I see people posting as ACs who mention they are moderators. How is this done? Does a moderator log out, post their comment and log back in?
Yes, that is all the moderator, like anyone else, has to do is log out to be an AC. It is also all that a moderator will have to do to be able to post to a story that they have moderated. This doesn't make sense to me.
While I agree with very little of the story, I think that clueless people may well be bad for Debian.
Maintaining a package is not a trivial amount of work, what with library changes that require new versions of your packages to be uploaded, keeping up with the upstream source, fixing bugs in how your package is configured for Debian, tracking down bugs in upstream source, reading the -devel mailing list, etc.
We also know that people like to flame -- a lot -- over just about anything. So, if a clueless user starts to submit bogus bug reports, and then flames people about the supposed "high quality of Linux", a flame fest always starts. It might not last too long, but they add up.
If the number of clueless people increases by a factor of 10, the average Debian maintainer will get 10 times more clueless bug reports and have to read 10 times as much flamage to see if there really is a real problem, and *poof* you have burnout. Take a look at the number of "orphaned packages" for an idea of how big the problem already is. Think about how much work most maintainers are going to have to do to move their packages from the FSSTND to the FHS, or the the LSB when it is done.
Many Debian developers are very clear (and vocal) that the reason why the work with Debian is because they want a useful system. It makes no difference to them whether they have 2 non-developers using their package or 2 million. They are contributing to Debian in order to make their life easier.
One of the real strengths of OSS, which isn't mentioned in the CatB, is that you can always, say "If you don't like it, then fix it your self. Or pay someone to fix it. Don't bitch to me about it." Seriously. This changes the mindset of everyone using the software. If I want something better it is up to ME to make it better. I can't just whine about it because I didn't pay for the right to whine. It is a great motivator to get people to contribute.
If you don't want to learn enough to be helpful to the Debian maintainers, then you should do them all a favor and keep quiet, or switch to a commercial distribution where you pay for support.
Debian, like Linux and all other OSS, won't die because of the lack of users or profits or market share. They will only die when they run out of developers. Don't make developers lives hell.
Folks, this is he best histories of OSS that I have ever read. There are points that I disagree with, but there are always several sides to every story, and I doubt that anyone could write a history that everyone agrees with.
While this isn't really "news", it is info for nerds, stuff that matters.
In point of fact, a user must already have write access to your.mailrc and.emacs files (implying that your account was already insecure) to instigate the sort of "virus" you've pointed out above.
NO!
Vi used to execute the.exrc file in any directory, including/tmp. You would simply leave a nasty.exrc file in/tmp, wait for people to use a program such as a mail reader that forks off a copy of vi to edit a temporary file and *poof*, you have got them!
With Emacs, you can put the special tags in any file, and if the are close enough to the start of end of the file, they used to be silently executed. Just email someone with the tags at the end, and if it is the last message in the mail box, *poof* you have got them!
Ten years ago, these were the *DEFAULTS* for two of the most popular editors on UNIX. They were used in universities which had large numbers of users. UNIX was the most common OS on the Internet. It was a serious problem. The UNIX folks had to learn to set the defaults correctly, just like I hope MS (and other software companies) learns. It is just too bad they didn't learn from the past.
Before anyone gets too carried away about the evils of closed source software, it should be remembered that both VI and Emacs have had similar problems, although they were "fixed" many years ago.
VI used to read any ".exrc" file in the current directory, which could be used to create macro virii. To the best of my knowledge, this option is now turned off by default. (I don't use vi much...)
Emacs will execute code that is embedded in a file if it has the right tags around it. For example, I have this glob at the end of my.mailrc file:
About 10 years ago, emacs was changed from automatically and silently running this kind of code, to having the code displayed to the user and a y/n prompt given. Before that time, it was possible to trick Emacs's RMAIL command to propogate a virus through email.
Still, I am not sure that Emacs's solution is that great. You can still turn the prompting off, and it assumes that the user knows enough about Emacs and Lisp to understand the code.
I think the real difference between OSS and MS is that OSS ran into these problems long before the Internet became aware to the general public.
This is the worst kind of bloat I can imagine - a fancy text editor mated to a BASIC interpreter. Granted the usefulness of an integrated development environment in your word processor, it is doubly insane to permit programs to run automatically when the document is opened.
Originally, yes. Emacs came first, then gcc, then a lot of the bin utilities, such as gas, ld, ar, ls, mv, cp, find, etc. Other people have taking over most of those programs now.
I hope ESR doesn't quit, and I don't think I've ever done anything to cause him grief, but I think and hope that the OSS community will survive just fine if he drops off the face of the earth tomorrow. The same goes for Linus and RMS, and Rob, and just about anyone else.
One of the things I have seen so many times with the internet and the free software community is that sometimes the most "devastating" loses, end up being just a "short term" problem.
When the net lost ihnp4, we didn't get another major site that handled a large percentage of the email, we got a dozen less important sites that actually worked better. The transition was painful, but not fatal. The end result was a much more resilient system that had a total capacity far greater than ihnp4.
When Rich Adams stopped developing BNews, two groups of developers tried to fill the void. One worked on BNews 3.0, I forget their names. The other group developed CNews. When Henry Spencer stopped developing C-News, Rich $alz kind of replaced him with INN. It wasn't an exact replacement, but the result couldn't really be said to be worse, it was just different. Now a days, usenet is quickly being replaced by the web and things like slashdot. They aren't the same as Usenet, but I don't think they are worse.
I can think of a dozen people who fit most of the criteria that ESR spelled out, and the criteria that they don't meet would probably mean that they would just perform slightly different jobs, instead of being an exact replacement for ESR.
So, I have a great deal of hope that if ESR, RMS, Linus, Alan, Rob, et al stopped doing what they are doing, that the void they leave would be filled, sometimes with a much better system. In particular, if ESR stops doing what he is doing, I think he will be replaced by many people, all having to do a smaller job, all giving a broader range of views of the OSS community, none of them as likely to burn out. I have hope, and I have history to back up that hope.
Still, losing ESR would be a very real lose. I don't wish for him to go any more than I wish for Linus, RMS, et al to go. I think it would be very wise to think about our actions to all of these people, and for people far less famous. Why should anyone get the flames that RMS, Bruce Perens, or ESR get? They are not evil. I don't even think they are misguided. In fact, I think they are better guided than most of the rest of us.
But you have to include the amount of time it takes to get the data onto the tape and back off again.
That is a different bandwidth problem. You could also argue that if you are using fiber optics, that you have to include the amount of time it takes to get the data onto and off of the tape. After all, the "real" problem you are trying to solve may well be moving a large archive from one city to another.
How many people would like to see more articles like and less on Linux, the latest OSS flamefest, star wars, katz, etc.? I'm not saying do away with those topics, but geez, if I want the Linux Today, I know where to find it. (On the right hand side of my/. screen, of course.:-)
A few years ago, you could buy a pulsed neutron generator (model 811-A) from Schlumberger-EMR Photoelectric for about US$100000. (I believe that was the correct price.) It could generate 2x10^8 neutrons per second when operated at 100kV. (Of course the duty cycle isn't a full second.)
Are these high speed neutrons? How are these neutrons generated?
Take a look at the left side of your screen. See the thing called "faq"? That stands for Frequently Asked Questions, such as yours. Read it! It says where to get the source code from. Or, since your question is so frequently asked, there is even a spot on the left side of the screen labeled "code"!
Shouldn't someone start treating these like the "first post" comments?
allowing people to only moderate up, will effectively only change the "range". Zero would be the AC sewer, one would be the non-AC sewer. If you all posts that are even reasonably good would have to be moved up to a higher level.
I could see maybe having a "moderate down" be more costly than a "moderate up", but I'm really not sure that it is necessary. Look at how few -1 scores there are vs scores >= 2.
If you modify a GPL'ed program and use it in your organization, the doesn't the GPL require you to also give the employees the source code, if they so ask?
I see nothing in the GPL that makes an exception for employees to have less rights. I can't even see how you could have an employment contract that could prevent the employee from asking for the modifications and distributing outside the company.
Wasn't the issue of the trademark of "Open Source" supposed to be resolved by SPI "by the end of last year"?
Weren't all the comments submitted to them supposed to be made public?
Bruce, weren't you one of the people saying that SPI didn't have a leg to stand on because ESR was the one who coined the term "Open Source" and first started to use it?
Didn't you say that "SPI doesn't have any more legal right to the trademark than the guy who trademarked Linux"?
The initial bunch of moderators were people who run/., and people they trust.
The next group were selected by how well these moderators liked the posts that people made. Everyone who had a positive total score from the first moderators became moderators.
How should future moderators be selected?
First, you don't want a strongly self-selecting group. If only pro-linux people get positive scores, then you will only have pro-linux moderators, and the cycle repeats.
Secondly, what makes a "good writer" isn't always what makes a "good moderator", any more than a "good programmer" makes a "good documentor" or a "good tester". Professors have to be teachers and researchers. They often fail at (at least) one of these.
As someone else commented, it might be nice to have several "dimensions" to the score, rather than just a "good vs bad" ranking. The example they used was things like "humor", "flame bait", "quality of info", "quality of writing", etc. If you aren't in the mood for humorous stuff, but want to delve into the flame-fest, you could do that.
On the other hand, there is the KISS priniciple.
While there are problems with having a fixed range, there are also problems with having an infinite range. Topics that are ready by lots of moderators will, with an open-ended scale, tend to have a wider range of values. So, in one story, a score of "3" might mean "one of the best comments", while in another, it might mean "above average".
While I like the idea of moderation, I think there are still a lot of kinks to be worked out.
When the author said that [the MicroSoft exec was an ardent Linux supporter], he was being ironic, not bogus.
Yes, I realize that he was using humor, I saw it comming before I read any of the quoted text. Yes, I even found it humorous.
My point, however, is I don't think using the hyprocracy, and possible purgery, of MicroSoft is a good way of promoting Linux. MicroSoft is irrelevant. Getting into a mud-slinging match with them doesn't help us. Destroying MicroSoft wasn't what motivated most of the free software developers, and letting Linux advocates try and turn things into that isn't A Good Thing.
First, let me say that I enjoyed reading the article. It was fun, in a sick sort of way, to see MicroSoft be beaten up like that. Also, I am a long time Linux/Unix user. My home machine has run primarily Linux/Unix for almost 10 years now, and before that it was a Forth/CP-M machine. I have used Linux more in the last week than I have used MS products in the last almost 20 years.
Still, I found the article to have a lot of anti-MS FUD in it, which was disappointing. Linux doesn't need to spread FUD to "win." MicroSoft is something that should be ignored, not beaten up upon.
For example, for the author to claim he is quoting "one of Linux's most ardent supports", when he is quoting a MS executive's trial testimony is bogus. MicroSoft doesn't support Linux, although they do want to say that someone could be considered a competitor to them. Yes, MicroSoft is being bogus also, but what MicroSoft does is irrelevant and can't excuse what Linux supporters do.
As for Linux not having a "long term road map", that is true. Linus recently said that he wasn't sure what was going to go into v2.3, and what will actually end up in it is anyones guess. I don't think this is a problem, but to turn around and effectively say "Yeah, but MicroSoft doesn't have one either!!11!!!" is lame.
As far as the "cost per transation" goes, MicroSoft is right that the price of Linux is meaningless. Anyone who has done real large scale roll-outs knows that the vast majority of the costs involves the labor and training expenses. While you can argue fairly strongly that Linux can have a much smaller labor expense to create a server/system, the training is not as easy to dismiss. Linux has real weaknesses, as well as real strengths. The price, when it comes down to it, is not that big of an issue.
The area of 64-bit support is also something that Linux may be "better than WinNT", but that isn't saying much. There is a lot of Linux software that doesn't run correctly on Alphas/Sparcs. There isn't even very many distributions that can claim to support these 64-bit machines.
While it is possible for MicroSoft to mess up their 64-bit support, I find it somewhat unlikely. The problems with going from 16-bit segments to a flat 32-bit model are much different than going from a flat 32-bit model to a flat 64-bit model.
All in all, I found reading this article to be much like a one-night-fling. Yeah, it was a lot of fun, but I kind feel "dirty" afterwords. There was just too much anti-MicroSoft stuff, and not enough "this is why you should use Linux". What little of the later there was, it was mostly done by tearing down MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is all the moderator, like anyone else, has to do is log out to be an AC. It is also all that a moderator will have to do to be able to post to a story that they have moderated. This doesn't make sense to me.
Oh no, a Hitler reference already. Did this thread really need to die this quickly? Godwin's law rules though.
Maintaining a package is not a trivial amount of work, what with library changes that require new versions of your packages to be uploaded, keeping up with the upstream source, fixing bugs in how your package is configured for Debian, tracking down bugs in upstream source, reading the -devel mailing list, etc.
We also know that people like to flame -- a lot -- over just about anything. So, if a clueless user starts to submit bogus bug reports, and then flames people about the supposed "high quality of Linux", a flame fest always starts. It might not last too long, but they add up.
If the number of clueless people increases by a factor of 10, the average Debian maintainer will get 10 times more clueless bug reports and have to read 10 times as much flamage to see if there really is a real problem, and *poof* you have burnout. Take a look at the number of "orphaned packages" for an idea of how big the problem already is. Think about how much work most maintainers are going to have to do to move their packages from the FSSTND to the FHS, or the the LSB when it is done.
Many Debian developers are very clear (and vocal) that the reason why the work with Debian is because they want a useful system. It makes no difference to them whether they have 2 non-developers using their package or 2 million. They are contributing to Debian in order to make their life easier.
One of the real strengths of OSS, which isn't mentioned in the CatB, is that you can always, say "If you don't like it, then fix it your self. Or pay someone to fix it. Don't bitch to me about it." Seriously. This changes the mindset of everyone using the software. If I want something better it is up to ME to make it better. I can't just whine about it because I didn't pay for the right to whine. It is a great motivator to get people to contribute.
If you don't want to learn enough to be helpful to the Debian maintainers, then you should do them all a favor and keep quiet, or switch to a commercial distribution where you pay for support.
Debian, like Linux and all other OSS, won't die because of the lack of users or profits or market share. They will only die when they run out of developers. Don't make developers lives hell.
While this isn't really "news", it is info for nerds, stuff that matters.
NO!
Vi used to execute the .exrc file in any directory, including /tmp. You would simply leave a nasty .exrc file in /tmp, wait for people to use a program such as a mail reader that forks off a copy of vi to edit a temporary file and *poof*, you have got them!
With Emacs, you can put the special tags in any file, and if the are close enough to the start of end of the file, they used to be silently executed. Just email someone with the tags at the end, and if it is the last message in the mail box, *poof* you have got them!
Ten years ago, these were the *DEFAULTS* for two of the most popular editors on UNIX. They were used in universities which had large numbers of users. UNIX was the most common OS on the Internet. It was a serious problem. The UNIX folks had to learn to set the defaults correctly, just like I hope MS (and other software companies) learns. It is just too bad they didn't learn from the past.
Sorry, but somehow I think the Melisa virus is much more likely to matter to the average nerd than yet another OSS peice.
VI used to read any ".exrc" file in the current directory, which could be used to create macro virii. To the best of my knowledge, this option is now turned off by default. (I don't use vi much...)
Emacs will execute code that is embedded in a file if it has the right tags around it. For example, I have this glob at the end of my .mailrc file:
About 10 years ago, emacs was changed from automatically and silently running this kind of code, to having the code displayed to the user and a y/n prompt given. Before that time, it was possible to trick Emacs's RMAIL command to propogate a virus through email.Still, I am not sure that Emacs's solution is that great. You can still turn the prompting off, and it assumes that the user knows enough about Emacs and Lisp to understand the code.
I think the real difference between OSS and MS is that OSS ran into these problems long before the Internet became aware to the general public.
And this is different than Emacs how?
Oh, I forgot, Emacs uses Lisp.
Originally, yes. Emacs came first, then gcc, then a lot of the bin utilities, such as gas, ld, ar, ls, mv, cp, find, etc. Other people have taking over most of those programs now.
One of the things I have seen so many times with the internet and the free software community is that sometimes the most "devastating" loses, end up being just a "short term" problem.
When the net lost ihnp4, we didn't get another major site that handled a large percentage of the email, we got a dozen less important sites that actually worked better. The transition was painful, but not fatal. The end result was a much more resilient system that had a total capacity far greater than ihnp4.
When Rich Adams stopped developing BNews, two groups of developers tried to fill the void. One worked on BNews 3.0, I forget their names. The other group developed CNews. When Henry Spencer stopped developing C-News, Rich $alz kind of replaced him with INN. It wasn't an exact replacement, but the result couldn't really be said to be worse, it was just different. Now a days, usenet is quickly being replaced by the web and things like slashdot. They aren't the same as Usenet, but I don't think they are worse.
I can think of a dozen people who fit most of the criteria that ESR spelled out, and the criteria that they don't meet would probably mean that they would just perform slightly different jobs, instead of being an exact replacement for ESR.
So, I have a great deal of hope that if ESR, RMS, Linus, Alan, Rob, et al stopped doing what they are doing, that the void they leave would be filled, sometimes with a much better system. In particular, if ESR stops doing what he is doing, I think he will be replaced by many people, all having to do a smaller job, all giving a broader range of views of the OSS community, none of them as likely to burn out. I have hope, and I have history to back up that hope.
Still, losing ESR would be a very real lose. I don't wish for him to go any more than I wish for Linus, RMS, et al to go. I think it would be very wise to think about our actions to all of these people, and for people far less famous. Why should anyone get the flames that RMS, Bruce Perens, or ESR get? They are not evil. I don't even think they are misguided. In fact, I think they are better guided than most of the rest of us.
That is a different bandwidth problem. You could also argue that if you are using fiber optics, that you have to include the amount of time it takes to get the data onto and off of the tape. After all, the "real" problem you are trying to solve may well be moving a large archive from one city to another.
To the best of my knowledge, it is SuSE that does most of the contributions to XFree86 from the Linux distributions.
Check out the "Highlight Threshold" on the user preferences page. It works great!
How many people would like to see more articles like and less on Linux, the latest OSS flamefest, star wars, katz, etc.? I'm not saying do away with those topics, but geez, if I want the Linux Today, I know where to find it. (On the right hand side of my /. screen, of course. :-)
Are these high speed neutrons? How are these neutrons generated?
Shouldn't someone start treating these like the "first post" comments?
I could see maybe having a "moderate down" be more costly than a "moderate up", but I'm really not sure that it is necessary. Look at how few -1 scores there are vs scores >= 2.
I see nothing in the GPL that makes an exception for employees to have less rights. I can't even see how you could have an employment contract that could prevent the employee from asking for the modifications and distributing outside the company.
Uh, yes, so the less you know, the more money you have to spend to get the same amount of work done. This sounds reasonable to me.
Weren't all the comments submitted to them supposed to be made public?
Bruce, weren't you one of the people saying that SPI didn't have a leg to stand on because ESR was the one who coined the term "Open Source" and first started to use it?
Didn't you say that "SPI doesn't have any more legal right to the trademark than the guy who trademarked Linux"?
The next group were selected by how well these moderators liked the posts that people made. Everyone who had a positive total score from the first moderators became moderators.
How should future moderators be selected?
First, you don't want a strongly self-selecting group. If only pro-linux people get positive scores, then you will only have pro-linux moderators, and the cycle repeats.
Secondly, what makes a "good writer" isn't always what makes a "good moderator", any more than a "good programmer" makes a "good documentor" or a "good tester". Professors have to be teachers and researchers. They often fail at (at least) one of these.
On the other hand, there is the KISS priniciple.
While there are problems with having a fixed range, there are also problems with having an infinite range. Topics that are ready by lots of moderators will, with an open-ended scale, tend to have a wider range of values. So, in one story, a score of "3" might mean "one of the best comments", while in another, it might mean "above average".
While I like the idea of moderation, I think there are still a lot of kinks to be worked out.
Yes, I realize that he was using humor, I saw it comming before I read any of the quoted text. Yes, I even found it humorous.
My point, however, is I don't think using the hyprocracy, and possible purgery, of MicroSoft is a good way of promoting Linux. MicroSoft is irrelevant. Getting into a mud-slinging match with them doesn't help us. Destroying MicroSoft wasn't what motivated most of the free software developers, and letting Linux advocates try and turn things into that isn't A Good Thing.
Still, I found the article to have a lot of anti-MS FUD in it, which was disappointing. Linux doesn't need to spread FUD to "win." MicroSoft is something that should be ignored, not beaten up upon.
For example, for the author to claim he is quoting "one of Linux's most ardent supports", when he is quoting a MS executive's trial testimony is bogus. MicroSoft doesn't support Linux, although they do want to say that someone could be considered a competitor to them. Yes, MicroSoft is being bogus also, but what MicroSoft does is irrelevant and can't excuse what Linux supporters do.
As for Linux not having a "long term road map", that is true. Linus recently said that he wasn't sure what was going to go into v2.3, and what will actually end up in it is anyones guess. I don't think this is a problem, but to turn around and effectively say "Yeah, but MicroSoft doesn't have one either!!11!!!" is lame.
As far as the "cost per transation" goes, MicroSoft is right that the price of Linux is meaningless. Anyone who has done real large scale roll-outs knows that the vast majority of the costs involves the labor and training expenses. While you can argue fairly strongly that Linux can have a much smaller labor expense to create a server/system, the training is not as easy to dismiss. Linux has real weaknesses, as well as real strengths. The price, when it comes down to it, is not that big of an issue.
The area of 64-bit support is also something that Linux may be "better than WinNT", but that isn't saying much. There is a lot of Linux software that doesn't run correctly on Alphas/Sparcs. There isn't even very many distributions that can claim to support these 64-bit machines.
While it is possible for MicroSoft to mess up their 64-bit support, I find it somewhat unlikely. The problems with going from 16-bit segments to a flat 32-bit model are much different than going from a flat 32-bit model to a flat 64-bit model.
All in all, I found reading this article to be much like a one-night-fling. Yeah, it was a lot of fun, but I kind feel "dirty" afterwords. There was just too much anti-MicroSoft stuff, and not enough "this is why you should use Linux". What little of the later there was, it was mostly done by tearing down MS.
Uh, wasn't it the congress's system, not the whitehouse's that used MS-Exchange?