The issue is that "Big Business" pays a subset of the developers to help set the direction but the majority of developers are unpaid. If you have a better interpretation of the concern, please share it.
I wasn't questioning the interpretation of the concern, merely pointing out the absurdity of it. The overall direction of a project is set by the will of the majority or that of the lead or core developers. "Big Business" pays programmers to contribute code to OSS projects. This is a Good Thing ®. Their say over the project is proportional to their input into the project. If the majority of the work is done by these paid developers, then, of course, they will drive the direction of the project.
I fail to see where the problem is. In fact, it is surely a positive thing that they do contribute in this way and pay programmers to do this. And I certainly fail to see what the hell an unelected eurocrat, who has contributed absolutely nothing to OSS or anything else, has got to do with it.
I don't think it's about existing versions, it seems to me that the complaint is that the large corps are setting the direction for future development.
The idea is that IBM (for example) has a direction for the projects it supports and uses the team's developers to implement that vision despite only paying a few of the team members directly.
So, let me get this straight. Big Business pays developers to contribute code to open source projects to add new features that they want? And your problem is what, exactly?
The UK is the only broadcast to not take the show seriously
Not quite. The French TV broadcast was also pretty funny. It was hosted by a couple of camp gay commentators who took the piss throughout and even had a good sing-song during the show.
On the subject of free markets, British Telecom asked Thatcher and the UK Government in the 1980s if they could deliver fiber to every property in the UK allowing a wide range of facilities, but were told no due to competition rules.
Not true. In the 80's BT did in fact install fibre optic cable extensively on their backbone. What they asked the government for was additional public subsidies to install fibre optic cable on the "last mile" from the exchanges into people's home. This would have cost a fortune and would also have destroyed the fledgling cable companies (which was part of the reason for asking for this subsidy).
Those of you with massive digital images might be interested in the IIPImage system for viewing large images over the web:
http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that "Big Business" pays a subset of the developers to help set the direction but the majority of developers are unpaid. If you have a better interpretation of the concern, please share it.
I wasn't questioning the interpretation of the concern, merely pointing out the absurdity of it. The overall direction of a project is set by the will of the majority or that of the lead or core developers. "Big Business" pays programmers to contribute code to OSS projects. This is a Good Thing ®. Their say over the project is proportional to their input into the project. If the majority of the work is done by these paid developers, then, of course, they will drive the direction of the project.
I fail to see where the problem is. In fact, it is surely a positive thing that they do contribute in this way and pay programmers to do this. And I certainly fail to see what the hell an unelected eurocrat, who has contributed absolutely nothing to OSS or anything else, has got to do with it.
So, let me get this straight. Big Business pays developers to contribute code to open source projects to add new features that they want? And your problem is what, exactly?
The UK is the only broadcast to not take the show seriously Not quite. The French TV broadcast was also pretty funny. It was hosted by a couple of camp gay commentators who took the piss throughout and even had a good sing-song during the show.
Recently the LibDems got 6 million votes in the Euro elections and not 1 seat because of the system.
The EU parliament elections are not based on first past the post, but are based on proportional representation and have been since 1999.
Not true. In the 80's BT did in fact install fibre optic cable extensively on their backbone. What they asked the government for was additional public subsidies to install fibre optic cable on the "last mile" from the exchanges into people's home. This would have cost a fortune and would also have destroyed the fledgling cable companies (which was part of the reason for asking for this subsidy).
The project evolved into the open source IIPImage system http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/.
;-)
It's in use internally at the National Gallery in London and the Louvre Museum in Paris amongst others.
There's are some demos of some extremely large images including a nice 43200 x 21600 pixel monster here: http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/IIPDemo.html
Let's see the if our servers can handle a slashdotting
Those of you with massive digital images might be interested in the IIPImage system for viewing large images over the web: http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/
There's an impressive demo with an image of (only) 3.6GB: http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/IIPDemo.html
You could cut your travel time in half by simply taking the fast RER line A between Vincennes and la Defense.