Well, maybe the author knows what is Open Source model, but he didn't make it clear at all from the arguments he used.
It seems that by Open Source he means Distributed Development. The model that he describes in a nutshell is distributed teams working arond CVS.
He confuses things further by saying that "Somehow and somewhere someone got the notion that Open Source development meant that everything had to use one of the many open source licenses".
C'mon! Open source means exactly that - source code that is open. The author keeps comparing his "open source" model with bureaucracy of some big stupid software house. You see, in the "proprietary" organisation somebody has to write specification from scratch and keep it on a desk for months, while smart "open source" developers find what was written on the net and go from there.
Why "proprietary" developers cannot use Google escapes me.
Basically, the article seems an attempt on self-promotion. Is it because "Open source" is a buzzword nowadays?
Accidental change/deletion of content - that is where version control may be put to a good use. Create CVS repository on your Linux server (preferably, one that has RAID). Install TortoiseCVS on your Win32 workstation. That's all. Adding docs to repository, updating, retreiving previous versions is as simple as right-clicking the mouse. It was unthinkable to recommend CVS use to a non-programmer, but TortoiseCVS have changed it.
I am using versionoing at home for all sorts of files. What really helps is to have one copy of each document. No need for draft versions etc. I am also using this free diff program to view changes in MS Word documents.
I've mentioned this on Forbes forum (arguments that business people should understand):
These jokes about Open Source "comrades" show that the author has missed the point about open source software.
There is better word for "free" or "open source" software. The accurate word is "commodity software". Most functionality that Linux has (low level networking) has been around since the 70s. There is hardly anything left to "invent" there. People just want stable and secure servers and networks. So developer community has came up with this "open source" model when nobody "owns" the code but many people want to contribute just to make it better for their own use. It's not because programmers are so idealistic, really.
As for GPL, well, it works in maintaining the commodity status. It's possible to build proprietary solutions *on top* of GPL software (Oracle also runs on Linux, as you know). It's impossible tomake GPL software proprietary again. But hey, who forced Linksys to take free OS for their routers in the first place? They could pay some commercial vendor and be happy. There is no such thing as free lunch, as Forbes should know!
For a database-driven application you should use Enterprise Java beans (entity beans, container-managed, to be exact). So you never has to write another SQL query again.
You are no anarchist, but you are closer to being a communist than you think. The issue is exactly that: rights of individual DO take precedence over what is good for society as a whole. Because, who exactly has determined what IS good for the society? You, my little comrade?
There is no such thing as abstract "common good". There are real interests of real people who delegate power to speak on their behalf to the elected government. And no government has a right to send people to war. It can declare war on behalf of people. And if the reason for the war was not legitimate, this government is likely to be voted out of the office.
So, government is agent of people, not a sovereign. And a person may want to carry a bazooka, it's his/her right. Such right can be limited only by majority vote of other people who think bazooka may be hazardous to neighbours.
I hope majority of Americans still are capable of deciding what's good for them. And are in posession of means to protect this right (guns). From people like you who are not capable of personally taking up the challenge of liberty and who are ready to sell out yours and everybody's right to a small minority of state officials "who know better what is common good".
If this changes, sorry for the rest of the world. Here comes this huge totalitarian gorilla...
When a user learns to use *nix shell, GNU standard utilities and how to edit a few config files then he/she probably don't need GUI "helper tools" that are great feature of "mainstream" distributions. In fact, these tools become nuisance since they lock user to a particular vendor. You have SuSE 7.3 running on the server and you need to upgrade to PHP4.3 from standard 4.0 No way. The vendor is already selling Suse 8.2 and motivates you to update the whole box. Been there, seen this...
On the contrast Debian, as community effort, is more or less "software for own use". It represents interests of people who *use* software rather than *sell* software. That's why its so conservative with introduction of "GUI helpers" and that is why it pays so much attention to security and manageability. It's users are mostly sysadmins who know what they are doing (know command line, for example). And yes, they are influential as anyone with specialist technical knowledge.
So leave Debian alone, it is distribution for power users and don't even try this political correctness crap. I'm not a Debian developer, they may have different ideas, but as a user I want to keep Debian simple (i.e. complex for ave.Joe).
I'm sick of this argument: "Average Joe doesn't care... It's too difficult for average Joe... The product has no future... Let's make the product easier for the brain-dead and dumb it down".
For the record, there exist such thing as market niches and they can be lucrative enough. Not everything should be mass-produced. Maybe millions of average Joes do not care about single vendor and forced upgrade risk. Let RH make money servicing them. There will be a limited number of sophisticated and influential users who will always need (and support) Debian.
...by design since they are not "multi-user". They are more like individual diaries. You would to give your users opportunity to interact with each other with some community software like Geeklog or OpenACS.
You misrepresent EasyJet business model. They are not trying to be simply cheaper than competition. They will reduce ticket price for off-peak-time viewings but will charge full price (or more) when demand is good. So in terms of *revenue* they may as well bring in more cash from each movie because they capture more of the market thier way. Just as it happened with budget air travel in Europe. Who has benefited from its explosive growth? The public - more routes, more opportunity to travel; EasyJet - more profits. Who has lost? Former industry leaders like BA.
A simpler solution I've seen one guy's website (sorry no link). The footer states that he charges $10,000 per hour to review unsolicited email, and that any sender of spam hereby agrees to these terms. Presumably, he is free then to collect from any spammer of his choice. How does this sound from legal point of view?
I'm glad that this story submitted yesterday (directly from Bloomberg on my desk) is run today on Slashdot under geekinexile/CowboyNeal. Even submission comments are mostly unchanged. But what's the point of this attitude? To give a bit of credit is simply polite...
If I am an independent software developer company, can I write software for Palladium platform for free or will I have to pay license fee to Microsoft/Intel/AMD?
What are my chances to developing next big killing app/os, gaining huge market share and grabbing Palladium market share of Microsoft?
Fully agree. The main selling point of Free Software for corporate sector is not its short-term price sticker. It is mitigation of single-vendor risk and therefore long-term costs. RedHat adherence to open source is just sound business strategy. And UL looks clueless as far as business is concerned. Maybe they are better programmers...
I believe that official (but not publicised) US government policy encourages US patent office to award as many silly patents as possible to US companies. It is a valid way to stimulate national industry. Due to its overwhelming superiority, the US is the only country that can enforce its laws abroad.
The example of British company losing its patent claim in the US court to a US company doesn't disprove above point.
Remember Scientology Chirch using copyright law to fight opponents? Why "nice guys" such as open source community are so soft? It is clear that NeoSomething is violating copyright (even if not GPL) - so call your activist/lawyer and protect the rights. Otherwise nice guys always lose...
The article (and the discussion) assumes that if Microsoft dominated US consumer (and US market) then Linux would end and the world would end with it.... I think the world is rather larger place than US, and Linux is not completely US product (even though GPL is).
It is absolutely inconceivable that foreign governments and businesses will allow Microsoft (and Holliwood, or whoever) to establish back door into their offices and collect information on their consumers. In the EC, for example, Microsoft Passport initiative has already met legal challenges. And in places like China governments encourage "local" version of Linux for official use.
This has nothing to do with freedom, of course. Governments think of national security, and non-US businesses want to "own" all personal data on their local Joe-The-Consumer (or Jose-The-Consumer...).
So, relax, you American folks. US is not ruling the world yet (and judging by your stockmarket will have to wait a bit longer), and Microsoft may kill GPL but who cares, and US companies will not be able to enforce ridiculous patents and rights for Brothers Grimm tales in foreign courts.
Well, virus is not bacteria, and its very important. I cannot stress it enough. Stating otherwise can upset people.
I used the word virus because "deadly-virus-escaping" is more a press cliche... Hope most people got the irony.
Now, apart from that, what has caused this fountain of emotions and fury towards the editor? Is anyone questions peaceful objectives of US military? Or that oil-spill-cleaning bacteria is not a news?
Still, it is mildly interesting to learn from this post+thread that:
- new class of weapons is being developed (hence scenarios to imagine: "virus escaping", falling into terrorist hands, industrialised nations under attack from 3d world etc); - new germs are being genetically enginered (so they do not exist in nature ); - new germs will target metals and plastics as well as oil; - "We, Environmentalists" are rude and might use some Valuim...:))
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe the author knows what is Open Source model, but he didn't make it clear at all from the arguments he used.
It seems that by Open Source he means Distributed Development. The model that he describes in a nutshell is distributed teams working arond CVS.
He confuses things further by saying that "Somehow and somewhere someone got the notion that Open Source development meant that everything had to use one of the many open source licenses".
C'mon! Open source means exactly that - source code that is open. The author keeps comparing his "open source" model with bureaucracy of some big stupid software house. You see, in the "proprietary" organisation somebody has to write specification from scratch and keep it on a desk for months, while smart "open source" developers find what was written on the net and go from there.
Why "proprietary" developers cannot use Google escapes me.
Basically, the article seems an attempt on self-promotion. Is it because "Open source" is a buzzword nowadays?
Accidental change/deletion of content - that is where version control may be put to a good use. Create CVS repository on your Linux server (preferably, one that has RAID). Install TortoiseCVS on your Win32 workstation. That's all. Adding docs to repository, updating, retreiving previous versions is as simple as right-clicking the mouse. It was unthinkable to recommend CVS use to a non-programmer, but TortoiseCVS have changed it.
I am using versionoing at home for all sorts of files. What really helps is to have one copy of each document. No need for draft versions etc. I am also using this free diff program to view changes in MS Word documents.
Beautifully said. Thanks!
I've mentioned this on Forbes forum (arguments that business people should understand):
These jokes about Open Source "comrades" show that the author has missed the point about open source software.
There is better word for "free" or "open source" software.
The accurate word is "commodity software". Most functionality that Linux has (low level networking) has been around since the 70s. There is hardly anything left to "invent" there. People just want stable and secure servers and networks. So developer community has came up with this "open source" model when nobody "owns" the code but many people want to contribute just to make it better for their own use. It's not because programmers are so idealistic, really.
As for GPL, well, it works in maintaining the commodity status. It's possible to build proprietary solutions *on top* of GPL software (Oracle also runs on Linux, as you know). It's impossible tomake GPL software proprietary again. But hey, who forced Linksys to take free OS for their routers in the first place? They could pay some commercial vendor and be happy. There is no such thing as free lunch, as Forbes should know!
For a database-driven application you should use Enterprise Java beans (entity beans, container-managed, to be exact). So you never has to write another SQL query again.
You are no anarchist, but you are closer to being a communist than you think. The issue is exactly that: rights of individual DO take precedence over what is good for society as a whole. Because, who exactly has determined what IS good for the society? You, my little comrade?
There is no such thing as abstract "common good". There are real interests of real people who delegate power to speak on their behalf to the elected government. And no government has a right to send people to war. It can declare war on behalf of people. And if the reason for the war was not legitimate, this government is likely to be voted out of the office.
So, government is agent of people, not a sovereign. And a person may want to carry a bazooka, it's his/her right. Such right can be limited only by majority vote of other people who think bazooka may be hazardous to neighbours.
I hope majority of Americans still are capable of deciding what's good for them. And are in posession of means to protect this right (guns). From people like you who are not capable of personally taking up the challenge of liberty and who are ready to sell out yours and everybody's right to a small minority of state officials "who know better what is common good".
If this changes, sorry for the rest of the world. Here comes this huge totalitarian gorilla...
When a user learns to use *nix shell, GNU standard utilities and how to edit a few config files then he/she probably don't need GUI "helper tools" that are great feature of "mainstream" distributions. In fact, these tools become nuisance since they lock user to a particular vendor. You have SuSE 7.3 running on the server and you need to upgrade to PHP4.3 from standard 4.0 No way. The vendor is already selling Suse 8.2 and motivates you to update the whole box. Been there, seen this...
On the contrast Debian, as community effort, is more or less "software for own use". It represents interests of people who *use* software rather than *sell* software. That's why its so conservative with introduction of "GUI helpers" and that is why it pays so much attention to security and manageability. It's users are mostly sysadmins who know what they are doing (know command line, for example). And yes, they are influential as anyone with specialist technical knowledge.
So leave Debian alone, it is distribution for power users and don't even try this political correctness crap. I'm not a Debian developer, they may have different ideas, but as a user I want to keep Debian simple (i.e. complex for ave.Joe).
I'm sick of this argument: "Average Joe doesn't care... It's too difficult for average Joe... The product has no future... Let's make the product easier for the brain-dead and dumb it down".
For the record, there exist such thing as market niches and they can be lucrative enough. Not everything should be mass-produced. Maybe millions of average Joes do not care about single vendor and forced upgrade risk. Let RH make money servicing them. There will be a limited number of sophisticated and influential users who will always need (and support) Debian.
...by design since they are not "multi-user". They are more like individual diaries. You would to give your users opportunity to interact with each other with some community software like Geeklog or OpenACS.
So why don't you take your virtual sword and cut the the annoying bastards in half? What do you do in real life in such circumstances?
You misrepresent EasyJet business model. They are not trying to be simply cheaper than competition. They will reduce ticket price for off-peak-time viewings but will charge full price (or more) when demand is good. So in terms of *revenue* they may as well bring in more cash from each movie because they capture more of the market thier way. Just as it happened with budget air travel in Europe. Who has benefited from its explosive growth? The public - more routes, more opportunity to travel; EasyJet - more profits. Who has lost? Former industry leaders like BA.
A simpler solution I've seen one guy's website (sorry no link). The footer states that he charges $10,000 per hour to review unsolicited email, and that any sender of spam hereby agrees to these terms. Presumably, he is free then to collect from any spammer of his choice. How does this sound from legal point of view?
Naaay, X-Windows.
For those who browse at -1
I'm glad that this story submitted yesterday (directly from Bloomberg on my desk) is run today on Slashdot under geekinexile/CowboyNeal. Even submission comments are mostly unchanged. But what's the point of this attitude? To give a bit of credit is simply polite...
If I am an independent software developer company, can I write software for Palladium platform for free or will I have to pay license fee to Microsoft/Intel/AMD?
What are my chances to developing next big killing app/os, gaining huge market share and grabbing Palladium market share of Microsoft?
Fully agree. The main selling point of Free Software for corporate sector is not its short-term price sticker. It is mitigation of single-vendor risk and therefore long-term costs. RedHat adherence to open source is just sound business strategy. And UL looks clueless as far as business is concerned. Maybe they are better programmers...
Didn't you ever consider harmful giving results of government-funded research to private companies?
I believe that official (but not publicised) US government policy encourages US patent office to award as many silly patents as possible to US companies. It is a valid way to stimulate national industry. Due to its overwhelming superiority, the US is the only country that can enforce its laws abroad.
The example of British company losing its patent claim in the US court to a US company doesn't disprove above point.
Remember Scientology Chirch using copyright law to fight opponents? Why "nice guys" such as open source community are so soft? It is clear that NeoSomething is violating copyright (even if not GPL) - so call your activist/lawyer and protect the rights. Otherwise nice guys always lose...
"2001-12-18 22:13:05 Anti-mosquito computer program (articles,news) (rejected)"
Previous version didn't work on rats through. Maybe that's why...
The article (and the discussion) assumes that if Microsoft dominated US consumer (and US market) then Linux would end and the world would end with it.... I think the world is rather larger place than US, and Linux is not completely US product (even though GPL is).
It is absolutely inconceivable that foreign governments and businesses will allow Microsoft (and Holliwood, or whoever) to establish back door into their offices and collect information on their consumers. In the EC, for example, Microsoft Passport initiative has already met legal challenges. And in places like China governments encourage "local" version of Linux for official use.
This has nothing to do with freedom, of course. Governments think of national security, and non-US businesses want to "own" all personal data on their local Joe-The-Consumer (or Jose-The-Consumer...).
So, relax, you American folks. US is not ruling the world yet (and judging by your stockmarket will have to wait a bit longer), and Microsoft may kill GPL but who cares, and US companies will not be able to enforce ridiculous patents and rights for Brothers Grimm tales in foreign courts.
Vive la différence!
We, Environmentalists ...
/.../
;)
When you genetically engineer an organism - which I've done on several occasions, thank you very much
If above is correct, who the hell are those guys burning GM crops in Europe? Man, your inner contradictions are mind-boggling!
I do have a basis to claim that environmentalsts are against consumption of non-reproducible natural resourses such as oil. You disagree?
What other major uses of oil apart from burning it and its products? Is it is petrochemical industry and plastics or something else?
Hey,... let's get philosophical. WHAT IS the environmentalist ultimate dream then?
Well, virus is not bacteria, and its very important. I cannot stress it enough. Stating otherwise can upset people.
I used the word virus because "deadly-virus-escaping" is more a press cliche... Hope most people got the irony.
Now, apart from that, what has caused this fountain of emotions and fury towards the editor? Is anyone questions peaceful objectives of US military? Or that oil-spill-cleaning bacteria is not a news?
Still, it is mildly interesting to learn from this post+thread that:
- new class of weapons is being developed (hence scenarios to imagine: "virus escaping", falling into terrorist hands, industrialised nations under attack from 3d world etc);
- new germs are being genetically enginered (so they do not exist in nature );
- new germs will target metals and plastics as well as oil;
- "We, Environmentalists" are rude and might use some Valuim...:))
1gor
I agree with recommendations and use them myself (after some research):
- papst case (and CPU) fans
- seagate barracuda drives (IDE)
There are plenty of specialist low noice products, but above are mainstream, not expensive and the quietest.