The best distributed efforts (at least that I've witnessed or been a part of) usually go something like this:
You have the Maintainer, or Cheif Programmer. This guy acts as the focal point... This guys job is to design the program... (Okay, we need an object that can do X, and a routine to do Y, and a config file with Z) and to hand it out to other people...
The other programmers email their willingness to participate to the cheif, who in turn sends them an "assignment." The programmer codes it, and sends it back.
The cheif puts it all together, tests it, and realeses.
Of course each programmer can help each other, everyone can suggest things, and patchs from the general public should be accepted..
Egos clash... that's why... There's always someone who wants to take more credit than anyone else gets... there's someone who wants to be known as "the guy" who wrote that "kick ass" program.
The person who owns the code, and hence the title, was the original author, correct? And when he gave it to the 2nd guy, then the 2nd guy owns it. And until such a time that he gives it up, Mr. J can not claim that the code is his.
Mr. J should have renamed it, (say to NP) and mentioned that it was based on P... He could even mention that he started his own version because he wasn't happy with the other version.. that's fine too...
Of course, the mature thing to do would be to work together... to put the egos aside or to accept the credit as a team... Open source projects work better when there's more than one person working on it...
Of course!! Everyone knows that anyone even thinking of ever owning a gun must be the member of a right wing militia on the verge of overthrowing the government! (either that or a bunch of gun bearing southern family... which is pretty close...)
Any decent person wouldn't want a gun. Since none of us have anything to hide, why lock our doors at night? I like to leave my keys in my ignition...
> Compression formats don't get established - they get > tossed in favor of anything that offers better > quality, performance or file size.
Right... so zip isn't established? Neither is gzip? (Even though bzip2 seems to be faster and more effecient)...
People don't often move to something for better quality, performance, or file size.. (If the did the *nix market would be much bigger).. They want to use what they have been using...
Naw.. they can't sue everyone... All they have to do is sue a few people... get a few of the key players in court, and everyone else will be too scared to do anything about it...
Of course, if anyone comes up with an idea of what to do to the creatins, let me know... IANAL, but what if everyone took the whois information from a few sites, and put it in another database? That way, no one person is replicating a "substantial portion" of the database? Who knows.. just a thought
Very nice... very nice... This sorta seems like the neighboorhood crack dealer selling rock at a discount...
"Hey kid, I'll give ya this one for a special low price..."
When in fact, he's thinking:
"Haha! Once he gets hooked, he'll want more and more! 'Come on man.. just 1 more meg of ram.. come on... I'm having shakes without a 450mhz box!' Hahah!! Then they'll pay!! Bwahahahhaha"
So if Metcalfe had to be placed in one of his "thirds" which do you think he'd fall into? Those who pointed out the shortcoming, those who pointed out the advantages, or those who flamed?
I'd put my money on "FLAME." Metcalfe is posting immature columns, and getting upset when others respond in the same manner. If his columns had ANY substance (other than the one he smokes;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.
My point? Ignore the man. Unless he comes out with a column that points out anything specific, then don't bother with him. "Mine's better than yours" he cries, well let him cry. Just don't cry back. If he points out any flaw or weakness, then we can address that.. until then, ignore the fool. There's no point in arguing over nothing.
I challange Metcalfe: Post a column that says something. Why should we choose an OS? Technical merit, application availibility, ease of use... Pick an issue. Discuss. When you post a real column, you will get real responses.
> But why would IBM want to make their products > more "acceptable" to the open-source community?
Because the open-source community is growing... if they have access to IBM products which are open-source, then they are more likely to buy the IBM hardware. Not to mention they could harness the power of the open-source coders.
> QT went free and open-source, yet was hated > since it still was commercial.
QT was gratis, and did release source, but under terms that not everyone liked... it didn't allow for distribution of modified source, etc, etc.. It was revised and I don't remember the outcome of the final license...
I could release the source code for a product (and hence, open the source) yet still have a license where I would sue anyone for redistribution, modification, printing, using a single line from blah, blah, blah, and everyone would hate that.
IBM is trying to keep this from happening to them....
I think everyone here would agree that the usefullness of an item depends on who is using it and why.
I think the PDAs can be very usefull. A centralized location for your phone numbers, addresses, memos, notes, etc. comes in handy. Some even have attachments and modems to let you check email and download webpages for off-line browsing. Since most travellers cary a laptop for email, why not use a PDA?
Of course, there are people who are going to play games on them. Young children want to play games on everything, and this isn't bad. What's wrong with being able to play "Hardball" while flying on a plane or waiting for a meeting to start?
This is along the same lines as saying "Cars aren't usefull. They don't increase productivity. I saw a 16 year old driving, asked what he was doing and he responded 'just cruising' therefore cars are no good." This statement is obviously bunk, but it was the best ananology I could come up with right now...
If you use your PDA to be more productive, then you will be. If you like to play games on it, then you won't be. Either way, most everyone wants a PDA.
Since when have KDE and GNOME been mutually exclusive? This has been the only point that makes me a little upset in the whole KDE/GNOME thing... and here's my take:
Run them both. "But KDE and GNOME have different windows managers!" No! No, no, no. KDE has it's own windows manager, KWM, but it's not an absolute must. I personally don't like KWM, so I don't use it. I do like some of the "K" apps, so I use them.
I also like some gnome apps.. so I use them...
As long as you have the QT and KDE libs installed, KOffice should run.
I'd be willing to bet that the average flame posting AC is young... Most of the flames lack a certain maturity, and hence the assumption that they are young...
You were not voicing an opinion. You were spouting off useless garbage. And I'm all for free speech, I'm also about responsible use of that speech. All you were doing was trying to provoke people. That has nothing to do with free speech.
> and have been for 7 years now
You started with Linux when you were 5? Too bad you haven't matured since then.
This is not your site. You don't pay for this site, therefore, ergo, you have no right to complain. If you want a better site, go make your own. I'm sick of people complaining about a wonderfull free, community driven web site.
>That's intersting, because in my experience NT >stability peaked with NT4SP4 and has gotten >better since.
Read that again. It peaked, and then got better? What? I'm confused now... I always thought the peak was the highest point... so therefore there couldn't be anything higher than said peak.
I guess some of us have different definitions....;)
>I'm running Windows 2000 Server and Professional >at home on my LAN, and both of these products in >their Beta form are faster and better than any >previous NT version.
How about not for an internet site? One of the tests was for a file server, which is usually not on the internet... throwing them both up "out of the box" would be a good test... how many people really spend a lot of time tuning their NT box? Not many.. they throw it up, and let it run (and BSOD)...
Benchmarks are fine and great and all, but in all my personal experience changing servers from NT to Linux gave everyone a performence increase... I know this is mearly anecdotal evidence at best, but that's what has worked for me.
[Silly Analogy] As for the samba tests.. it's something like this: Microsoft makes up a game. Microsoft doesn't tell you how to play the game. You try to learn the game... Microsoft beats you by a little. [/Silly Analogy]
Of course, this test doesn't show reliability though.. how long could they each handle those loads? Just the (what hour?) time it took to run the test or 24x7 for 6 months....
Anyway, to incorparate everyone other post we'll see: Well, we'll get better.
> This will be bad for the NSA, the CIA, and > the FBI
Do you think that the government uses weak crypto? Somehow I doubt that... I'd be willing to bet that the CIA uses encryption the NSA and FBI would have problems cracking, etc, etc...
I think they want to read our mail, and not for anyone to read theirs.
Is there an easy way to use PGP or GPG with *nix mail clients? I use Netscape for most of my mail... I wish there was a way for it to (en|de)crypt messages automagically... it would make encryption much more practical for the masses
It seems to me that the entire issue is here is that spooks won't be able to read everyones mail.
[Blink] Uh... [Cough] oh. So that's the problem. You can't read my mail, or intercept my private data. Isn't that the point of encryption in the first place?
If the Feds are able to read anything using "weak" encryption, doesn't it stand to reason that others can as well... at which point, isn't it pointless to use that weak encryption? (Typical packet sniffer aside?)
Reading other mail is a federal offense... What about reading others email? Why do the feds decide that reading information one way is worse than another? both are violations of my freedom..
>Unless the author is the liscensee, as you put >forth in your original example. Joe liscensed >his work under the GPL, becoming the liscensee, >and therefore subject to its restrictions.
Hmmmm.. Joe placed his work under the GPL... he is not a liscensee but the author... there is a difference... A liscensee would be anyone else who took the code from Joe..
>to modify, you automagically have your code >placed under the GPL.
To modify *someone*elses* code... yes... Your own code, no. Your code is copy(righ|left)ed by you.. you can change that copyright on future versions, but the version that was release under GPL can still be modified and redistributed under the GPL.
The GPL is about *re*distribution. The author will distribute, other will redistribute.
>Note: I'm really interested in this, since I >really don't know. I've got some code I might >release, and I'm currently looking at these >Liscenses. I'd like to be sure that I understand >this all first.
Understood... It's all good.. I enjoy a good level headed discussion..
Side Note: No one reading this thread will see this, but oh well. This has been one of the best set of comments on Slashdot that I've seen in a long time. Everyone is (mostly) being cool and discussing... Maybe the script kiddies are still asleep.
Slashdot Mirror
I belive CGI is useg here to refer to "Computer Generated Image"... Yeah, the use of acronyms can be confusing...
Well.. it's good to see that no matter what, the fasion industry will be dominated by silicon...
"From small chips, to big tits... silicone is really great!"
Ahahahahahahahahhahhahah....
:-P )
Thanks for the laugh, Tim... I needed it....
Hmm... but if it were NP, would there be peices missing, or would it be complete?
(btw, uber-gene still rocks
Yeah... this is true...
The best distributed efforts (at least that I've witnessed or been a part of) usually go something like this:
You have the Maintainer, or Cheif Programmer. This guy acts as the focal point... This guys job is to design the program... (Okay, we need an object that can do X, and a routine to do Y, and a config file with Z) and to hand it out to other people...
The other programmers email their willingness to participate to the cheif, who in turn sends them an "assignment." The programmer codes it, and sends it back.
The cheif puts it all together, tests it, and realeses.
Of course each programmer can help each other, everyone can suggest things, and patchs from the general public should be accepted..
Well, worked for me. YMMV.
Egos clash... that's why... There's always someone who wants to take more credit than anyone else gets... there's someone who wants to be known as "the guy" who wrote that "kick ass" program.
The person who owns the code, and hence the title, was the original author, correct? And when he gave it to the 2nd guy, then the 2nd guy owns it. And until such a time that he gives it up, Mr. J can not claim that the code is his.
Mr. J should have renamed it, (say to NP) and mentioned that it was based on P... He could even mention that he started his own version because he wasn't happy with the other version.. that's fine too...
Of course, the mature thing to do would be to work together... to put the egos aside or to accept the credit as a team... Open source projects work better when there's more than one person working on it...
> that only criminals would want guns too.
Of course!! Everyone knows that anyone even thinking of ever owning a gun must be the member of a right wing militia on the verge of overthrowing the government! (either that or a bunch of gun bearing southern family... which is pretty close...)
Any decent person wouldn't want a gun. Since none of us have anything to hide, why lock our doors at night? I like to leave my keys in my ignition...
> Compression formats don't get established - they get
> tossed in favor of anything that offers better
> quality, performance or file size.
Right... so zip isn't established? Neither is gzip? (Even though bzip2 seems to be faster and more effecient)...
People don't often move to something for better quality, performance, or file size.. (If the did the *nix market would be much bigger).. They want to use what they have been using...
"What? WinAmp won't play this? Forget it..."
Naw.. they can't sue everyone... All they have to do is sue a few people... get a few of the key players in court, and everyone else will be too scared to do anything about it...
Of course, if anyone comes up with an idea of what to do to the creatins, let me know... IANAL, but what if everyone took the whois information from a few sites, and put it in another database? That way, no one person is replicating a "substantial portion" of the database? Who knows.. just a thought
Very nice... very nice... This sorta seems like the neighboorhood crack dealer selling rock at a discount...
"Hey kid, I'll give ya this one for a special low price..."
When in fact, he's thinking:
"Haha! Once he gets hooked, he'll want more and more! 'Come on man.. just 1 more meg of ram.. come on... I'm having shakes without a 450mhz box!' Hahah!! Then they'll pay!! Bwahahahhaha"
Or maybe I just carried the analogy a bit far...
So if Metcalfe had to be placed in one of his "thirds" which do you think he'd fall into? Those who pointed out the shortcoming, those who pointed out the advantages, or those who flamed?
;-) then it would be another matter. But they don't. He sits and rambles and people get upset about it.
I'd put my money on "FLAME." Metcalfe is posting immature columns, and getting upset when others respond in the same manner. If his columns had ANY substance (other than the one he smokes
My point? Ignore the man. Unless he comes out with a column that points out anything specific, then don't bother with him. "Mine's better than yours" he cries, well let him cry. Just don't cry back. If he points out any flaw or weakness, then we can address that.. until then, ignore the fool. There's no point in arguing over nothing.
I challange Metcalfe: Post a column that says something. Why should we choose an OS? Technical merit, application availibility, ease of use... Pick an issue. Discuss. When you post a real column, you will get real responses.
> But why would IBM want to make their products
> more "acceptable" to the open-source community?
Because the open-source community is growing... if they have access to IBM products which are open-source, then they are more likely to buy the IBM hardware. Not to mention they could harness the power of the open-source coders.
> QT went free and open-source, yet was hated
> since it still was commercial.
QT was gratis, and did release source, but under terms that not everyone liked... it didn't allow for distribution of modified source, etc, etc.. It was revised and I don't remember the outcome of the final license...
I could release the source code for a product (and hence, open the source) yet still have a license where I would sue anyone for redistribution, modification, printing, using a single line from blah, blah, blah, and everyone would hate that.
IBM is trying to keep this from happening to them....
I think everyone here would agree that the usefullness of an item depends on who is using it and why.
I think the PDAs can be very usefull. A centralized location for your phone numbers, addresses, memos, notes, etc. comes in handy. Some even have attachments and modems to let you check email and download webpages for off-line browsing. Since most travellers cary a laptop for email, why not use a PDA?
Of course, there are people who are going to play games on them. Young children want to play games on everything, and this isn't bad. What's wrong with being able to play "Hardball" while flying on a plane or waiting for a meeting to start?
This is along the same lines as saying "Cars aren't usefull. They don't increase productivity. I saw a 16 year old driving, asked what he was doing and he responded 'just cruising' therefore cars are no good." This statement is obviously bunk, but it was the best ananology I could come up with right now...
If you use your PDA to be more productive, then you will be. If you like to play games on it, then you won't be. Either way, most everyone wants a PDA.
Since when have KDE and GNOME been mutually exclusive? This has been the only point that makes me a little upset in the whole KDE/GNOME thing... and here's my take:
Run them both. "But KDE and GNOME have different windows managers!" No! No, no, no. KDE has it's own windows manager, KWM, but it's not an absolute must. I personally don't like KWM, so I don't use it. I do like some of the "K" apps, so I use them.
I also like some gnome apps.. so I use them...
As long as you have the QT and KDE libs installed, KOffice should run.
The post lacked maturity. Maturity correlates with age. Hence the implication that the poster was very immature by commenting on the age.
If you feel better, you may substitute that phrase for "too bad you are so immature".
Now, please re-read the post, with the substitution, and give me another comment.
Not exactly.. more in the inverse...
The "therapeutic touch" went:
young -> wrong
Whereas the previous poster went:
flamebait with no real substance -> Young
I'd be willing to bet that the average flame posting AC is young... Most of the flames lack a certain maturity, and hence the assumption that they are young...
Why would it?
;)
It makes more sense to leave it in and support other open source activites...
Think about it man
You were not voicing an opinion. You were spouting off useless garbage. And I'm all for free speech, I'm also about responsible use of that speech. All you were doing was trying to provoke people. That has nothing to do with free speech.
> and have been for 7 years now
You started with Linux when you were 5? Too bad you haven't matured since then.
This is not your site. You don't pay for this site, therefore, ergo, you have no right to complain. If you want a better site, go make your own. I'm sick of people complaining about a wonderfull free, community driven web site.
I wonder what's so interesting about the patents? Maybe they forgot to mention that it was for audio encoding ;)
Anyway, it's great to hear that the source is available.
>That's intersting, because in my experience NT
;)
>stability peaked with NT4SP4 and has gotten
>better since.
Read that again. It peaked, and then got better? What? I'm confused now... I always thought the peak was the highest point... so therefore there couldn't be anything higher than said peak.
I guess some of us have different definitions....
>I'm running Windows 2000 Server and Professional
>at home on my LAN, and both of these products in
>their Beta form are faster and better than any
>previous NT version.
Better in what way?
How about not for an internet site? One of the tests was for a file server, which is usually not on the internet... throwing them both up "out of the box" would be a good test... how many people really spend a lot of time tuning their NT box? Not many.. they throw it up, and let it run (and BSOD)...
That would be a good test, IMHO...
Benchmarks are good for one thing: Benchmarks.
Benchmarks are fine and great and all, but in all my personal experience changing servers from NT to Linux gave everyone a performence increase... I know this is mearly anecdotal evidence at best, but that's what has worked for me.
[Silly Analogy]
As for the samba tests.. it's something like this: Microsoft makes up a game. Microsoft doesn't tell you how to play the game. You try to learn the game... Microsoft beats you by a little.
[/Silly Analogy]
Of course, this test doesn't show reliability though.. how long could they each handle those loads? Just the (what hour?) time it took to run the test or 24x7 for 6 months....
Anyway, to incorparate everyone other post we'll see: Well, we'll get better.
Hahahah...
Thanks for the laugh guys...
> This will be bad for the NSA, the CIA, and
> the FBI
Do you think that the government uses weak crypto? Somehow I doubt that... I'd be willing to bet that the CIA uses encryption the NSA and FBI would have problems cracking, etc, etc...
I think they want to read our mail, and not for anyone to read theirs.
>n6p6mEkpjmMREw3P9FooxvPi/5ZKwFoMZ/7CbExrIp8eeVRp
Huhuh... Foo.
[/HUMOUR]
Is there an easy way to use PGP or GPG with *nix mail clients? I use Netscape for most of my mail... I wish there was a way for it to (en|de)crypt messages automagically... it would make encryption much more practical for the masses
It seems to me that the entire issue is here is that spooks won't be able to read everyones mail.
[Blink] Uh... [Cough] oh. So that's the problem. You can't read my mail, or intercept my private data. Isn't that the point of encryption in the first place?
If the Feds are able to read anything using "weak" encryption, doesn't it stand to reason that others can as well... at which point, isn't it pointless to use that weak encryption? (Typical packet sniffer aside?)
Reading other mail is a federal offense... What about reading others email? Why do the feds decide that reading information one way is worse than another? both are violations of my freedom..
>Unless the author is the liscensee, as you put
>forth in your original example. Joe liscensed
>his work under the GPL, becoming the liscensee,
>and therefore subject to its restrictions.
Hmmmm.. Joe placed his work under the GPL... he is not a liscensee but the author... there is a difference... A liscensee would be anyone else who took the code from Joe..
>to modify, you automagically have your code
>placed under the GPL.
To modify *someone*elses* code... yes... Your own code, no. Your code is copy(righ|left)ed by you.. you can change that copyright on future versions, but the version that was release under GPL can still be modified and redistributed under the GPL.
The GPL is about *re*distribution. The author will distribute, other will redistribute.
>Note: I'm really interested in this, since I
>really don't know. I've got some code I might
>release, and I'm currently looking at these
>Liscenses. I'd like to be sure that I understand
>this all first.
Understood... It's all good.. I enjoy a good level headed discussion..
Side Note: No one reading this thread will see this, but oh well. This has been one of the best set of comments on Slashdot that I've seen in a long time. Everyone is (mostly) being cool and discussing... Maybe the script kiddies are still asleep.