While I agree that the idea that workers are 'entitled' to something after poaring their souls into a company is a GREAT idea, mandating this by law is a little overboard I think.
The entire notion that workers are 'entitled' to anything is just wrong. A company needs work done. It pays people cash in exchange for completing that work. PERIOD. You want more then that? Work for yourself. Easy enough..
I mean, what if you hired a painter to paint your house. He finishes, but when hes done, suddenly demand that you pay him an extra 50%.
When theres no work to be done, then the workers arent needed. So they have to find something else to do. If a company takes CARE of its employees, the benifits will be apperent. Treat them like dirt, and you dont attract good workers. Unions are, in reality, simply a company whos sole job is to hold companies ransom, using their workers as hostages. Ok, this sounds harsh, but really, thats what it is. THEY ARE A GOOD THING. If workers choose to go it by themselves, then great. They have the right to leave whenever they wish, JUST like the company has the right to say We dont NEED you anymore.
If we DO end up going down that road, then we might as well just say everyone works, and the government 'issues' them moneys. Instead of companies charging for items, the government places a fair price on things. This is what we're going to if we start mandating that workers are entitled to something other then fair pay.
I'd like to point out that a good half of the vulnerabilities that Nimda exploits are patches that are not available under Windows update, but only on www.microsoft.com/security, 'spec when deadling with Win2k Server and Advanced server. Windows Update is really only up to date for Win2k Pro, and consumer OSs such as Me, etc..
Yes, but many projects have the 'core', which is what they developed, and ANYTHING else ends up in the contrib directory. Contrib has a purpose, yes, but you prob get my point.
Forking, IMHO, turns this into an entirely NEW project. The source provides the open part. 8-P It's a part of a project, but isnt the project in and of itself. That was really my point.
Yes, and its not a bad thing. It just happens to be a project that suites its purpose, and thats it. It will never, however, be wildly popular. This isn't a BAD thing, so long as it suites the needs or its target audience.
Many times, the needs happen to be simply trying to do it. In that case, the developers themselves are the audience, and they gain the experience.
And many, OH so many of these small things, that end up sitting in sourceforge limbo, serve, at the very least, as GREAT sample code for the next project to do more then likely basically the same thing...
Perhaps, but bear in mind, for the longest time, and to an extend, still, Linux himself, in the case of the kernel, manages merging changes into the 'official' kernel tree.
Even with AC there, he still treats Alans patches the same way, and does it pretty much all himself..
I've found that, while a great many projects are considered 'Open Source', making the source available does NOT make an open source project. To be a truely open project, you also have to have an effort to do things such as merge and include changes that have been provided BACK into the project.
Many the project has a list of 'contributed' changes, with many things that NEVER actually make it back into the source tree. Why? I'm unsure, beyond the fact that many individuals who do these things, do so for themselves, and are nice enough to make the source available. They are NOT, however, interested in fostering a community around the further development of their code. The blokes who wish to step up and take on these reins are few and far between, and it is really a different 'role' then many of the developers out there WANT to have.
In order for a project to do this, it requires 'evangualists' that wish to take on these roles. Some people serve both roles, indipendent developer AND evangualist. These people serve as the best 'Project' leaders. They posess skills that many people dont have, only ONE of them being good developers or engineers.
I dont think this is a BAD thing, really, it just determines which projects will be wildly successfull, and which ones will simply be pet projects, used little, possibly important, but very often, eventually abandonded.
Perhaps a way to say this would be an 'Open Source' project, versus an 'Open Development' project.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the role ISN'T being filled becouse, it's simply not THERE yet?
Personally, being an engineer and a technoweenie, I like the idea, but many out there just look at me and kinda say 'Why?'.
Perhaps the role will eventually be considered as needed, but it may take a LONG time. Look at how long it actually took the PC to be in nearly everyones livingroom and part of every day life? YEARS. Sure, there where many 'toys' out there. Who doesn't have a Vic20 of Commodore 64 in their attic or basement, but these never became the centerpieces that these devices are looking to fill..
I dont forsee these being popular for several years yet. Unfortionatly, I said the same thing a few years back. Heck, in a few years, I might be saying it again. In the meantime, I hope at least one or two vendors survive, simply so I can have MY fix.. 8-P
Well, thats just annoying. You have to have at least typed for 20 seconds before you can hit submit? Whats up with that? Some of us can type fast, ya know..
Damned good point. Yet another example of a group of people wanting to do something to prove that theirs is bigger, longer, and stronger then someone elses.
Theres no itch scratching going on here, and they sure dont seem to have a focus on 'WHY' they want to do this.
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people
I agree that this seems to be what the DotGNU people are seemly try to do. Mono, on the other hand, is more looking at having alternative langauges, etc, on the *nix based OSs. Porting the CLI means nearly everything else can be ported with ease. They are looking to actual WRITE most of the infrastructure in C# after all, after getting a decent CLI up and running..
I've been looking at the DotGNU projecft recently, and something occured to me..
They're not interested in anything their doing for technical reasons.. They just want to build something simular to snub their noses at Microsoft, and prove a point. This is absolutly the WRONG reason to be doing this effort.
Proof is in the pudding. Heres some excepts:
This list (the DotGNU "arch" list) on the other hand is about
creating a something much more powerful than what Microsoft has,
something that Microsoft cannot easily copy because it is
totally incompatible with the business model they've chosen for
.NET
Mono will have a place in DotGNU for providing ".NET emulation
functionality", but I don't see.NET or Mono doing anything that
comes close to the Distributed Execution Environment that we've
been talking about for DotGNU.
Oh, and heres something where they aren't quite getting this, I think:
Microsoft has an advantage over us at this point because they hold the
keys to the client OS. This allows them to insert their authentication
and.Net framework at a low level and distribute the entire thing with
their OS. This allows the.Net infrustructure to be entirely
transparent to the user. Dotgnu, by it's very nature, will not be
entirely transparent to the user because we don't have access to the
source code - and because of the increased control we're going to have
to give the user.
I mean common, someone has to send a message, tell them that theirs are quiet long enough, and they can stop it with the rulers.
They're not looking for a good, sound, technically superior product. They're looking to prove their right, and someone else is wrong. I truely hope it succeeds, but at this rate, we're gonna end up with the Windows Terminal Server of the Open Source world.
Thats becouse we took the time to write, rewrite, throwaway, rewrite some more. It takes alot of time to do that correctly. It started as an experiment. It has gone thru several incarnations to what it is currently.
You go write it in a month. Put your skills where your mouth is. Heck, we might even rewrite again if your models good enough.. 8-P
Err, thats due to the use of JabberCOM, and the fact that, it's very hard to use connection points in a Visual C++, etc, application. But saying 'they can't offer a client besides Delphi of VB' is silly. Anyone who cares to can go ahead and implement one. Even if using VisualC++, by using the existing JabberOO package.
I have NEVER heard of a system being questions becouse of the languages that the end client developers choose to use.
If you want a smaller client, then write one. The clients are NOT that big, unless your comparing them to notepad.. Currently, I'm running WinJab, and it's total memory footprint is 4 Megs. Little big, sure. Could it be smaller? Heck ya, but it's not that bad compared to ICQ, etc, and is most certainly on par with what it takes.
I'm not sure if you EVER looked at it, but it's a list of requirements for a protocol, NOT A PROTOCOL itself. IMPP does not exist as a protocol, only the requirements that it should meet. Several protocols where proposed via RFCs submitted, but non actually accepted, and utter chaos to this day.
As for your first point, Jabber does exactly that. It uses DNS name resolution for the server scope. It even queries off of the SRV records, so you can setup your server just like email..
As for your second, regarding the use of SMTP for IM, a direct connection between clients would have several limiting factors, beyond the fact that bloat would now be required in the SMTP protocol itself.
A) Giving our your IP like handy snacks is a bad thing
B) Firewalls. Bleh. No incomming connections there. Granted, could fallback to s2s via the SMTP Server.
Basically, one could go on, but SMTP is 'Simple Mail Transport Protocol'. EMail is different from email, any way you say it. Sure, anything could be made to do anything. SMTP could be used more easily, but it wasn't built for it..
Generalized tools for a more specific purpose due to job well. Generalized tools used to generalize everything just won't work..
Yep, thats the protocol spec that AOL had posted over 2 years ago now, which was gleefully ripped off of their web site once the higher ups figured out what was going on.
That same protocol will also be gleefully ripped from the servers, and any services based on the protocol are whats going to be 'dicked'.
And the chatrooms themselves aren't linked to any of the other chatrooms for a reason. As an example, try using AIM, then a TOC based client. You will not see eachothers rooms. The TOC system has it's own set of chatrooms, etc..
TOC is only still around becouse of the AIM Express client, which uses it..
Well, beyond that, they can send messages to any other JID. The domains of a JID can and DO implement things other then users accounts..
Imagine being able to subscribe to a mailing list that didn't require you to send a mail to do it, but gave you a dynamic form?
How about a stock ticker interface that you could dynamically monitor..
With a Jabber account, you have access to any service Jabber can provide. In some cases, external gateways to other IM systems, ones that don;t require a login to their local namespace, but will trust the servers..
I'm one of the individuals who has, on and off, been working with the rest of the crew to put in time and effort to get it off the ground, and a good system. Many of us here are. You wanna know who I am? I'm the type of person this affects. Other have put in even more time and effort then I have.. (Ok, all I did was occasionally beat a drum on and off for the last few years), but the point is this.
We're the ones making the systems you'll use tommorow..
You where doing it on such a small scale, that they haven't noticed and decided it's finally time to shut down that legacy based, unsupported system known as TOC.
The only reason they still support TOC is due to it's use by certain larger partners, that incorperate AIM capabilities for a fee. Trust me. Get enough users, and enough publicity, and you'll see those TOC servers thrown onto a VPN and out from under your feet so fast, you won;t have time to cusion your arse from the code, hard ground..
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that the idea that workers are 'entitled' to something after poaring their souls into a company is a GREAT idea, mandating this by law is a little overboard I think.
The entire notion that workers are 'entitled' to anything is just wrong. A company needs work done. It pays people cash in exchange for completing that work. PERIOD. You want more then that? Work for yourself. Easy enough..
I mean, what if you hired a painter to paint your house. He finishes, but when hes done, suddenly demand that you pay him an extra 50%.
When theres no work to be done, then the workers arent needed. So they have to find something else to do. If a company takes CARE of its employees, the benifits will be apperent. Treat them like dirt, and you dont attract good workers. Unions are, in reality, simply a company whos sole job is to hold companies ransom, using their workers as hostages. Ok, this sounds harsh, but really, thats what it is. THEY ARE A GOOD THING. If workers choose to go it by themselves, then great. They have the right to leave whenever they wish, JUST like the company has the right to say We dont NEED you anymore.
If we DO end up going down that road, then we might as well just say everyone works, and the government 'issues' them moneys. Instead of companies charging for items, the government places a fair price on things. This is what we're going to if we start mandating that workers are entitled to something other then fair pay.
I'd like to point out that a good half of the vulnerabilities that Nimda exploits are patches that are not available under Windows update, but only on www.microsoft.com/security, 'spec when deadling with Win2k Server and Advanced server. Windows Update is really only up to date for Win2k Pro, and consumer OSs such as Me, etc..
Yes, but many projects have the 'core', which is what they developed, and ANYTHING else ends up in the contrib directory. Contrib has a purpose, yes, but you prob get my point.
Forking, IMHO, turns this into an entirely NEW project. The source provides the open part. 8-P It's a part of a project, but isnt the project in and of itself. That was really my point.
Yes, and its not a bad thing. It just happens to be a project that suites its purpose, and thats it. It will never, however, be wildly popular. This isn't a BAD thing, so long as it suites the needs or its target audience.
Many times, the needs happen to be simply trying to do it. In that case, the developers themselves are the audience, and they gain the experience.
And many, OH so many of these small things, that end up sitting in sourceforge limbo, serve, at the very least, as GREAT sample code for the next project to do more then likely basically the same thing...
Perhaps, but bear in mind, for the longest time, and to an extend, still, Linux himself, in the case of the kernel, manages merging changes into the 'official' kernel tree.
Even with AC there, he still treats Alans patches the same way, and does it pretty much all himself..
I've found that, while a great many projects are considered 'Open Source', making the source available does NOT make an open source project. To be a truely open project, you also have to have an effort to do things such as merge and include changes that have been provided BACK into the project.
Many the project has a list of 'contributed' changes, with many things that NEVER actually make it back into the source tree. Why? I'm unsure, beyond the fact that many individuals who do these things, do so for themselves, and are nice enough to make the source available. They are NOT, however, interested in fostering a community around the further development of their code. The blokes who wish to step up and take on these reins are few and far between, and it is really a different 'role' then many of the developers out there WANT to have.
In order for a project to do this, it requires 'evangualists' that wish to take on these roles. Some people serve both roles, indipendent developer AND evangualist. These people serve as the best 'Project' leaders. They posess skills that many people dont have, only ONE of them being good developers or engineers.
I dont think this is a BAD thing, really, it just determines which projects will be wildly successfull, and which ones will simply be pet projects, used little, possibly important, but very often, eventually abandonded.
Perhaps a way to say this would be an 'Open Source' project, versus an 'Open Development' project.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the role ISN'T being filled becouse, it's simply not THERE yet?
Personally, being an engineer and a technoweenie, I like the idea, but many out there just look at me and kinda say 'Why?'.
Perhaps the role will eventually be considered as needed, but it may take a LONG time. Look at how long it actually took the PC to be in nearly everyones livingroom and part of every day life? YEARS. Sure, there where many 'toys' out there. Who doesn't have a Vic20 of Commodore 64 in their attic or basement, but these never became the centerpieces that these devices are looking to fill..
I dont forsee these being popular for several years yet. Unfortionatly, I said the same thing a few years back. Heck, in a few years, I might be saying it again. In the meantime, I hope at least one or two vendors survive, simply so I can have MY fix.. 8-P
Well, thats just annoying. You have to have at least typed for 20 seconds before you can hit submit? Whats up with that? Some of us can type fast, ya know..
Looks like were all back and up..
GCC wasn't written to prove that one group could do something 'better' then someone else. Different things being compared here..
*cheers*
Damned good point. Yet another example of a group of people wanting to do something to prove that theirs is bigger, longer, and stronger then someone elses.
Theres no itch scratching going on here, and they sure dont seem to have a focus on 'WHY' they want to do this.
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people
I agree that this seems to be what the DotGNU people are seemly try to do. Mono, on the other hand, is more looking at having alternative langauges, etc, on the *nix based OSs. Porting the CLI means nearly everything else can be ported with ease. They are looking to actual WRITE most of the infrastructure in C# after all, after getting a decent CLI up and running..
I've been looking at the DotGNU projecft recently, and something occured to me..
.NET or Mono doing anything that
.Net framework at a low level and distribute the entire thing with
.Net infrustructure to be entirely
They're not interested in anything their doing for technical reasons.. They just want to build something simular to snub their noses at Microsoft, and prove a point. This is absolutly the WRONG reason to be doing this effort.
Proof is in the pudding. Heres some excepts:
This list (the DotGNU "arch" list) on the other hand is about
creating a something much more powerful than what Microsoft has,
something that Microsoft cannot easily copy because it is
totally incompatible with the business model they've chosen for
.NET
Mono will have a place in DotGNU for providing ".NET emulation
functionality", but I don't see
comes close to the Distributed Execution Environment that we've
been talking about for DotGNU.
Oh, and heres something where they aren't quite getting this, I think:
Microsoft has an advantage over us at this point because they hold the
keys to the client OS. This allows them to insert their authentication
and
their OS. This allows the
transparent to the user. Dotgnu, by it's very nature, will not be
entirely transparent to the user because we don't have access to the
source code - and because of the increased control we're going to have
to give the user.
I mean common, someone has to send a message, tell them that theirs are quiet long enough, and they can stop it with the rulers.
They're not looking for a good, sound, technically superior product. They're looking to prove their right, and someone else is wrong. I truely hope it succeeds, but at this rate, we're gonna end up with the Windows Terminal Server of the Open Source world.
Thats becouse we took the time to write, rewrite, throwaway, rewrite some more. It takes alot of time to do that correctly. It started as an experiment. It has gone thru several incarnations to what it is currently.
You go write it in a month. Put your skills where your mouth is. Heck, we might even rewrite again if your models good enough.. 8-P
Also interesting that it's apparently a 'closed club'. 8-P
Err, thats due to the use of JabberCOM, and the fact that, it's very hard to use connection points in a Visual C++, etc, application. But saying 'they can't offer a client besides Delphi of VB' is silly. Anyone who cares to can go ahead and implement one. Even if using VisualC++, by using the existing JabberOO package.
I have NEVER heard of a system being questions becouse of the languages that the end client developers choose to use.
If you want a smaller client, then write one. The clients are NOT that big, unless your comparing them to notepad.. Currently, I'm running WinJab, and it's total memory footprint is 4 Megs. Little big, sure. Could it be smaller? Heck ya, but it's not that bad compared to ICQ, etc, and is most certainly on par with what it takes.
I'm not sure if you EVER looked at it, but it's a list of requirements for a protocol, NOT A PROTOCOL itself. IMPP does not exist as a protocol, only the requirements that it should meet. Several protocols where proposed via RFCs submitted, but non actually accepted, and utter chaos to this day.
As for your first point, Jabber does exactly that. It uses DNS name resolution for the server scope. It even queries off of the SRV records, so you can setup your server just like email..
As for your second, regarding the use of SMTP for IM, a direct connection between clients would have several limiting factors, beyond the fact that bloat would now be required in the SMTP protocol itself.
A) Giving our your IP like handy snacks is a bad thing
B) Firewalls. Bleh. No incomming connections there. Granted, could fallback to s2s via the SMTP Server.
Basically, one could go on, but SMTP is 'Simple Mail Transport Protocol'. EMail is different from email, any way you say it. Sure, anything could be made to do anything. SMTP could be used more easily, but it wasn't built for it..
Generalized tools for a more specific purpose due to job well. Generalized tools used to generalize everything just won't work..
Yep, thats the protocol spec that AOL had posted over 2 years ago now, which was gleefully ripped off of their web site once the higher ups figured out what was going on.
That same protocol will also be gleefully ripped from the servers, and any services based on the protocol are whats going to be 'dicked'.
And the chatrooms themselves aren't linked to any of the other chatrooms for a reason. As an example, try using AIM, then a TOC based client. You will not see eachothers rooms. The TOC system has it's own set of chatrooms, etc..
TOC is only still around becouse of the AIM Express client, which uses it..
Actually, Jabber alraedy has a conformant reference transport, we're ready to rock within a week.
Beouse of the interest thats been generated in Jabber in this article, I feel the need to point out some resources for more information:
http://www.myjabber.org
http://www.jabbercentral.org
http://www.jabber.com
And of course
http://www.jabber.org
Well, beyond that, they can send messages to any other JID. The domains of a JID can and DO implement things other then users accounts..
Imagine being able to subscribe to a mailing list that didn't require you to send a mail to do it, but gave you a dynamic form?
How about a stock ticker interface that you could dynamically monitor..
With a Jabber account, you have access to any service Jabber can provide. In some cases, external gateways to other IM systems, ones that don;t require a login to their local namespace, but will trust the servers..
I'm one of the individuals who has, on and off, been working with the rest of the crew to put in time and effort to get it off the ground, and a good system. Many of us here are. You wanna know who I am? I'm the type of person this affects. Other have put in even more time and effort then I have.. (Ok, all I did was occasionally beat a drum on and off for the last few years), but the point is this.
We're the ones making the systems you'll use tommorow..
You where doing it on such a small scale, that they haven't noticed and decided it's finally time to shut down that legacy based, unsupported system known as TOC.
The only reason they still support TOC is due to it's use by certain larger partners, that incorperate AIM capabilities for a fee. Trust me. Get enough users, and enough publicity, and you'll see those TOC servers thrown onto a VPN and out from under your feet so fast, you won;t have time to cusion your arse from the code, hard ground..