Use software revision control. CVS, VSS, whatever, use one.
VSS! Please, for the love of all that is pure and holy, not VSS! Use something that won't destroy label/tag history simply by a user having their system time incorrect. Use something that won't corrupt your data when the network hickups. Use something that isn't open to corruption the moment a user gets infected with a virus. Use something that supports proper release branching. But please, not VSS!
I'm in the same boat. On the TortoiseSVN dev@ list there have been a few noises of someone working on a Nautilus plugin, but I have no idea if that's gone anywhere.
AnkhSVN is a VS.NET plugin. However, I'd encourage you to check out the really excellent TortoiseSVN client. I think one of the main reasons people like IDE integration is they're so used to the extra hassle that first checking out, editing and remembering what files to checkin, that the lock-modify-unlock model imposes. With Subversion's copy-modify-merge model and TortoiseSVN's recursive-oriented commit dialog, I think tight IDE integration looses much of it's usefulness.
Subversion has a client, but no server [for Windows].
What!? That is complete nonsense. Subversion has excellent and complete (client + server) cross-platform support. Linux, Windows, *BSD, MacOS X, Solaris -- you name it. They achieve this by using C and APR.
AC wrote: If you do this with binary files, your repository will grow quit large very quickly.
damieng wrote: The binary files I use don't tend to change very often with the exception of Office documents.
Of course it should be made clear that Subversion uses xdelta to get effecient binary diffs. Your repo will only grow quickly if the binary files are completely changing (e.g. compressed so all bytes change). If the file just gets something tacked on the end then you'll only be storing smaller diffs.
And yet, so many Open Source/Free Software people try to convince everyone that they should only use Free/Open Source Software, thus attempting to lock everyone in to using only that type of software.
If you truly believed in *my* freedom, you would respect my choice to use whatever I believe to be the most appropriate tool for the job.
Trying to convince someone to use FOSS != "locking in"! If you make a choice to use FOSS you are not at the mercy of the vendor in the way you are with a closed product. See Vendor lock-in
If I "truly believed" in your freedom I would respect your choice to put on handcuffs? If I "truly believed" in your freedom I would respect your choice to sign away your freedom in NDAs? No, of course not. What I'm saying is that while you certainly have the choice to choose what software you want, by going proprietary you ultimatly (long-term) are reducing your own freedom and choice.
The whole point of Open Source is that people have CHOICES ABOUT WHAT THEY USE TO DO A TASK. If they don't like it they can tweak the code so it does what they want.
Last time I checked, using BitKeeper constituted a CHOICE on the part of Linus. One of the core principles behind OSS.
I have to disagree. The whole point of Open Source is freedom. Freedom from any group being able to "lock you in", freedom to adapt software to meet your own needs, freedom to share and benefit from each other's work so we can focus on solving other problems. This freedom leads to having more choice, but using closed-source software only reduces freedom and thus the choices you have available.
You could say that Open Source is about preserving choice.
> The cascading blackout eventually cut off electricity to 50 million people in eight states and Canada.
O Canada, that far-off land somwhere up north. I didn't even know they had electricity. For the rest of us, thats eight states and 1 Canadian province.
Once again, if my boss ever inquires about the excessive HTTP requests to slashdot.org I've got a perfect justification.
This little tidbit solves a QA issue we've been scratching our heads on all day. Surf for 1 hour, save 1 day. Hey, does that mean I should read Slashdot full-time?:)
At our company with some 1500 people we use the Most Efficient(TM) system. It works like this:
Navigate through a goofy portal system to a complex and hard-to use request web page that only works with IE (because it doesn't follow standards).
Now is your chance to explain in 255 characters why you need your DoHicky Plus 4.0. Be convincing!
Enter manager's email into form (if you make a typo and click submit then go to step 1)
Having a competent manager, he promptly approves, or else asks a few questions. Wonderful! So easy!
Not so fast. The manager's approval email has gone to the R&D secretary. She needs to find the VP and get him to sign it. This is usually pretty fast, but now she forwards it to the IT requisition dept. of doom.
Wait.
Wait some more.
You didn't think it would be that easy, did you? Keep waiting.
Ok, now 5 weeks have passed and you haven't heard anything. Call the IT dept. hotline. Can't get ahold of anyone.
Wait.
Call IT again. "What's your req number?". Ok, go dig in your email from over a month ago and find your 4 digit req number. "Sorry, all purchase orders have been frozen because of year-end finances. Your order will be sent to the vendor as soon as the new fiscal year starts." Wonderful.
Wait some more.
Waiting...
At least that's as much as I can determin after several years of experience.
Eventually you may get your order delivered to you. It may be a good month and only take 3 weeks, I've also seen it take months. For stuff that I could have walked out the door and bought within 20 minutes.
I swear, next time I'm buying on my CC and expensing it.
And where was DirectX when Windows 2000 came out? Where was DirectX when XP came out?
Now you're forgetting the "at the time" part again.
The thesis of this whole thread is that at the time it made some technical sense, but your posts keep talking about the present, as if because it doesn't make sense now, it could never have made sense in the beginning.
Your reasoning does not apply to Windows NT4, as DirectX allows application to intercept any key combination, including the three-finger salute.
His reasoning was, "it actually made some sense at the time." I.e. *before* DirectX came out.
The same goes for remote desktop applications such as "PC anywhere" etc.
I've used PC/Anywhere (v8-10) a fair amount and have seen no such thing. In fact I've observed exactly opposite your point. PC/Anywhere has a special button to generate a CTRL-ALT-DEL on the remote host specifically because it can't hook your local CTRL-ALT-DEL.
Now, is it useful anymore, no, but I don't see why people are complaining so much. You get used to hitting three keys once in a while instead of clicking 'Login' or what have you.
I have a friend who runs a small ISP here in Toronto. Today he told me that he never lost network connectivity during the blackout. He's with WorldCom and apparently because of W2K they built facilities downtown so they can last a whole month without power.
I don't see Clarke "talking past" the *questions* for the debate, though. He addressed them, I thought, eloquently.
I agree, Oppenheim obviously beat the drum he's paid to beat; I found his answers more of a rehash of the RIAA agenda rather than thoughtful.
However, I don't think Clarke has a responsibility to address the largely red-herring-esque agenda of the RIAA. He shouldn't have to design FreeNet around the RIAA's problem, in the same way a car manufacturer shouldn't have to design a car around the the speed limits of some geographical area. It's an end user responsibility.
The next big thing in Keyboard design will be one handed keyboards optimized for the internet.
No, the "Next Big Thing"(TM) is mouse gestures. After the simple Optimozinstallation you'll never touch your keyboard again. It was that way for me at least. (Not using a Mozilla based broswer? Heathen!)
I find mouse gestures are much more comfortable to use than both the keyboard and browser UI.
> Do we throw out anatomy because it has benefited from what virtually the entire population of the planet agrees were war crimes performed on adult sentient beings?
What you've said about the benefits we now have from previous atrocities certainly is a moral point to ponder. No, I don't think we should throw out what was learned through that because it already happened. There's nothing we can do about the past, we can only use what we've got.
If not, why should we throw out a technology that could lead to cure for Parkinson's, as well as the growth of replacement organs (possibly without an attached host body!) on the objections of a few religious fundamentalists ("life begins at conception / glob of undifferentiated cell has a soul" stage) or somewhat less-fundamental fundamentalists ("life begins when it looks cute / fetus" stage)?
Now this is where we come to the difference. I think we can agree that we shouldn't ignore knowledge just because it was gained from unethical means. The act was wrong but using the knowledge isn't. What we're talking about in this case, however, is should we actively do more unethical* research to gain more knowledge. And that I disagree with.
Which brings us to that tiny, but all-important astrisk. Obviously in your view it isn't unethical, so there's no problem. My point, in the context of this thread is, the real issue is not research and technology, it's how do you define human. Is it '("life begins at conception / glob of undifferentiated cell has a soul" stage)' or '("life begins when it looks cute / fetus" stage)' or '("life begins when at my arbitrary decision of (weight/sufficient intelligence/birth/independence/whatever)" stage'.
You're right, it isn't an easy decision, but I think once you start down the "You must have property foo before you're declared human" path you suddenly justify de-humanizing all the people without "foo" (sorry, you're disabled - wham!), or else it becomes painfully obvious you're pulling such a serious call out of your hat.
Slashdot Mirror
Use software revision control. CVS, VSS, whatever, use one.
VSS! Please, for the love of all that is pure and holy, not VSS! Use something that won't destroy label/tag history simply by a user having their system time incorrect. Use something that won't corrupt your data when the network hickups. Use something that isn't open to corruption the moment a user gets infected with a virus. Use something that supports proper release branching. But please, not VSS!
(A good alternative is Subversion.) -Malloc
I'm in the same boat. On the TortoiseSVN dev@ list there have been a few noises of someone working on a Nautilus plugin, but I have no idea if that's gone anywhere.
-Malloc
It can be confusing.
AnkhSVN is a VS.NET plugin. However, I'd encourage you to check out the really excellent TortoiseSVN client. I think one of the main reasons people like IDE integration is they're so used to the extra hassle that first checking out, editing and remembering what files to checkin, that the lock-modify-unlock model imposes. With Subversion's copy-modify-merge model and TortoiseSVN's recursive-oriented commit dialog, I think tight IDE integration looses much of it's usefulness.
-MallocSubversion has a client, but no server [for Windows].
What!? That is complete nonsense. Subversion has excellent and complete (client + server) cross-platform support. Linux, Windows, *BSD, MacOS X, Solaris -- you name it. They achieve this by using C and APR.
Maybe you should read HOWTO Setup A Server on Windows.
-MallocAC wrote:
If you do this with binary files, your repository will grow quit large very quickly.
damieng wrote:
The binary files I use don't tend to change very often with the exception of Office documents.
Of course it should be made clear that Subversion uses xdelta to get effecient binary diffs. Your repo will only grow quickly if the binary files are completely changing (e.g. compressed so all bytes change). If the file just gets something tacked on the end then you'll only be storing smaller diffs.
Malloc
And yet, so many Open Source/Free Software people try to convince everyone that they should only use Free/Open Source Software, thus attempting to lock everyone in to using only that type of software.
If you truly believed in *my* freedom, you would respect my choice to use whatever I believe to be the most appropriate tool for the job.
Trying to convince someone to use FOSS != "locking in"! If you make a choice to use FOSS you are not at the mercy of the vendor in the way you are with a closed product. See Vendor lock-in
If I "truly believed" in your freedom I would respect your choice to put on handcuffs? If I "truly believed" in your freedom I would respect your choice to sign away your freedom in NDAs? No, of course not. What I'm saying is that while you certainly have the choice to choose what software you want, by going proprietary you ultimatly (long-term) are reducing your own freedom and choice.
MallocThe whole point of Open Source is that people have CHOICES ABOUT WHAT THEY USE TO DO A TASK. If they don't like it they can tweak the code so it does what they want.
Last time I checked, using BitKeeper constituted a CHOICE on the part of Linus. One of the core principles behind OSS.
I have to disagree. The whole point of Open Source is freedom. Freedom from any group being able to "lock you in", freedom to adapt software to meet your own needs, freedom to share and benefit from each other's work so we can focus on solving other problems. This freedom leads to having more choice, but using closed-source software only reduces freedom and thus the choices you have available.
You could say that Open Source is about preserving choice.
MallocThat could win the best-FUD-of-the-year award. Full of scathing remarks, but nary an actual hard fact in sight.
-Malloc
But that's the whole point, in assembly language the compiler doesn't do any guessing, it just does what you told it to do (right or wrong).
-MallocPu-leaze, turn sarcastic humour detector *on* before reading the post. :) (Yes, one could interpret it either way, but that's not the point.)
O Canada, that far-off land somwhere up north. I didn't even know they had electricity. For the rest of us, thats eight states and 1 Canadian province.
-Malloc[Please, if you have and pity for your fellow lunch-eating slashdotters at all, mod this up.]
Do not, I repeat, do not read the comments on this article till you've:
I still can't finish my yoghurt.
-MallocOnce again, if my boss ever inquires about the excessive HTTP requests to slashdot.org I've got a perfect justification.
This little tidbit solves a QA issue we've been scratching our heads on all day. Surf for 1 hour, save 1 day. Hey, does that mean I should read Slashdot full-time? :)
-MallocThe correct response is: YHBTHAND, not "Insightful".
-Malloc
Yeah, having all these applications held back by the GPL really sucks. Just look at the stifled innovation!
-MallocAt our company with some 1500 people we use the Most Efficient(TM) system. It works like this:
At least that's as much as I can determin after several years of experience.
Eventually you may get your order delivered to you. It may be a good month and only take 3 weeks, I've also seen it take months. For stuff that I could have walked out the door and bought within 20 minutes.
I swear, next time I'm buying on my CC and expensing it.
-MallocWell, I could easily see it carrying on, like so many other things, simply because changing your UI for no good reason is a Bad Thing.
-Malloc
And where was DirectX when Windows 2000 came out? Where was DirectX when XP came out?
Now you're forgetting the "at the time" part again.
The thesis of this whole thread is that at the time it made some technical sense, but your posts keep talking about the present, as if because it doesn't make sense now, it could never have made sense in the beginning.
-MallocUmm, I don't think there was a time that Windows required Ctrl+Alt+Delete, before DirectX came about. I know it existed when NT4 came out.
As the AC, whom no one will see, said:
"Right. And where was DirectX when NT 3.5 came out? Also, where was DirectX for NT4 when NT4 came out? Nowhere, that's where."
-Malloc
Your reasoning does not apply to Windows NT4, as DirectX allows application to intercept any key combination, including the three-finger salute.
His reasoning was, "it actually made some sense at the time." I.e. *before* DirectX came out.The same goes for remote desktop applications such as "PC anywhere" etc.
I've used PC/Anywhere (v8-10) a fair amount and have seen no such thing. In fact I've observed exactly opposite your point. PC/Anywhere has a special button to generate a CTRL-ALT-DEL on the remote host specifically because it can't hook your local CTRL-ALT-DEL.
Now, is it useful anymore, no, but I don't see why people are complaining so much. You get used to hitting three keys once in a while instead of clicking 'Login' or what have you.
-MallocI have a friend who runs a small ISP here in Toronto. Today he told me that he never lost network connectivity during the blackout. He's with WorldCom and apparently because of W2K they built facilities downtown so they can last a whole month without power.
-Malloc
I don't see Clarke "talking past" the *questions* for the debate, though. He addressed them, I thought, eloquently.
I agree, Oppenheim obviously beat the drum he's paid to beat; I found his answers more of a rehash of the RIAA agenda rather than thoughtful.
However, I don't think Clarke has a responsibility to address the largely red-herring-esque agenda of the RIAA. He shouldn't have to design FreeNet around the RIAA's problem, in the same way a car manufacturer shouldn't have to design a car around the the speed limits of some geographical area. It's an end user responsibility.
-Malloc
There's no rule that says you have to add features with every release.
But there is a rule that a major version number change means a major backend API change. See Asa's comment.
-Malloc
The next big thing in Keyboard design will be one handed keyboards optimized for the internet.
No, the "Next Big Thing"(TM) is mouse gestures. After the simple Optimoz installation you'll never touch your keyboard again. It was that way for me at least. (Not using a Mozilla based broswer? Heathen!)
I find mouse gestures are much more comfortable to use than both the keyboard and browser UI.
Malloc> Do we throw out anatomy because it has benefited from what virtually the entire population of the planet agrees were war crimes performed on adult sentient beings?
What you've said about the benefits we now have from previous atrocities certainly is a moral point to ponder. No, I don't think we should throw out what was learned through that because it already happened. There's nothing we can do about the past, we can only use what we've got.
If not, why should we throw out a technology that could lead to cure for Parkinson's, as well as the growth of replacement organs (possibly without an attached host body!) on the objections of a few religious fundamentalists ("life begins at conception / glob of undifferentiated cell has a soul" stage) or somewhat less-fundamental fundamentalists ("life begins when it looks cute / fetus" stage)?
Now this is where we come to the difference. I think we can agree that we shouldn't ignore knowledge just because it was gained from unethical means. The act was wrong but using the knowledge isn't. What we're talking about in this case, however, is should we actively do more unethical* research to gain more knowledge. And that I disagree with.
Which brings us to that tiny, but all-important astrisk. Obviously in your view it isn't unethical, so there's no problem. My point, in the context of this thread is, the real issue is not research and technology, it's how do you define human. Is it '("life begins at conception / glob of undifferentiated cell has a soul" stage)' or '("life begins when it looks cute / fetus" stage)' or '("life begins when at my arbitrary decision of (weight/sufficient intelligence/birth/independence/whatever)" stage'.
You're right, it isn't an easy decision, but I think once you start down the "You must have property foo before you're declared human" path you suddenly justify de-humanizing all the people without "foo" (sorry, you're disabled - wham!), or else it becomes painfully obvious you're pulling such a serious call out of your hat.
Worth pondering...
-Malloc