpse about possible patent problems in their software. Nobody has the right to represent and decide these issues for all the Free Software contributors out there.
I want to read the *entirety* of the patent discussion with MS on the fedora or debian legal email lists. If MS won't have the discussion publically with the people who created the software, then I would rather see vendors have no discussion at all.
That's pretty much just what I thought when I heard the "Icaza, was able to commit without hesitating" thing.
I mean, with Mono they at least tried to pretend like they understood the patent situation surrounding the technology. But with this Silverlight stuff just being announced, there is no way you could have done any type of audit to know what you are getting yourself into!
It's section 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 which are meant to cover this. As I read them (not a lawyer), these basically say: "If you convey GPL'd software to someone, and grant them a patent license for that copy of the software, then that license is automatically extended to all recipients of the software. You may not convey GPL'd software if, for doing so, you are paying someone else to license their patents to your recipients."
Does that not stop this? Looks like it would to me. I'm not so sure I like the fact that for this to take effect *payment* must be made... I could imagine a similar deal without direct payment from Novell.
Mod parent up [was Re:Umm, blatant advertising...]
on
eSATA Connectors
·
· Score: 1
I have been hangin out at this site for a while, and this "article" really tips the balance for me.
I mean, I know a lot of people bash Slashdot, but come on... I can't imagine this not having been paid for. Actually, this is even worse if it _wasn't_ paid for.
Either way, I'm pretty certain this isn't the kind of compelling content that will continue to bring me back here.:(
Slashdot Mirror
then something where they claimed you'd get 76 virgins for using USB... ...I think even some of the geekiest computer users start to not care when bombarded with all this
You must be new here.
Helpful reading list :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+%22scheduler+domain%22+%22multi+core%22
Any time new features are implemented across all major browsers (yay CSS 2.1 in IE8) it makes me quite happy, as I'm just waiting to see how much functionality we can eek out of the web before the entire effort splinters apart into such closed non-standard vendor-specific solutions like Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX, etc.
Now that CSS support is maturing, if we could just get SVG and a standard audio/video tag with Free codecs, I think we would be OK for the most common use cases.
It's kind of ironic in that Canada has historically had a problem with what we call the "brain drain", where students graduate and leave for the US or overseas for higher paying jobs. Nice to see us on the other end of that for once!
I am a fan of Free Software and the *freedom* I get from using it.
If you look at Java vs .NET in a Linux world, against a Free Software background, I think it quickly becomes obvious which one comes closer to sharing the Free Software ideals/benefits/mindset and which one doesn't. Mono may be a free implementation, but the platform they are emulating is as proprietary as ever.
The .NET platform and C# looks like decent enough technology, but I just don't think it's compelling enough to prompt a switch from Java.
With these back-room Novell/MS deals, the patent situation around Mono continues to be as clear as mud, and with Java I get it all under the GPL (with a clear and written patent grant) right from the source. Not to mention Sun's process for advancing the platform (JCP), while not perfect, is far more open and community driven, catering to much wider variety of vendors and platforms than Microsoft.
With Eclipse and Netbeans, the Java tool support on Linux is fantastic as well. With RedHat and JBoss, the server platform is also well supported on Linux.
So, yeah, nice work, but no thanks.
The company I work for *is* an Enterprise customer, and we do have access to the private SVN repository.
And that has nothing to do with this thread.
Is that code GPL'd? Can I package up the SVN branches from the private repo into SRPM's and send updated packages to Fedora/RedHat then? Can I share it with my friends? Can I ship a new product based on it and charge for support myself? I think not.
This is exactly why I dislike the term "Open Source". Just because one can access the source doesn't mean they can do anything with it. Free Software for freedom.
Ok, I think I understand now...
- Releases of the Community Edition have open source (GPL'd) code available, but those releases receive no timely stable branch bugfix or security updates, and thus are not supported for enterprise use.
- Releases of the Enterprise Edition do not have open source (GPL'd) code available, but those releases do receive timely bugfix and security updates, and thus are supported for enterprise use.
So, in summary, one can choose between unstable Community Edition with GPL'd source, or stable Enterprise Edition with no GPL'd source.
Since, as we both pointed out, no real enterprise customer is going to want a system which isn't supported - that basically narrows the summary down to:
There is no GPL'd source code available for releases suitable for enterprise use.
Got it. Thanks for helping clarify. Err... nevermind the fact that is exactly what my original post said.
I'm sorry, I was running on the incorrect newbie assumption that there would be (perhaps delayed) follow-up point releases for the Community Edition in the case of critical bugs or security vulnerabilities. Thankfully, you have brought to my attention the total lack of recent Community Edition point releases, and the fact that there probably never will be further stable releases (ie, 2.2) because, as you say, it's not meant to be "suitable for Enterprise use", and that, with no public stable branches in community SVN, it's pretty much impossible for you to make such stable source releases at any point where that doesn't equate to SVN trunk.
So, I wasn't "malicious trolling", I just honestly still somehow had my expectations too high.
Now, before I continue, posts on your forum from a company email address are one thing, but posts on here from my personal address are my own opinion, not necessarily that of the company I work for. That said...
You really attempt to frame this as "my particular issue" and "my specific problems and requirements", yet I linked to 20+ threads on your forum from many other people asking about basically the same thing.
"endear me to the company"? I had this crazy impression that The Company is paid to serve the needs of The Customer, and if anything, The Company is the one who needs to do the endearing. Maybe that's just another one of my newbie assumptions.
As for characterizing my posts as not being "reasoned", "rational", or "professional", anyone is free to read the postings in this thread and form their own opinion about why you would want people to think that.
If a member of the community can't access the source code to recreate the "Community Edition" release, how is that possibly open source?
And anyone who thinks "not open development" is a "good thing" just flat out shouldn't be involved in the Free and Open Source community at all. You just plain don't Get It.
Feature-rich??? No "real" enterprise customer prefers to run a production server based off an untested SVN trunk for extra features, instead of the stability of a tested branch!
Any project that doesn't supply source code and security/bug fixes for stable releases is absolutely no good for production use and might as well not be open source!
There is a source revision in SVN for the initial 2.1.0 release, sure - but then after release, they immediately bumped it and started pushing code for the 2.9/3.0 features - you don't have any way to retrieve a tag for any follow-up branch minor releases like 2.1.X or even 2.2.X. Sure, you could try to back-port fixes from those branches which were eventually merged onto the trunk - but the trunk differences might prevent them from even being applicable, and without actual source access, there is no way for you to know exactly what went into the real branch release before being merged to trunk. This basically makes it impossible to use the open source version for production use.
Alfresco does not supply source code for releases!
The Community Edition release binaries don't come with source and would be impossible for a "community" member to (re)create! The release SDK's don't have source for nearly the whole server either! The only complete server source code available is unstable SVN trunk - where they provide (delayed) merges from their private internal branches! No public access to their stable branches/tags or anything!
http://forums.alfresco.com/en/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9932
http://forums.alfresco.com/en/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12610
In the first afternoon on a new project for a company, in the time it takes me to download, install, and configure Eclipse, and use it to create and check-in the project structure, they will have already payed me enough money to buy more RAM than Eclipse will use during the rest of the year I spend coding with it.
aka: Get some better hardware - the cost is _irrelevant_ compared to quality programming labor!
"He [Miguel] also said that discussion and haggling over OSes and patents slows the industry as a whole's move to fully take advantage of new Web 2.0 business models"... "The patent piece is such a small piece of it," de Icaza said.
Miguel, get a clue! You can't just ignore patents because you want to run off and write code to quickly take advantage of some great (Web 2) business model. The WHOLE POINT of patents is to keep you from stealing others idea - and you continually treat them like they are some kind of annoying technicality we should just ignore!
I think C# is a great language, and your projects like Mono and Moonlight provide great features for developers which make building great applications easier - but it is exactly that, coupled with your (waning) popularity, which makes you the most dangerous person to the Free Software world! Your naivety in regards to patents is going to get the Free Software community sued into oblivion if you ever manage to get core stuff built using it.
Until Microsoft ships Mono/Moonlight themselves, providing a direct first party license with a patent grant like the LGPLv3 (just like Sun does with Java), all Free Software developers should STAY AWAY.
I think most people hate their computers a lot of the time - spyware, rootkits, viruses, crashing apps, etc.
Linux isn't taking shortcuts for usability, but rather building the desktop the right way, on a solid secure foundation without compromises. It's the long hard path, but when it gets there, I think it will win out in the end.
[swedish accent]That's because you are craazy[/swedish accent]
I like the Free Software community - how we all create software together, out in the open, and anyone can jump right in and contribute. I like the Fedora community, how transparent Fedora has become, and how I can basically use the Fedora tools to roll my own personal distro.
What I don't like is fancy high-paid high-level executives flying around in jets and having closed door "we can't talk about it" board room meetings regarding the status and future of what our communities create. If there are issues surrounding community software, the discussion should take place with the community who created it, not in some private meeting. A Free Software contributor shouldn't have to wait for some SEC filing from some company to find some glimpse about possible patent problems in their software. Nobody has the right to represent and decide these issues for all the Free Software contributors out there.
I want to read the *entirety* of the patent discussion with MS on the fedora or debian legal email lists. If MS won't have the discussion publically with the people who created the software, then I would rather see vendors have no discussion at all.
That's pretty much just what I thought when I heard the "Icaza, was able to commit without hesitating" thing.
I mean, with Mono they at least tried to pretend like they understood the patent situation surrounding the technology. But with this Silverlight stuff just being announced, there is no way you could have done any type of audit to know what you are getting yourself into!
It's section 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 which are meant to cover this. As I read them (not a lawyer), these basically say: "If you convey GPL'd software to someone, and grant them a patent license for that copy of the software, then that license is automatically extended to all recipients of the software. You may not convey GPL'd software if, for doing so, you are paying someone else to license their patents to your recipients."
Does that not stop this? Looks like it would to me. I'm not so sure I like the fact that for this to take effect *payment* must be made... I could imagine a similar deal without direct payment from Novell.
C-Media Oxygen HD sound cards from Auzentech and Sondigo -o und-cards/index.x?pg=1
Creative gets competition:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/oxygen-s
(p.s. Hi!)
I have been hangin out at this site for a while, and this "article" really tips the balance for me.
:(
I mean, I know a lot of people bash Slashdot, but come on... I can't imagine this not having been paid for. Actually, this is even worse if it _wasn't_ paid for.
Either way, I'm pretty certain this isn't the kind of compelling content that will continue to bring me back here.
If you have the cash, why not install Mathematica on a handheld UMPC?
Special purpose hardware is dead.
Pffft.
See this: http://intellinuxgraphics.com/ ???
Call me when there is a http://sonylinuxgraphics.com/ and they have decent PS3 graphics driver code in the X.org source tree.
Hell, call me when there is at least a binary (nvidia style) Linux graphics driver.