I can''t believe this made slashdot:-( This is not good for KDE PR. Let me explain; this project is nothing more than a few bits of GUI created with QT's designer, there is no code behind it except for the auto generated stuff from designer and the guy who is "writting" it is a very new programmer with unfortuantly a very young attitude. I wish it was other wise but this project is doomed from the start, it has no planning and the only clear goal is to create an installer, how it will work is a mystery to the author but he has a gui.
I really feel bad posting this, GNU projects should be about community and sharing but you really should realise that this is one guy (that honestly has little clue) and is not the official KDE installer. My heart sunk when I saw this article, I do realise that KDE needs an installer but unfortualtly is a bit of a way off yet. For now, Debian apt is by far the best way to install KDE in binary form because of the way it's packaged but a lot of people don't run Debian. Compiling from source is obviously the most flexible route but is more trouble for those of us that want to get things done.
Again, this is unfortunate, please read the posts on dot.kde.org where the author has posted some very strange remarks but it backs this post up. I guess everything has a bright side though and this project highlights the easy of use of QT Designer.
Totally agree with this: "often the mentality many software companies take that lead to increasingly bad software"
There is an old saying, If you can't beat em join em. I have a feeling this is exactly where Ximian is going and it's a really pity. First dirty marketing tactics and now not even planning to release software at it's full potential. This reminds me of some other software company.....
Open source uses release early release oftern, kinda nice idea and it works with opensource software. Add in a dash of commercial vendor (Sun for instance) and this doesn't work that well because it raises the total cost of ownership when admins have update the desktop software once a month.
Ximian are going to get pressured by the commerical vendors to release a stable product and on time, something the I can't recall any other opensource project having to do on this scale.
Even the kernel doesn't have these presures.
Also what about the volenteer programmer? The opensource projects I've been involved in, I wanted to do the best possible job and release something of technical excellence, release it oftern, yeah but it's the users risk and once it gets a stable version number it will work and work well. Are the volenteer programmers going to want to continue on a project where one they have release deadlines but also where there code, even indirectly, goes to make commercial companies money?
There is a good (and long post) on dot.kde.org by some dude called david. http://dot.kde.org/982011852/
Kinda sheds some new light on Gnome and what's happening since commercial companies (mainly Xinian) got involved. Made me think about it anyway, I don't agree with some of the points but I'll watch the future with interest.
Your post above brough it home a bit more, as basically you sum up a risk assesment. When did GPL projects start doing risk assesments? What happened to it'll be done when it's done or lets do the best technical job?
I'm not saying any of this is wrong, it very subjective, but I do agree with the original poster, he talks about the fact that Opensource doesn't use release schedules or panders to the expectations of share holders. When you answer him you talk about "strategy" and "risks". Is this the turning point for some of the community, I have a dreadful feeling it is.
I'd like to keep the community aspect of Free software, re-read your post, you can't deny that you have accepted the commericalization of it with all the bad points. My friend, your post looks more like an analysis from a broker than a comment on an GNU software project.
Dual socket A's aren't really going to take off for most of us and at a guess only a few MB makers will bother with them; Because the EV "bus" is point to point, multiple processors means multiple EV buses = extra desing etc = expensive.
Very fast no doubt but it will have a price tag to match and of course is aimed at the server market.
The K8 on the other hand will go back to using a shared bus (lightnig data transfer) and hence make multi processor motherboards a lot more common and they should be availible a lot closer to the launch of the K8 which has not benn the case with the 760MP and the Athlon.
I really hope the arts intergration comes off as well. I prefer KDE and I really think arts works well there. If gnome also uses the same sound server we might have something a little more standard...
Split horizon is a complicated term for distance vector protocols that does something very simple: Its says that a routing update cannot be sent out on an interface which is was recived from. If I hear that the router on serial 0 can reach 10.10.10.0/24 and that is my on ly way to get there, there is no point in me telling the router on s0 that sent me the update about it.
RIP / IGRP are classful routing protocols and it is very unlikely that any ISP would use them for there IGP now as they don't support the sending of subnet masks in updates. OSPF / ISIS as an IGP is more likely.
Part of your post was so good, it's now my signature:
"If microsoft had not cornered the software market so long ago, I would not be forced into running their crappy product for compatibility issues; therefore I feel I have the right to use it free of charge, how else am I going to play Counterstrike..." - Ace905 on/.
Ermmm, AS_PATH prepend some of your routes towards INSnet perhaps? Listen, this is your fault either way you look at it: If you don't use bandwidth you are paying for, why do you still pay for it?
"To get from UUNet's own traceroute tool to us they recommend the shortest route as down INSnet"
Nonsence, you recommend it. You're multihomed so unless you're very small you will have your OWN AS and can fully infulence how YOUR routes are advertised. BGP won't just ballance your traffic nicely over both links. Have a look at prepending *some* of your routes towards INSnet and monitor the traffic.
Learn how to configure your routers so you make use of your bandwidth effectivly. Either way you look at this, it isn't UUNets fault.
Totally agree, peering should benifit both parties and UUNets peering has *always* been open, its just that nobody knew what the requirments were:-) Furthermore there weren't really any networks large enough for UUNet to peer with where the peering would provide any advantage to UUNet.
If you're a small little ISP you have to pay for trannsit capacity why should you get massive bandwidth free from the world's largest ISP?
Generally it works this way:
Big ISPs peer with big ISPs, medium sized ISPs peer with medium sized ISPs and pay the big ISPs for transit, small ISPs peer with small ISPs and some stupid medium ISPs plus pay the either the medium ISPs for transit (cheap) or Big ISPs for transit (more expensive).
This news item means nothing unless you're a very large ISP (I mean large, not just think you are), you now know how much bigger you need to be to get free peering with UUNet. I think this point is proven by all the off topic crap posted regarding this article on PoPs and spam. Most/.ers don't even know what peering is.
I think part of UUNets rational behind this is to simply stop the medium sized ISPs who think they're massive bothering them with "Look, we're really big, peer with us". Now UUNet can just say: "Do you meet this requirements?". The chances are that these ISPs are already *paying* UUNet for transit anyway so what's the chance of UUNet giving them more bandwidth for free? I'd say about none.
To the parent poster: If you are really (and I mean really) interested in peering find a book called Internet Routing Architectures by Bassam Halabi (Cisco Press), it explains a lot of History behind the net / peerings / NAPs. It also contains a lot of information on the ins and outs of configuring routers for BGP if that kind of thing turns you on.
Plus, it sounds like you may not know BGP as well as you think you do.
Specifically what makes you think that? If you make comments like that you need to back them up and I'll tell you where you are wrong. All you complain about is contracts. However, your comment provided a good laugh for everyone else here, if only you knew.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I can''t believe this made slashdot :-( This is not good for KDE PR. Let me explain; this project is nothing more than a few bits of GUI created with QT's designer, there is no code behind it except for the auto generated stuff from designer and the guy who is "writting" it is a very new programmer with unfortuantly a very young attitude. I wish it was other wise but this project is doomed from the start, it has no planning and the only clear goal is to create an installer, how it will work is a mystery to the author but he has a gui.
I really feel bad posting this, GNU projects should be about community and sharing but you really should realise that this is one guy (that honestly has little clue) and is not the official KDE installer. My heart sunk when I saw this article, I do realise that KDE needs an installer but unfortualtly is a bit of a way off yet. For now, Debian apt is by far the best way to install KDE in binary form because of the way it's packaged but a lot of people don't run Debian. Compiling from source is obviously the most flexible route but is more trouble for those of us that want to get things done.
Again, this is unfortunate, please read the posts on dot.kde.org where the author has posted some very strange remarks but it backs this post up. I guess everything has a bright side though and this project highlights the easy of use of QT Designer.
Might help add in those "service" offerings from Ximian? You know the ones you are meant to pay for?
There is an old saying, If you can't beat em join em. I have a feeling this is exactly where Ximian is going and it's a really pity. First dirty marketing tactics and now not even planning to release software at it's full potential. This reminds me of some other software company.....
Open source uses release early release oftern, kinda nice idea and it works with opensource software. Add in a dash of commercial vendor (Sun for instance) and this doesn't work that well because it raises the total cost of ownership when admins have update the desktop software once a month.
Ximian are going to get pressured by the commerical vendors to release a stable product and on time, something the I can't recall any other opensource project having to do on this scale. Even the kernel doesn't have these presures.
Also what about the volenteer programmer? The opensource projects I've been involved in, I wanted to do the best possible job and release something of technical excellence, release it oftern, yeah but it's the users risk and once it gets a stable version number it will work and work well. Are the volenteer programmers going to want to continue on a project where one they have release deadlines but also where there code, even indirectly, goes to make commercial companies money?
There is a good (and long post) on dot.kde.org by some dude called david. http://dot.kde.org/982011852/
Kinda sheds some new light on Gnome and what's happening since commercial companies (mainly Xinian) got involved. Made me think about it anyway, I don't agree with some of the points but I'll watch the future with interest.
Your post above brough it home a bit more, as basically you sum up a risk assesment. When did GPL projects start doing risk assesments? What happened to it'll be done when it's done or lets do the best technical job?
I'm not saying any of this is wrong, it very subjective, but I do agree with the original poster, he talks about the fact that Opensource doesn't use release schedules or panders to the expectations of share holders. When you answer him you talk about "strategy" and "risks". Is this the turning point for some of the community, I have a dreadful feeling it is.
I'd like to keep the community aspect of Free software, re-read your post, you can't deny that you have accepted the commericalization of it with all the bad points. My friend, your post looks more like an analysis from a broker than a comment on an GNU software project.
What about the boot times? Has this been fixed yet, with 20Gig HD it's meant to take about 60 secs.
Dude, you carry 500 CDs around?
Oh, one problem it doesn't repeat stories... If it was a true /. story generator it would show 90% of all articles twice.
Even with the correct spelling mistakes and typos. Very impressive!
A fan company that blows, kinda fitting really.
wooa dude, do you work there? :-)
*cough* Rambus *cough*
The only thing that I would like to know is how fast is it?
Very fast no doubt but it will have a price tag to match and of course is aimed at the server market.
The K8 on the other hand will go back to using a shared bus (lightnig data transfer) and hence make multi processor motherboards a lot more common and they should be availible a lot closer to the launch of the K8 which has not benn the case with the 760MP and the Athlon.
I really hope the arts intergration comes off as well. I prefer KDE and I really think arts works well there. If gnome also uses the same sound server we might have something a little more standard...
BTW have you noticed that half way down the list is cowboyneal?
Time to cast your vote..........
Sounds like you have been bullshit'ed:
Split horizon is a complicated term for distance vector protocols that does something very simple: Its says that a routing update cannot be sent out on an interface which is was recived from. If I hear that the router on serial 0 can reach 10.10.10.0/24 and that is my on ly way to get there, there is no point in me telling the router on s0 that sent me the update about it.
RIP / IGRP are classful routing protocols and it is very unlikely that any ISP would use them for there IGP now as they don't support the sending of subnet masks in updates. OSPF / ISIS as an IGP is more likely.
Went there? I've ordered!
I guess Sadam will be going down to walmart to buy mirror tiles for his missiles then.
Oh sorry, this isn't the Andre's Hedrick interview.
"If microsoft had not cornered the software market so long ago, I would not be forced into running their crappy product for compatibility issues; therefore I feel I have the right to use it free of charge, how else am I going to play Counterstrike..." - Ace905 on /.
Thank you. That without doubt is the comment thats made me laugh the most on /. for a very long while.
Mods get this to +6 "Fucking funny"
Oh well, I must of missed the "ATA commitee formed from nut asylum" article.
"To get from UUNet's own traceroute tool to us they recommend the shortest route as down INSnet"
Nonsence, you recommend it. You're multihomed so unless you're very small you will have your OWN AS and can fully infulence how YOUR routes are advertised. BGP won't just ballance your traffic nicely over both links. Have a look at prepending *some* of your routes towards INSnet and monitor the traffic.
Learn how to configure your routers so you make use of your bandwidth effectivly. Either way you look at this, it isn't UUNets fault.
If you're a small little ISP you have to pay for trannsit capacity why should you get massive bandwidth free from the world's largest ISP?
Generally it works this way: Big ISPs peer with big ISPs, medium sized ISPs peer with medium sized ISPs and pay the big ISPs for transit, small ISPs peer with small ISPs and some stupid medium ISPs plus pay the either the medium ISPs for transit (cheap) or Big ISPs for transit (more expensive).
This news item means nothing unless you're a very large ISP (I mean large, not just think you are), you now know how much bigger you need to be to get free peering with UUNet. I think this point is proven by all the off topic crap posted regarding this article on PoPs and spam. Most /.ers don't even know what peering is.
I think part of UUNets rational behind this is to simply stop the medium sized ISPs who think they're massive bothering them with "Look, we're really big, peer with us". Now UUNet can just say: "Do you meet this requirements?". The chances are that these ISPs are already *paying* UUNet for transit anyway so what's the chance of UUNet giving them more bandwidth for free? I'd say about none.
To the parent poster: If you are really (and I mean really) interested in peering find a book called Internet Routing Architectures by Bassam Halabi (Cisco Press), it explains a lot of History behind the net / peerings / NAPs. It also contains a lot of information on the ins and outs of configuring routers for BGP if that kind of thing turns you on.
Specifically what makes you think that? If you make comments like that you need to back them up and I'll tell you where you are wrong. All you complain about is contracts. However, your comment provided a good laugh for everyone else here, if only you knew. :-)