Because your workflow is likely to be customized to your tasks, it should be straightforward to write these kinds of tools yourself, with any number of available toolkits, based on what language you're most comfortable using.
There's the straight CLI: http://aws.amazon.com/cli/
And lots of sample code for the various SDKs: http://aws.amazon.com/code
Best to just dive in. If you have any development experience at all, even just scripting, you should be able to figure it out pretty quickly.
Actually, Fedora claims 24 million *active* users between Fedora 7 and Fedora 12 -- a timeframe well after you would have run into "dependency hell" issues.
We actually document our methodology, too. Right here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
"While you were still technically supposed to file taxes, etc., no one really cared..."
"As of now, you are officially a tax cheating criminal if you choose to wander off alone."
"This is not the country I grew up to love and swore to protect."
You mean the country that was too lazy to chase you down if you cheated the law yesterday, and probably doesn't actually care one iota more today? The country that likely wouldn't criminalize this activity anyway, since by your description you wouldn't have an actual income and would be exempt?
Hilarious. Go get your gun, move into your shack in the Appalachians, kill some possums, and get "off the grid". Since this freedom is so precious to you, maybe you should exercise it and see how it goes.
*Now* we know why no one's using your open source project -- because it's Yet Another CMS!
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has a clear incumbent, you're in for a tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents, you're in for a *really* tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents and hundreds of failures, you're in for......well, you see where I'm going here.
I'm sure your CMS is different. It's sensitive and nurturing and really cares about me in a way that those other CMSes don't, and would never throw me out of the car for getting drunk at Andy's party that night. I get it. But when you're competing against the Star Quarterback of CMS projects, you *must* define what is unique about your project, and you must *market* that uniqueness. And you'd better be right, too -- because otherwise, you can forget about getting a date to the CMS prom.
Have you ever once even *tried* to talk to the people in your congressional office?
If you believe in this, then go fight for it. Take fifteen minutes out of your day and write an email or pick up the phone. And if you lose, *then* you can come back and whine about how the system doesn't work. But too many people bitch and moan and don't do anything. Do something!
"Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion."
Guess what? It's not up to you, Individual Artist, and never was, and never will be. Whether you are "cool" or "not cool" with it is entirely beside the point. Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absolute truth.
You can, of course, sue to get your Tasty Monies. That's the essence of copyright, and all well and good. But if the derivative work sucks, then there are likely no Tasty Monies to be had -- and if the derivative work doesn't suck, then you may be forced to face the notion that a transformative derivative work is actually art in its own right! Hope your ego can hold up to that notion.
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
"Red Hat has commited not to sue. So what? Does that mean that they'll remain true to whatever they said?"
Yes, actually, because of the legal principle of estoppel by representation of fact, also known in American law as "equitable estoppel". To wit:
"In general, estoppel protects an aggrieved party, if the counter-party induced an expectation from the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party reasonably relied on the expectation and would suffer detriment if the expectation is not met."
Red Hat, with its patent promise, induces an expectation: that Red Hat will not sue an open source developer for patent violations. If Red Hat then violates that expectation, a judge would basically throw out any such lawsuit immediately on grounds of estoppel.
We already "make" students go to schools in order to turn them into good citizens.
This may or may not be the best idea ever -- but let's be clear: we have been making kids do things they don't want to do, by law, for many years now.:)
A comment this ignorant, and yet this highly rated, pretty much demands a rebuttal.
1. "I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code. If OSS is the future, then it will happen, with or without Jim's little tantrum."
Guess what? There are *a lot* of companies coming to Red Hat, right now, *asking how to participate in open source projects.* So Jim is not talking pie-in-the-sky here; he's talking about capitalizing on momentum that already exists. There's pretty much zero coercion involved here.
2. "It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves."
So why is it, exactly, that Sun and Novell are trying to rebuild their business models, again? Help me out here.
3. "If Jim wants to make a difference, he should fund new development from emerging pools, like Google with the GSoC (not that I'm a Google fan, but that's another story), or IBM with their paid employee time contributions, or EnterpriseDB with their backports to the PostgreSQL team or Sun with their (somewhat clumsy) contributions to the OSS community. There are plenty of companies already doing what he says, he should be happy for that and encourage those already willing rather than attempting to project an agenda onto those it does not suit."
Considering that *every engineer at Red Hat is an open source software engineer*, either full-time or part-time, I'd say that Red Hat is funding plenty of open source development all around, thanks very much. Or maybe you don't think that any of this stuff counts.
4. "Having a whine that companies in the Old Establishment should be putting free money into his playpen is a naieve, futile and potentially harmful thing for Jim to be doing."
As it turns out, executives at big companies are smarter than you are. See, they understand the difference between "differentiating value" and "non-differentiating value". (Read some Bruce Perens if you don't get that idea.) Jim Whitehurst was the COO of a Very Large Company that had a larger annual IT budget than Red Hat's entire annual revenues. He saw firsthand how much money and manhours IT departments waste on software that doesn't actually add any value to the business. "Old Establishment" is looking desperately to make sure that those IT guys are building value, not wasting time on stuff that doesn't differentiate them from their competition. Understanding *and participating in* the open source model is one of the best possible ways to do exactly that. Which is why "Old Establishment" is coming to Red Hat and saying "help us".
The limiting factor is that Red Hat is not yet big enough to provide all of the services and guidance that these customers need. Jim is committing himself, publicly, to meeting that challenge. At Red Hat, we're all very proud of him for saying so.
Yes. Patent trolls win *all the time* for obvious stuff. Why? Because companies would rather settle for $n than defend themselves in court for 2$n or 10$n.
It's the obviously extortionary nature of the entire "intellectual property" industry that's so enraging. But no one can do anything about it.
(a) The software is still in early days yet, and the number of contributors is low. Why? Because the folks at OLPC have been focusing on getting to version 1.0, so that they could actually get units out the door. Now that geeks have real XOs in their hands, the situation can improve rapidly, as XO user groups get up to speed and join the fray.
(b) This sounds to me more like a subtle swipe at Jim Gettys than anything else, from someone who knows right where to strike a blow. "Wow, looks like shitty X from the 80s. How do you like THEM apples, Jim Gettys?" Because I haven't heard anyone else make that comparison. But maybe that's because most folks aren't "old school" enough, yo.
1. No, we don't. At least, not most of us -- because most of us actually *understand* the business we're in. That's why we're making all this nice money. If we did hate CentOS, we could make it awfully difficult for them in any number of ways -- delaying updates, hiding marks and making them play "where's Waldo" every release, that sort of thing.
2. The "coy mumbo jumbo" about the upstream vendor has to do with trademark protection, not hate. We don't want "Red Hat" to turn into "Kleenex".
3. Here's a question: why is there no CentOS equivalent based on SuSE products? Think about it.
4. A lot of the significant people in the CentOS community are actually important and respected members of the Fedora community as well. That way, Red Hat benefits from the work of the more savvy CentOS users. That's how open source works, you see.
5. It's Red Hat, with a space. Not RedHat. Get it right, or we'll send you a cease-and-desist letter. (I'm kidding. Probably.)
Not only that, but your chances of success go up markedly if your codebase is (a) functionally complete enough to be immediately useful to many users *very* early on, and (b) highly modular, so that where a feature *isn't* available, it's worth more to the potential developer to write a new module for your codebase, rather than to start a codebase of their own.
There's a great Harvard Business School paper on this topic. Game theory and all. A mathematical proof about why projects like Drupal expand dramatically, and why projects like OpenOffice rot.:)
Horseshit. There's nothing "organically evolved" about the disaster that is US software patent law. There's one ridiculous appellate ruling, from which the rest of this shitstorm has inexorably followed.
The entire history of time until 1998: for the most part, neither algorithms nor business practices are held to be patentable, since they are both held to be "abstract ideas," which are not patentable. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
The State Street ruling, 1998: Hey, let's change the legal test for patentable software from "causing a physical transformation" to producing "useful, concrete and tangible results". Vague enough for ya? Awesome. And while we're at it, let's also apply the same completely meaningless legal test to business practices, too!
The history of software patents since 1998: One patent on Zocor! One patent on Viagra! SIXTEEN patents by Microsoft of movement and positioning of a cursor! Gee whiz, maybe we should fix this problem. Oh, wait... we wouldn't want to "dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down", because Anonymous Coward says that such actions always result in DISASTER!
"Dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down". Fantastic. What the hell does that even *mean*?
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about.
Because your workflow is likely to be customized to your tasks, it should be straightforward to write these kinds of tools yourself, with any number of available toolkits, based on what language you're most comfortable using.
There's the straight CLI: http://aws.amazon.com/cli/
And lots of sample code for the various SDKs: http://aws.amazon.com/code
Best to just dive in. If you have any development experience at all, even just scripting, you should be able to figure it out pretty quickly.
Seems like someone is totally &ed about this book!
I so wish I had mod points for you.
But probably not very well -- especially if your opponent is better than you are. :)
How do you know that Fedora still gives a lackluster performance if you never looked back, and are no longer a user?
Actually, Fedora claims 24 million *active* users between Fedora 7 and Fedora 12 -- a timeframe well after you would have run into "dependency hell" issues.
We actually document our methodology, too. Right here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
So your usage of the past tense is incorrect.
This looks like a job for selective quoting!
"While you were still technically supposed to file taxes, etc., no one really cared..."
"As of now, you are officially a tax cheating criminal if you choose to wander off alone."
"This is not the country I grew up to love and swore to protect."
You mean the country that was too lazy to chase you down if you cheated the law yesterday, and probably doesn't actually care one iota more today? The country that likely wouldn't criminalize this activity anyway, since by your description you wouldn't have an actual income and would be exempt?
Hilarious. Go get your gun, move into your shack in the Appalachians, kill some possums, and get "off the grid". Since this freedom is so precious to you, maybe you should exercise it and see how it goes.
*Now* we know why no one's using your open source project -- because it's Yet Another CMS!
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has a clear incumbent, you're in for a tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents, you're in for a *really* tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents and hundreds of failures, you're in for... ...well, you see where I'm going here.
I'm sure your CMS is different. It's sensitive and nurturing and really cares about me in a way that those other CMSes don't, and would never throw me out of the car for getting drunk at Andy's party that night. I get it. But when you're competing against the Star Quarterback of CMS projects, you *must* define what is unique about your project, and you must *market* that uniqueness. And you'd better be right, too -- because otherwise, you can forget about getting a date to the CMS prom.
What a load of defeatist bullshit.
Have you ever once even *tried* to talk to the people in your congressional office?
If you believe in this, then go fight for it. Take fifteen minutes out of your day and write an email or pick up the phone. And if you lose, *then* you can come back and whine about how the system doesn't work. But too many people bitch and moan and don't do anything. Do something!
"Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion."
Guess what? It's not up to you, Individual Artist, and never was, and never will be. Whether you are "cool" or "not cool" with it is entirely beside the point. Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absolute truth.
You can, of course, sue to get your Tasty Monies. That's the essence of copyright, and all well and good. But if the derivative work sucks, then there are likely no Tasty Monies to be had -- and if the derivative work doesn't suck, then you may be forced to face the notion that a transformative derivative work is actually art in its own right! Hope your ego can hold up to that notion.
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
Spoken like a professional translator.
"Red Hat has commited not to sue. So what? Does that mean that they'll remain true to whatever they said?"
Yes, actually, because of the legal principle of estoppel by representation of fact, also known in American law as "equitable estoppel". To wit:
"In general, estoppel protects an aggrieved party, if the counter-party induced an expectation from the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party reasonably relied on the expectation and would suffer detriment if the expectation is not met."
Red Hat, with its patent promise, induces an expectation: that Red Hat will not sue an open source developer for patent violations. If Red Hat then violates that expectation, a judge would basically throw out any such lawsuit immediately on grounds of estoppel.
Were the people who modded this "informative" lazy, or just pushing the joke?
Me too. Worth every penny.
Right. Which is why Cisco is doing so poorly, even though they routinely lay off their bottom 5%.
We already "make" students go to schools in order to turn them into good citizens.
This may or may not be the best idea ever -- but let's be clear: we have been making kids do things they don't want to do, by law, for many years now. :)
A comment this ignorant, and yet this highly rated, pretty much demands a rebuttal.
1. "I think Red Hat has no right to attempt to coax or coerce companies into giving away code. If OSS is the future, then it will happen, with or without Jim's little tantrum."
Guess what? There are *a lot* of companies coming to Red Hat, right now, *asking how to participate in open source projects.* So Jim is not talking pie-in-the-sky here; he's talking about capitalizing on momentum that already exists. There's pretty much zero coercion involved here.
2. "It is ridiculous for a CEO to attempt to paint his company as some kind of inspired model upon which other companies should remodel themselves."
So why is it, exactly, that Sun and Novell are trying to rebuild their business models, again? Help me out here.
3. "If Jim wants to make a difference, he should fund new development from emerging pools, like Google with the GSoC (not that I'm a Google fan, but that's another story), or IBM with their paid employee time contributions, or EnterpriseDB with their backports to the PostgreSQL team or Sun with their (somewhat clumsy) contributions to the OSS community. There are plenty of companies already doing what he says, he should be happy for that and encourage those already willing rather than attempting to project an agenda onto those it does not suit."
Considering that *every engineer at Red Hat is an open source software engineer*, either full-time or part-time, I'd say that Red Hat is funding plenty of open source development all around, thanks very much. Or maybe you don't think that any of this stuff counts.
4. "Having a whine that companies in the Old Establishment should be putting free money into his playpen is a naieve, futile and potentially harmful thing for Jim to be doing."
As it turns out, executives at big companies are smarter than you are. See, they understand the difference between "differentiating value" and "non-differentiating value". (Read some Bruce Perens if you don't get that idea.) Jim Whitehurst was the COO of a Very Large Company that had a larger annual IT budget than Red Hat's entire annual revenues. He saw firsthand how much money and manhours IT departments waste on software that doesn't actually add any value to the business. "Old Establishment" is looking desperately to make sure that those IT guys are building value, not wasting time on stuff that doesn't differentiate them from their competition. Understanding *and participating in* the open source model is one of the best possible ways to do exactly that. Which is why "Old Establishment" is coming to Red Hat and saying "help us".
The limiting factor is that Red Hat is not yet big enough to provide all of the services and guidance that these customers need. Jim is committing himself, publicly, to meeting that challenge. At Red Hat, we're all very proud of him for saying so.
Yes. Patent trolls win *all the time* for obvious stuff. Why? Because companies would rather settle for $n than defend themselves in court for 2$n or 10$n.
It's the obviously extortionary nature of the entire "intellectual property" industry that's so enraging. But no one can do anything about it.
(a) The software is still in early days yet, and the number of contributors is low. Why? Because the folks at OLPC have been focusing on getting to version 1.0, so that they could actually get units out the door. Now that geeks have real XOs in their hands, the situation can improve rapidly, as XO user groups get up to speed and join the fray.
(b) This sounds to me more like a subtle swipe at Jim Gettys than anything else, from someone who knows right where to strike a blow. "Wow, looks like shitty X from the 80s. How do you like THEM apples, Jim Gettys?" Because I haven't heard anyone else make that comparison. But maybe that's because most folks aren't "old school" enough, yo.
"I'm pretty sure RedHat hate CentOS."
1. No, we don't. At least, not most of us -- because most of us actually *understand* the business we're in. That's why we're making all this nice money. If we did hate CentOS, we could make it awfully difficult for them in any number of ways -- delaying updates, hiding marks and making them play "where's Waldo" every release, that sort of thing.
2. The "coy mumbo jumbo" about the upstream vendor has to do with trademark protection, not hate. We don't want "Red Hat" to turn into "Kleenex".
3. Here's a question: why is there no CentOS equivalent based on SuSE products? Think about it.
4. A lot of the significant people in the CentOS community are actually important and respected members of the Fedora community as well. That way, Red Hat benefits from the work of the more savvy CentOS users. That's how open source works, you see.
5. It's Red Hat, with a space. Not RedHat. Get it right, or we'll send you a cease-and-desist letter. (I'm kidding. Probably.)
Yep.
:)
Not only that, but your chances of success go up markedly if your codebase is (a) functionally complete enough to be immediately useful to many users *very* early on, and (b) highly modular, so that where a feature *isn't* available, it's worth more to the potential developer to write a new module for your codebase, rather than to start a codebase of their own.
There's a great Harvard Business School paper on this topic. Game theory and all. A mathematical proof about why projects like Drupal expand dramatically, and why projects like OpenOffice rot.
--a different Greg
MY EYES!!! Dear God, my poor, ruined eyeballs...
--g
Horseshit. There's nothing "organically evolved" about the disaster that is US software patent law. There's one ridiculous appellate ruling, from which the rest of this shitstorm has inexorably followed.
The entire history of time until 1998: for the most part, neither algorithms nor business practices are held to be patentable, since they are both held to be "abstract ideas," which are not patentable. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
The State Street ruling, 1998: Hey, let's change the legal test for patentable software from "causing a physical transformation" to producing "useful, concrete and tangible results". Vague enough for ya? Awesome. And while we're at it, let's also apply the same completely meaningless legal test to business practices, too!
The history of software patents since 1998: One patent on Zocor! One patent on Viagra! SIXTEEN patents by Microsoft of movement and positioning of a cursor! Gee whiz, maybe we should fix this problem. Oh, wait... we wouldn't want to "dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down", because Anonymous Coward says that such actions always result in DISASTER!
"Dismantle organically-evolved law from the top-down". Fantastic. What the hell does that even *mean*?
Check out Red Hat Magazine:
- fedora-7/
http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing