Do you know about the "click to donate" button? It is not RedHat only, it is many projects. Have you clicked it? Do you use all the products for no money? Yes it is other projects with products also.
No, I don't usually donate unless i feel very strongly about a project. And I don't consider something a product unless there is some kind of official support. There are "projects"... and then there are "products." They are different.
Waste is not the best word but what do you say when a developer solves a problem you have but it is unusable because of no documents and no help.
First of all, it is very rare that there are *no* documents and *no* help for an open source project. The only time I see that is with very early release software with no community. But this is certainly not the case with Linux. There is PLENTY of help for Linux out there... even if some of the people are rude.
So you have to build it again or try to read uncommented code. This is not good use of the co-operative effort you say. It is not efficient instead. I have to solve the problem anyway, so not waste, but not good efficient use of time with dupe effort.
You should just be grateful the source is there for you to read.
Why is this the question? If I donate then I feel happy. It is my motivation, it is the same as you to make software. You make software and I donate. I donate help sometimes also, to write documents. Should I not donate, would that make you happy? Should I say I like the product and still may use the product but the documentation is bad so no money for you? What a silly question. I am moron for asking questions about the software and a moron for donating, is this what you mean? If you have open source software, I hope you do not publish it, and you do not let google index it, and enjoy it for yourself with your motivations. If we can find it we must be dumb if we can not use it. If you do not want to provide help then do not ask for money, but you imply before money is the only motivation for the support people. You ask a silly question and you do not care anyway.
I probably would not ask for donations unless it was a large project which required expensive web hosting and/or bandwidth. In which case, I would most likely not be the sole developer and the community would be large enough to supply support. I would, however, get annoyed by people like you who seem to feel that just because someone releases some code, it must work for everyone. This is just not the way it works.
What I do not like is people who do treat me like a moron and do not listen to suggestions.
Ok, rudeness is bad. There is no excuse for that. But nobody is obligated to listen to your suggestions.
I do pay. And in this case I like the food but can not always order because the menu is in a foreign language and does not make sense even after translation. I search for help with the menu and then ask and I am ignored. I offer to re write the menu if somebody would help to explain it and I am ignored. The good menu is not out there. Others can not find it either. Eventually we do not eat there and find another place with less perfect food that we can order, and we do not mind to pay.
Who are you paying, exactly? I know if you pay RedHat, for example, you get decent support. But, then, they are offering a product...
It is too bad that such good cooking talent is wasted,
It isn't "wasted." You just don't get it. Most open source developers are doing it because they enjoy it. The fact that you don't like the documentation or the service does not make their enjoyment and satisfaction a waste.
I would donate to it double if the cook would not treat me like a moron. I could have good suggestions that are ignored, but the cook will never listen. So no money for him. I do not expect more from him, but it is a waste that I can not.
Question is, why do you donate at all if you don't like the service and/or documentation?
I'm sorry, but why the hell then does anybody care at all whether Linux or Firefox or Apache or MySQL or anything else is popular out there?
I'm sorry, but what do proselytizers of projects have to the with the projects themselves? Sure, there are some projects that go out of their way to try to create "products," Firefox being an example. But there are thousands of other projects out there that make no such pretense. You either use them (and possibly contribute) or you don't. I'm sick and tired of people who expect too much from free software because they read some hype about it.
If I recommend that you try the food at a certain restaraunt because I think it is good, but you don't like the food or the service, are you going to complain to me? Now imagine if you didn't even have to pay for the food. At some point you start to sound like a whining idiot. Just don't eat there again and find someone you can pay to put the fork (with better food and a Guarantee) in your mouth.
Of course he doen't see how Microsoft is evil. He doesn't work in Marketing, PR, or Legal. Although working in those departments would make pretty much any company look bad. I used to work for a cool little ISP/Consulting company and for a great as the techs and management were, sales/marketing were just evil. It is amazing how many little white lies they can squeeze into even the simplest flyer or advertisment.
But open source software isn't, generally, a "product" in a marketing sense. That, i fear, is your problem. It is usually just a bunch of people doing what they like to do, for free. If you find the result useful, use it, if you don't, don't use it. Or pay someone like RedHat to provide a "product." It is really that simple. Open source developers are under no obligation to provide any support or documentation. It just so happens that most do to some degree.
Huh, strange. I've found exactly the opposite. It is rare that I can't get adequate support and documentation for OSS. But I guess it depends on what you expect from support. For me, "try playing with and Y values" is often a perfectly helpful response and I am almost never told to "RTFM" because a) I have usually read the manual and b) whatever problems I have are generally well outside the scope of a manual.
I think it is something unique about IRC and not necessesarily something wrong with Linux "snobs." I've been on a lot of different tech IRC channels and I've come to the conclusion that IRC just does something really bad to the personalities of those who spend too much time there. Mailing-lists are usually much better if you have a detailed or complex problem. IRC is better for the quick questions that don't involve a lot of explanation. Few people are going to help you in IRC if they think that responding to you will draw them into an hour long troubleshooting session.
How is one processor easier to manage than two? The OS takes care of it for you. All you have to do is make sure the load is appropriate and balanced. But you have to do that anyway... The problem with the OS seing "as-simple-as-possible" hardware is that it can't take advantage of any of the features that you get with high end hardware. You can't get good diagnostics. And it is difficult to tune for a particular task. What if the algorithm that AMD uses to parallelize single threads isn't very good for your particular application? How do you tune the OS for a particular task if everything is done by the hardware?
If you don't care about these things, perhaps you should consider a new line of work.
Right, this is currently done inside modern CPUs. The reason for doing hyperthreading (single CPU presented as 2) was because of the trouble of parallelizing single threads. The idea is that the OS knows better than the CPU what can run in parallel. But, I guess if you are targetting home users who generally only run one program at a time...
"Under the hood," Vista is chock full of over a decade of legacy support and backwards compatability. That is exactly what Microsoft has taken so long to develop it. Sorry, but Microsoft isn't going to really get security until they drop Win32 and start fresh.
Actually, it will probably be the other way around. Terrible security at first with some big gaping holes found. And then maybe by service pack 2 things will calm down. Most of the Vista shipments will be on new computers. But you're right, I don't see many people banging down the doors of their local computer store to get a copy of Vista if only because their computers can't handle half the new "features."
Some said the same about IBM back in the day. Granted, IBM did anything but go out of business, but they sure aren't the universal powerhouse they once were. I don't think Microsoft will go out of business any time soon, but they're about as close to the top as they're going to get. Its all (well, mostly) downhill from here. With any luck, they'll be put in their place and forced to play nice with everyone else.
That's what I thought at first, but I think they mean service as in something you rent out for private use. For example: http://www.basecamphq.com/ , a web based project management thingy. AFAIK, you can't buy Basecamp and install your own copy. Basecamp exists solely as a service that you pay to use. The application that your bank offers is not quite the same thing because you're not using it for private purposes. You're using it to interact with the bank only.
This is no myth. MySQL's client libraries are definitely GPL. If you link to them you must abide by the terms of the GPL. Alternatively, you can purchase a license from MySQL AB. MySQL AB spins this up so much saying that they are open source but what they really mean is that they are open so long as you are open.
That is *if* you link to them and only *if* you decide to resease your software. Most modern projects use some kind of database abstraction layer which would free you from any licensing obligations (as well as unnecessary DB lockin) And most people using MySQL are using it for internal projects and web sites. For 99% (made up number) of uses, MySQL is free from cost or obligation.
Answer me this one question: If the ability of the planet to support a given population depends on that population's wealth and not the use of resources, why has the overall quality of the environment gone down since the industrial revolution?
Even in rich countries, waterways are horribly polluted and air quality is sometiems quite bad.
There would be a much greater availability of resources, and the planet would be cleaner and suffering less population pressure.
Exactly how do you figure more available resources from more people demanding a higher standard of living?
Rich people don't have kids anywhere near at the rate that poor people do -- precisely because rich people can expect their children to live.
No, it is because they have less need for children to work in factories to support the family or work local farmland. Also, rich people have effective, convenient birth control so they can actually chose the number of children they have.
Population is not a people problem. It's a wealth problem. You misunderstand that to the detriment of your credibility.
Certainly better distribution of wealth (and education) would effectively cause population to level off. The question is, what happens when the billions of poorer people out there start consuming the resources, per capita, as in rich countries?
I have nothing against Nuclear power. I think it is better than fossil fuel electricity. But it is just electricity. What does it have to do with other resource issues?
So what do you think would happen if everyone were to enjoy a high standard of living that rich countries enjoy. What if there was nearly one automobile per person in China and India like in the US? What if people started using energy at the rate the rich, densly populated countries do? What if they were emitting a similar amount of greenhouse gasses per capita? Where are all the resources giong to come from and where does all the waste go?
It isn't racist. It is a genuine concern. I mean, if you want people to get out of starvation you have to wonder how that would work. It is part concern for others and part a criticism of modern society.
Given even current technology, the only limit to Human quality of life is energy. Even water can be produced from seawater via desalination at a cost of around $4 per kilowatt-hours in energy.
Japan, for example, imports far more than just energy. There are plenty of other raw materials needed to support a high tech, high standard of living. Unless you know of some Star Trek-like replicator technology that can form iron, copper, food, wood, etc directly from energy, you're being rather naive.
We need to get the costs of a full Hydrogen economy down to the point where the transition from Fossil fuels for transport to Nuclear or renewable generated Hydrogen is a no-brainer. Nuclear appears on track to be cost effective with Fossil fuel electricity in the very near term.
Ah, still under the delusion that Nuclear will make energy "too cheap to meter?" Didn't that dream die somewhere in the 60's or 70's? Or was it revived when someone made up the term "hydrogen economy?"
What kind of ISPs have you been working with? Any which provide a T1 or better should offer MX backup. You pay a lot for those lines. The least they can do is backup your mail server. It is nothing to them. Or are you getting business internet service from the local cable or DSL company who primarily deals with home users?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know about the "click to donate" button? It is not RedHat only, it is many projects. Have you clicked it? Do you use all the products for no money? Yes it is other projects with products also.
No, I don't usually donate unless i feel very strongly about a project. And I don't consider something a product unless there is some kind of official support. There are "projects"... and then there are "products." They are different.
Waste is not the best word but what do you say when a developer solves a problem you have but it is unusable because of no documents and no help.
First of all, it is very rare that there are *no* documents and *no* help for an open source project. The only time I see that is with very early release software with no community. But this is certainly not the case with Linux. There is PLENTY of help for Linux out there... even if some of the people are rude.
So you have to build it again or try to read uncommented code. This is not good use of the co-operative effort you say. It is not efficient instead. I have to solve the problem anyway, so not waste, but not good efficient use of time with dupe effort.
You should just be grateful the source is there for you to read.
Why is this the question? If I donate then I feel happy. It is my motivation, it is the same as you to make software. You make software and I donate. I donate help sometimes also, to write documents. Should I not donate, would that make you happy? Should I say I like the product and still may use the product but the documentation is bad so no money for you? What a silly question. I am moron for asking questions about the software and a moron for donating, is this what you mean? If you have open source software, I hope you do not publish it, and you do not let google index it, and enjoy it for yourself with your motivations. If we can find it we must be dumb if we can not use it. If you do not want to provide help then do not ask for money, but you imply before money is the only motivation for the support people. You ask a silly question and you do not care anyway.
I probably would not ask for donations unless it was a large project which required expensive web hosting and/or bandwidth. In which case, I would most likely not be the sole developer and the community would be large enough to supply support. I would, however, get annoyed by people like you who seem to feel that just because someone releases some code, it must work for everyone. This is just not the way it works.
What I do not like is people who do treat me like a moron and do not listen to suggestions.
Ok, rudeness is bad. There is no excuse for that. But nobody is obligated to listen to your suggestions.
-matthew
I do pay. And in this case I like the food but can not always order because the menu is in a foreign language and does not make sense even after translation. I search for help with the menu and then ask and I am ignored. I offer to re write the menu if somebody would help to explain it and I am ignored. The good menu is not out there. Others can not find it either. Eventually we do not eat there and find another place with less perfect food that we can order, and we do not mind to pay.
Who are you paying, exactly? I know if you pay RedHat, for example, you get decent support. But, then, they are offering a product...
It is too bad that such good cooking talent is wasted,
It isn't "wasted." You just don't get it. Most open source developers are doing it because they enjoy it. The fact that you don't like the documentation or the service does not make their enjoyment and satisfaction a waste.
I would donate to it double if the cook would not treat me like a moron. I could have good suggestions that are ignored, but the cook will never listen. So no money for him. I do not expect more from him, but it is a waste that I can not.
Question is, why do you donate at all if you don't like the service and/or documentation?
-matthew
I'm sorry, but why the hell then does anybody care at all whether Linux or Firefox or Apache or MySQL or anything else is popular out there?
I'm sorry, but what do proselytizers of projects have to the with the projects themselves? Sure, there are some projects that go out of their way to try to create "products," Firefox being an example. But there are thousands of other projects out there that make no such pretense. You either use them (and possibly contribute) or you don't. I'm sick and tired of people who expect too much from free software because they read some hype about it.
If I recommend that you try the food at a certain restaraunt because I think it is good, but you don't like the food or the service, are you going to complain to me? Now imagine if you didn't even have to pay for the food. At some point you start to sound like a whining idiot. Just don't eat there again and find someone you can pay to put the fork (with better food and a Guarantee) in your mouth.
-matthew
Of course he doen't see how Microsoft is evil. He doesn't work in Marketing, PR, or Legal. Although working in those departments would make pretty much any company look bad. I used to work for a cool little ISP/Consulting company and for a great as the techs and management were, sales/marketing were just evil. It is amazing how many little white lies they can squeeze into even the simplest flyer or advertisment.
-matthew
But open source software isn't, generally, a "product" in a marketing sense. That, i fear, is your problem. It is usually just a bunch of people doing what they like to do, for free. If you find the result useful, use it, if you don't, don't use it. Or pay someone like RedHat to provide a "product." It is really that simple. Open source developers are under no obligation to provide any support or documentation. It just so happens that most do to some degree.
-matthew
Huh, strange. I've found exactly the opposite. It is rare that I can't get adequate support and documentation for OSS. But I guess it depends on what you expect from support. For me, "try playing with and Y values" is often a perfectly helpful response and I am almost never told to "RTFM" because a) I have usually read the manual and b) whatever problems I have are generally well outside the scope of a manual.
-matthew
I think it is something unique about IRC and not necessesarily something wrong with Linux "snobs." I've been on a lot of different tech IRC channels and I've come to the conclusion that IRC just does something really bad to the personalities of those who spend too much time there. Mailing-lists are usually much better if you have a detailed or complex problem. IRC is better for the quick questions that don't involve a lot of explanation. Few people are going to help you in IRC if they think that responding to you will draw them into an hour long troubleshooting session.
-matthew
How is one processor easier to manage than two? The OS takes care of it for you. All you have to do is make sure the load is appropriate and balanced. But you have to do that anyway... The problem with the OS seing "as-simple-as-possible" hardware is that it can't take advantage of any of the features that you get with high end hardware. You can't get good diagnostics. And it is difficult to tune for a particular task. What if the algorithm that AMD uses to parallelize single threads isn't very good for your particular application? How do you tune the OS for a particular task if everything is done by the hardware?
If you don't care about these things, perhaps you should consider a new line of work.
-matthew
Right, this is currently done inside modern CPUs. The reason for doing hyperthreading (single CPU presented as 2) was because of the trouble of parallelizing single threads. The idea is that the OS knows better than the CPU what can run in parallel. But, I guess if you are targetting home users who generally only run one program at a time...
-matthew
I think this may apply to DVR devices where you are watching soemthing that you've recorded. Channel surfing is sooo 2003. Get with it.
-matthew
But I don't understand how the CPU can split a single process/thread among cores without the same problems encountered with superscaler architectures.
-matthew
"Under the hood," Vista is chock full of over a decade of legacy support and backwards compatability. That is exactly what Microsoft has taken so long to develop it. Sorry, but Microsoft isn't going to really get security until they drop Win32 and start fresh.
-matthew
better security for a little while.
Actually, it will probably be the other way around. Terrible security at first with some big gaping holes found. And then maybe by service pack 2 things will calm down. Most of the Vista shipments will be on new computers. But you're right, I don't see many people banging down the doors of their local computer store to get a copy of Vista if only because their computers can't handle half the new "features."
-matthew
Some said the same about IBM back in the day. Granted, IBM did anything but go out of business, but they sure aren't the universal powerhouse they once were. I don't think Microsoft will go out of business any time soon, but they're about as close to the top as they're going to get. Its all (well, mostly) downhill from here. With any luck, they'll be put in their place and forced to play nice with everyone else.
-matthew
It's great as long as the particular applicaiton/service works well over the internet (usually in a browser).
-matthew
That's what I thought at first, but I think they mean service as in something you rent out for private use. For example: http://www.basecamphq.com/ , a web based project management thingy. AFAIK, you can't buy Basecamp and install your own copy. Basecamp exists solely as a service that you pay to use. The application that your bank offers is not quite the same thing because you're not using it for private purposes. You're using it to interact with the bank only.
-matthew
This is no myth. MySQL's client libraries are definitely GPL. If you link to them you must abide by the terms of the GPL. Alternatively, you can purchase a license from MySQL AB. MySQL AB spins this up so much saying that they are open source but what they really mean is that they are open so long as you are open.
That is *if* you link to them and only *if* you decide to resease your software. Most modern projects use some kind of database abstraction layer which would free you from any licensing obligations (as well as unnecessary DB lockin) And most people using MySQL are using it for internal projects and web sites. For 99% (made up number) of uses, MySQL is free from cost or obligation.
-matthew
Answer me this one question: If the ability of the planet to support a given population depends on that population's wealth and not the use of resources, why has the overall quality of the environment gone down since the industrial revolution?
Even in rich countries, waterways are horribly polluted and air quality is sometiems quite bad.
There would be a much greater availability of resources, and the planet would be cleaner and suffering less population pressure.
Exactly how do you figure more available resources from more people demanding a higher standard of living?
Rich people don't have kids anywhere near at the rate that poor people do -- precisely because rich people can expect their children to live.
No, it is because they have less need for children to work in factories to support the family or work local farmland. Also, rich people have effective, convenient birth control so they can actually chose the number of children they have.
Population is not a people problem. It's a wealth problem. You misunderstand that to the detriment of your credibility.
Certainly better distribution of wealth (and education) would effectively cause population to level off. The question is, what happens when the billions of poorer people out there start consuming the resources, per capita, as in rich countries?
-matthew
I have nothing against Nuclear power. I think it is better than fossil fuel electricity. But it is just electricity. What does it have to do with other resource issues?
-matthew
Why hasn't that worked on Slashdot?
So what do you think would happen if everyone were to enjoy a high standard of living that rich countries enjoy. What if there was nearly one automobile per person in China and India like in the US? What if people started using energy at the rate the rich, densly populated countries do? What if they were emitting a similar amount of greenhouse gasses per capita? Where are all the resources giong to come from and where does all the waste go?
It isn't racist. It is a genuine concern. I mean, if you want people to get out of starvation you have to wonder how that would work. It is part concern for others and part a criticism of modern society.
-matthew
Given even current technology, the only limit to Human quality of life is energy. Even water can be produced from seawater via desalination at a cost of around $4 per kilowatt-hours in energy.
Japan, for example, imports far more than just energy. There are plenty of other raw materials needed to support a high tech, high standard of living. Unless you know of some Star Trek-like replicator technology that can form iron, copper, food, wood, etc directly from energy, you're being rather naive.
We need to get the costs of a full Hydrogen economy down to the point where the transition from Fossil fuels for transport to Nuclear or renewable generated Hydrogen is a no-brainer. Nuclear appears on track to be cost effective with Fossil fuel electricity in the very near term.
Ah, still under the delusion that Nuclear will make energy "too cheap to meter?" Didn't that dream die somewhere in the 60's or 70's? Or was it revived when someone made up the term "hydrogen economy?"
-matthew
Not only are water tables natural resivoirs, but the ground filters the water for you. Isn't nature great? ;-)
-matthew
What kind of ISPs have you been working with? Any which provide a T1 or better should offer MX backup. You pay a lot for those lines. The least they can do is backup your mail server. It is nothing to them. Or are you getting business internet service from the local cable or DSL company who primarily deals with home users?
-matthew