Lately? I groan every time I see a project is hosted at sf - it means 20-minute mailing list searches, regular downtime, and the whole download-roulette game where you try to deal with the klunky interface and find a not-completely-dead mirror.
You're recommending people invest in a 270 dollar 266 Mhz 586 without documentation or support, not guaranteed to run any operating system, no video or keyboard, requiring an external power supply?
As part of a home development farm?
I think these machines are intended to be used as embedded appliance controllers, although they don't seem very well suited to it, IMO.
Like I said, most OSS projects have helpful channels where sensibility reigns. Tiran is a member of that 'core clique' I was talking about in the #plone channel.
Once again, expect to support yourself, unless you're prepared to do what's necessary to make friends with people like this, or as another poster suggested, you hire a professional who can provide support without playing silly games.
I suspect this stupid feud will continue for as long as I choose to evaluate plone - until eventually I reach the point where I can support myself in it, I make enough 'friends' to overcome the bad eggs, or the cost of dealing with problematic egos like these just isn't worth the convenience of a cms framework.
Of course, maybe these are just the only people who were hanging around on Easter Sunday, and it's unfair to judge the entire group based on them. Regardless, don't judge the communities around all OSS projects based on the bad attitudes you may find here.
Normally, I'm happy with the community support you can find around an oss project, but some little jackass named vinsci actually just censored me in #plone.
Essentially, that makes it impossible to get assistance, since the docs are incomplete and out of date. With Plone, there is a small core of developers, and if you can't make friends with them, then you can expect no support.
Unless they can figure out some way to remove the thugs from the process, you may want to pass on plone, unless you want to be your own support team.
For now, but hopefully not any more. The DMCA is a bad law, and using it should bring a stigmatism on a company. If apple wants to prevent people from beating thir DRM, then MAKE BETTER DRM, dumbasses.
Going after people in court for exposing your stupidity is wrong. It shows that Apple doesn't think different at all - they think like every other oppressive, half-assed technology company that would rather sue than fix an issue.
I've been turning geek onto OSX for weeks now, but now, fuck Blizzard and fuck Apple.
Think different? Think like goose-stepping assholes, you mean.
I hope we can make them regret this, in the same way that Adobe and EV1 regretted and apologized for their stupidity. (Not that the good side got much besides press out of either victory.)
The DMCA is a bad law and anyone who invokes it should be made to pay pennance. Until they make good for this, Apple sucks.
And while I'm on the subject, Blizzard sucks too.
Remember thier names and mention them often - make invoking the DMCA the kiss of death for a company.
that MS has figured out how to "bolt on" security with XP Service Pack 2 - why can't the rest of the world figure out how to implement security the easy way - by bolting it onto the outside, rather than the hard way, designing it into the inside?
Of course, it's possible that MS has a different definition for "security" than the rest of the world, much lke it's unique meaning for the word "innovation." Something akin to "Shiny, with more sales."
Oops - you're right on that one, and I'm wrong. I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Interbase, except that they managed to whine enough to get mozilla to change their browser's development name. I don't even sure why I assumed it was a default password problem, except that it helpmed make my point:)
1 1/2 is still less than my projected 2, though, so OSS is still neck-and neck (and better on average in this tiny and meaningless sample) with proprietary software.
Interbase, no idea - a default password isn't really a source defect, though, and it was both known and intentional, so I guess it was found instantly.
WLSE 2.0 appears to have come out in '02, so it looks like the defect longevity is running neck-and-neck with zlib - a project that the grandparent refered to as 'commune' software.
And then there's the other issues - namely, Cisco did this one intentionally (a backdoor isn't a bug - and it isn't public like a default password.) and they charge between 5 and 9 thousand dollars a pop for it, and they require you to register for the fix.
I'm not knocking cisco - they make a reasonably good product, but arguing against transparency in the code of such a mission-critical product doesn't make any sense. If there were even just a handful of eyes on this product, this problem would have been found.
I can tell from your post that you're not a thinking man, so I'm really posting this for anyone who may read and believe your non-argument.
Yes, OSS get scrutinized - often every line. Because every person out there who for whatever reason is *interested* in how a printer driver or IO toolkit works can pull it apart and learn to understand it. And while they're in there, they add to the percentage chance that a bug will be found and an explit patched. Keep adding those little percentages together, and you approach 100% - "given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow."
In addition, OSS software undergoes immense testing. It undergoes testing by the user/developers who can see the source, which helps them figure out where to push and how to break it, and by the end users, who enjoy long public beta cycles with open defect tracking logs, so they can see, report and vote for bugs - and understand what milestone or version they will be fixed in.
And finally, if commercial companies presented the source to thier software, how would that affect ho wmuch testing they would do on it? Logic would indicate that the two would have no bearing on each other - because the source is open, they would stop testing it?
I'd think pretty long and hard before answering these questions. This group appears to be a MS astroturf (false grassroots) organization, going as far as quoting that shill Didio from the Yankee Group.
The survey is full of misleading questions and will *force* you to admit you steal. Watch out.
I don't think you hold copyright on a derivative work - not even the "diff" you created.
I generally just turn over copyright to the owner, so it does not come up, but I believe you would have to do significant, original work, in order to hold the copyright.
But in that case, it's not derivative anyway and you hold copyright alone.
It's written by someone who either doesn't understand the issues involved, or is interested in 'interesting news' not a legitimate survey.
Most questions don't take into account the varying ways that code gets licensed and work gets done. They assume you're either giving the code to your employer or stealing it, when there is a whole universe of licensing paths in between those two nodes.
3. By law, who do you think owns the rights in a piece of software that you develop or in code that you write?
Me My employer The client who commissioned and is paying for the development
But never asks where I developed it, nor what legal documents exist to protect various parties.
Obviously, if I'm working on code under a work for hire agreement, it belongs to the guy with the cash. If not, It's copyright me. If it's OSS code that I need to improve for a client's benefit, of course it doesn't belong to either of us - it belongs to the original author.
Did I do it at home? Did I start it before or after getting involved with the company or client? Does the client mind freeing the source? Does it contain proprietary information?
This survey is worthless so far, except to publish articles.
I agree with you about rendering, btw - the problems viewing with gecko were fixed that first night that the slashdot post went up - there were problems, but I think they fixed them fairly quickly.
Now, the site is still ugly as sin, but I think that was intentional, and most of my sites are, too.:)
Technically, it's when the subsidiary part controls the major part - literally, if instead of the dog wagging his tail, the reverse were true.
In this case, there are a lot of users and developers, and we should be in solid control of where X heads - if we were fooled into a course of action, it would represent the minority (the vendors) controlling the majority (the users and customers).
See the great movie of the same title, although the term is much older.
Slashdot Mirror
They were going to do this, but then they were handed 2 billion dollars to lay down instead.
Plan "B", as it were.
Lately? I groan every time I see a project is hosted at sf - it means 20-minute mailing list searches, regular downtime, and the whole download-roulette game where you try to deal with the klunky interface and find a not-completely-dead mirror.
The rack does not appear to be the right size for the equipment in it - which one is nonstandard?
Just so I'm clear...
You're recommending people invest in a 270 dollar 266 Mhz 586 without documentation or support, not guaranteed to run any operating system, no video or keyboard, requiring an external power supply?
As part of a home development farm?
I think these machines are intended to be used as embedded appliance controllers, although they don't seem very well suited to it, IMO.
Like I said, most OSS projects have helpful channels where sensibility reigns. Tiran is a member of that 'core clique' I was talking about in the #plone channel.
Once again, expect to support yourself, unless you're prepared to do what's necessary to make friends with people like this, or as another poster suggested, you hire a professional who can provide support without playing silly games.
I suspect this stupid feud will continue for as long as I choose to evaluate plone - until eventually I reach the point where I can support myself in it, I make enough 'friends' to overcome the bad eggs, or the cost of dealing with problematic egos like these just isn't worth the convenience of a cms framework.
Of course, maybe these are just the only people who were hanging around on Easter Sunday, and it's unfair to judge the entire group based on them. Regardless, don't judge the communities around all OSS projects based on the bad attitudes you may find here.
Normally, I'm happy with the community support you can find around an oss project, but some little jackass named vinsci actually just censored me in #plone.
Essentially, that makes it impossible to get assistance, since the docs are incomplete and out of date. With Plone, there is a small core of developers, and if you can't make friends with them, then you can expect no support.
Unless they can figure out some way to remove the thugs from the process, you may want to pass on plone, unless you want to be your own support team.
You had bison? We had to carve rocks with smaller rocks.
> people generally respect Apple
For now, but hopefully not any more. The DMCA is a bad law, and using it should bring a stigmatism on a company. If apple wants to prevent people from beating thir DRM, then MAKE BETTER DRM, dumbasses.
Going after people in court for exposing your stupidity is wrong. It shows that Apple doesn't think different at all - they think like every other oppressive, half-assed technology company that would rather sue than fix an issue.
I've been turning geek onto OSX for weeks now, but now, fuck Blizzard and fuck Apple.
Think different? Think like goose-stepping assholes, you mean.
I hope we can make them regret this, in the same way that Adobe and EV1 regretted and apologized for their stupidity. (Not that the good side got much besides press out of either victory.)
The DMCA is a bad law and anyone who invokes it should be made to pay pennance. Until they make good for this, Apple sucks.
And while I'm on the subject, Blizzard sucks too.
Remember thier names and mention them often - make invoking the DMCA the kiss of death for a company.
The differene, ONCE AGAIN, is that Microsoft fits the legal definition of a monopoly. Apple does not.
If Apple did have a monopoly then it would be bad for them to do, as well, an dif MS did not, it would be okay for them.
that MS has figured out how to "bolt on" security with XP Service Pack 2 - why can't the rest of the world figure out how to implement security the easy way - by bolting it onto the outside, rather than the hard way, designing it into the inside?
Of course, it's possible that MS has a different definition for "security" than the rest of the world, much lke it's unique meaning for the word "innovation." Something akin to "Shiny, with more sales."
Oops - you're right on that one, and I'm wrong. I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Interbase, except that they managed to whine enough to get mozilla to change their browser's development name. I don't even sure why I assumed it was a default password problem, except that it helpmed make my point :)
1 1/2 is still less than my projected 2, though, so OSS is still neck-and neck (and better on average in this tiny and meaningless sample) with proprietary software.
Zlib? from 1.0.8 to 1.1.3, so around 2 years.
Interbase, no idea - a default password isn't really a source defect, though, and it was both known and intentional, so I guess it was found instantly.
WLSE 2.0 appears to have come out in '02, so it looks like the defect longevity is running neck-and-neck with zlib - a project that the grandparent refered to as 'commune' software.
And then there's the other issues - namely, Cisco did this one intentionally (a backdoor isn't a bug - and it isn't public like a default password.) and they charge between 5 and 9 thousand dollars a pop for it, and they require you to register for the fix.
I'm not knocking cisco - they make a reasonably good product, but arguing against transparency in the code of such a mission-critical product doesn't make any sense. If there were even just a handful of eyes on this product, this problem would have been found.
I can tell from your post that you're not a thinking man, so I'm really posting this for anyone who may read and believe your non-argument.
Yes, OSS get scrutinized - often every line. Because every person out there who for whatever reason is *interested* in how a printer driver or IO toolkit works can pull it apart and learn to understand it. And while they're in there, they add to the percentage chance that a bug will be found and an explit patched. Keep adding those little percentages together, and you approach 100% - "given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow."
In addition, OSS software undergoes immense testing. It undergoes testing by the user/developers who can see the source, which helps them figure out where to push and how to break it, and by the end users, who enjoy long public beta cycles with open defect tracking logs, so they can see, report and vote for bugs - and understand what milestone or version they will be fixed in.
And finally, if commercial companies presented the source to thier software, how would that affect ho wmuch testing they would do on it? Logic would indicate that the two would have no bearing on each other - because the source is open, they would stop testing it?
I'd think pretty long and hard before answering these questions. This group appears to be a MS astroturf (false grassroots) organization, going as far as quoting that shill Didio from the Yankee Group.
The survey is full of misleading questions and will *force* you to admit you steal. Watch out.
I don't think you hold copyright on a derivative work - not even the "diff" you created.
I generally just turn over copyright to the owner, so it does not come up, but I believe you would have to do significant, original work, in order to hold the copyright.
But in that case, it's not derivative anyway and you hold copyright alone.
Wow, it sounds like we share a desk. :)
Glad to hear I'm not alone - I was starting to worry I was, based on this dumb survey.
It's written by someone who either doesn't understand the issues involved, or is interested in 'interesting news' not a legitimate survey.
Most questions don't take into account the varying ways that code gets licensed and work gets done. They assume you're either giving the code to your employer or stealing it, when there is a whole universe of licensing paths in between those two nodes.
It asks
3. By law, who do you think owns the rights in a piece of software that you develop or in code that you write?
Me
My employer
The client who commissioned and is paying for the development
But never asks where I developed it, nor what legal documents exist to protect various parties.
Obviously, if I'm working on code under a work for hire agreement, it belongs to the guy with the cash. If not, It's copyright me. If it's OSS code that I need to improve for a client's benefit, of course it doesn't belong to either of us - it belongs to the original author.
Did I do it at home? Did I start it before or after getting involved with the company or client? Does the client mind freeing the source? Does it contain proprietary information?
This survey is worthless so far, except to publish articles.
Yeah, but the people that felt that way all mysteriously died off...
Are you implying that that adolescent girl is a telekinetic firestarter, or just an exceptional arsonist?
I agree with you about rendering, btw - the problems viewing with gecko were fixed that first night that the slashdot post went up - there were problems, but I think they fixed them fairly quickly.
:)
Now, the site is still ugly as sin, but I think that was intentional, and most of my sites are, too.
...why can't they see that lousy music and unacceptable prices also play a role here?
Technically, it's when the subsidiary part controls the major part - literally, if instead of the dog wagging his tail, the reverse were true.
In this case, there are a lot of users and developers, and we should be in solid control of where X heads - if we were fooled into a course of action, it would represent the minority (the vendors) controlling the majority (the users and customers).
See the great movie of the same title, although the term is much older.
The popular opinion is that this move *sheds* political weight and opens the X development process up.