Then you use "people in frats buy their friends" differently than most do. Everyone I've heard say that before has gone on to explain that they mean buying friendship from your frat brothers.
I kind of agree with you the way you mean it. The point I made is that it's no different than having roommates and sharing the cost of parties. If you consider throwing a party to be "buying friends" then I am guilty of that before, during and after I was in a frat. In fact, I highly recommend it. It's how most friends are made. It's also known as being social. It's an investment with a very good ROI.
I've also "bought friends" by listening to people I don't know complain about their problems and offering kind words or advice. I've even bought friends by teaching people I don't know about software and providing people I don't know with free software.
If you think that those 4/5 of the people, which I didn't know, were only coming for the free beer then you have a lot to learn. The beer was actually pretty bad. The purpose of the beer was social. It helped them feel confident enough to approach me and start a conversation, which took a lot of nerve because I was looking so "cool" since all those people came to my party.
I did not emphasize the point I was trying to rebuke. You tried to change my point to make it seem that way.
If by "group of morons" you mean some of the people in that group are morons then I agree. If you mean that all or most of that people in the group are morons, or that spending time getting drunk or laid makes you a moron, then I disagree. From my experience, as a member of both groups, the fraction of frat members that are morons is pretty similar to the fraction of computer geeks that are morons. I don't think it's very smart to assume that a person who enjoys drinking with friends or having sex is a moron, especially if that so called moron who considers those things valuable is resourceful enough make them happen.
I was in a fraternity as an undergrad. The majority of the money I paid went toward housing, food, and parties. The cost of living there was cheaper than getting my own apartment. I think those people who whine that frat members buy their friends are either too stupid to realize that it's pretty much just living with roommates and sharing the cost of throwing parties, or they're acting on feelings of jealously because the good frats have a lot more fun in college than a typical "I'm too cool for frats" jack ass. If they didn't really care I'd expect them not to throw out the "frat members have to buy friends" cliche every chance they get.
I wonder if the same argument could be made about conservative christiantity. This is of course based on interacting with people I know, not a true study but it makes sense. They seem to get addicted to their cause to a point where they can't think about anything else. There are probably some checmical effects on the brain that come with the righteous feeling they get for "doing god's work". And they have a negative effect on society by attacking people who make lifestyle choices they disagree with through slander and legistlation.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info 2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%) Click here for info 3. Cobb, David - Green Party (43%) Click here for info 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (43%) Click here for info 5. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info 6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%) Click here for info 7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (32%) Click here for info 8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (29%) Click here for info
> prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields, > similar to those emitted by such common household > devices as blow dryers
So that explains women.
Microsoft has the same advantage it always does
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has the same advantage it had over netscape, and it's a big one. They can integrate their searches into their desktop software. As much as I hate Microsoft (and that's a lot), I'm pretty sure that all they have to do is cleverly integrate their web searches with Office and the Windows desktop and they will win this battle too.
They are in a very good position to do this with their.Net C# system. Hell, a little MSN search field built into the windows taskbar would probably win over the majority of Windows/google users.
Why is it that Americans seem to often make the argument that something should not change because it would cost millions of people jobs? It seems to me that capitalism is based on people having to earn jobs that are useful, not the public having to to suffer so that a group of people can keep their useless jobs, getting paid for useless work.
It's like a slave driving company arguing against abolition because it will cost thousands of slave drivers their jobs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the future, if you ever hear someone make the argument that something should not change because people will lose their jobs, kick them in the teeth.
The easiest and most rewarding way is to join a gym and lift weights 3 or 4 times a week. Do some cardio and some heavy weight lifting and and you will actually begin to look healthy. Then eat a nice balanaced diet like the kind doctors recommend. Don't ever say the word Atkins, but also don't eat huge amounts of bread like foods. Don't give that lame argument that you don't want to look like a body builder. YOU WON'T unless you train like one. If you are this lazy to begin with your won't train like one. The simple high intensity excersise will make you look good. Don't over-do the cardio either. Marathon runners are not especially attractive, and besides lifting heavier weights is easier than running extreme distances but gives better results.
Of course there is no perfect solution, but a really good repository would help developers reuse free software.
If I could go to a single place and search a large database of open software components easily, I would be more inclined to reuse fee software. Sourceforge or the Gnu free software directory do not do this well. I need much more than just a name and short description and I don't have time to spend weeks trying different halfway completed projects every time I want to reuse something.
I would like to see something that is actually useful. For example, the repository should include design and implementation information for each component, as well as complete test results and profiling results. And I should be able to search based on all that and more. Basically, it should make the search as painless and accurate as possible. It should also be managed so that the only correct information is allowed.
I am working on a project called Hoot that aims at centralizing and standardizing open software process and engineering. A repository like this is one of the goals. Not much has been accomplished yet, mostly due to poor leadership;). If you want to help join the dev list.
Not really dumb ass. You can teach the same computing concepts on either, but with Linux you can actually see how everything works. Most colleges aren't trying to be "tech schools" that are only there to teach a particular programming environment. They are trying the teach the computing concepts that are true on all machines. You can read a short book to learn a programming environment.
With your aerospatial engineering example, would you still consider the school dumb if they taught McDonnell Douglas technology instead of Boeing? It's just another platform. The difference is that MS is completely closed, an illegal monopoly, and their programming environment sucks.
PS. I'm sure you not really a dumb ass but my posting is more interesting this way.
First of all a completely non-MS school would not be removing choice in any way that is different from the many, many all MS schools I have seen. Computer science and graphic design departments aside, most schools are all MS already, forcing students to learn that good competing systems also exist and are much cheaper is a good thing. It's a guarantee they have already been exposed to MS stuff so let the school provide them another option and if they don't like it let them go out and spend the money for the MS shit. My money is on the students liking the alternatives.
Second of all, when it comes to students wanting to learn Visual Studio and Win32 because that's what they'll be using in the "real world", they don't have a clue. I work for a well respected software company and I have only used Linux and Solaris through my college years. Still when I am forced against my own will to use Win32 and Visual Studio at work I run circles around the people who only know MS. For some reason engineers who only know the MS environment are not as sharp. They never seem to know how things actually work and they have trouble learning. They usually have spent their technical lives learning abstractions created by MS that end up being more complicated and confusing than the standard stuff they should have known in the first place before they were given the title of engineer.
1. Do not bother with installing. Show them the cool stuff first. 2. I would show the the latest RedHat, because it's the most widely used and I find it to be the most well tested. 3. GUI. If you show them the text shells first they will say Linux is harder. If you let them get used to the GUI and then show them what they can do with the shells they will say Linux is powerful. 4. Give away as many CD's as you can. And give away RedHat, not Debian. 5. Be sure to have all common software installed BEFORE they start using them. For example, have the flash and java plugins for Mozilla already in place. Don't make them ask you if Linux can do all the stuff they like about their windows machines. Let it just happen for them.
> I'm betting that there are many eyes out there > willing to find the bugs, but not sufficient > tools to track where the eyes are (and should > be) looking.
Good point.
Hoot could display source code that the developer would like to have audited, and there could be a central listing of code like this. If there is no one specifically that he wants to do the audit, it could be marked as open for people like you come and audit when you have time.
There would have to be some way to authenticate that the auditor can be trusted, just to make sure that enemies of OSS don't come along and screw with the process.
You raise a lot of good points. Please continue posting or email dev@hoot.tigris.org if you have any more.
> Although I would like to contribute more to OSS > development, I have very little time or > opportunity. In a project of any maturity which > has a well designed and documented code > structure and is employing DBC (design by > contract), it is very easy to audit a single > function now and then.
Amen. Frustration with current OSS development is one of the main reasons I want to do this. It takes a lot longer than necessary to get up to speed on an OSS project and start doing positive work on it.
In some cases, I have contributed code to OSS projects in which I really didn't have a clue what the requirements were or whether or not my code was correct. I knew it worked, and that seemed to be enough for the maintainers because they just threw it in the release.
That made me wonder, should I really be going around and advocating that everyone use this stuff when I am not even confident in my own contributions?
So I decided this project would be the best way I could really help OSS.
I have had a quick look at XP, but not a thorough one. I will look into it further. Are there any specific points of XP that you suggest we concentrate on?
The project is not locked to CMM/CMMI, they just happen to be what I am familiar with. As well as being an open source project, this is also a research project. The research is aimed at identifying processes that open source projects can get the most benefit from, without sacrificing a lot of time and effort to maintaining a process. Those processes may come from a number of sources, including XP.
> 3) Not using outside code / help. Often times, > portions of what you want to do have already > been beaten to death. Look hard.
Very good point! I wonder, rather than telling people to look hard, if we could find a way to make it easier for them.
The solutions I proposed in the problem statement would certainly make it easier to judge whether or not a given piece of code can be reused in your project, but it doesn't address the problem of finding that peice of code among the many thousands of open source projects out there.
As a clarification, this is not an open source vs closed source debate. Many intellectual property companies certainly suffer from the same issues described in the problem statement.
The goal of this project is to provide a process and tools that any distributed collaborative development team can use. The interesting part is that it is built on/as free software and is specifically designed to help solve the problems that open source teams run into.
> I believe the saying goes "with enough eyes, all > bugs become shallow", not "with an arbitrary number > of eyes..."
But most projects have an "arbitrary" number of eyes, not "enough" eyes. Relying on thousands of individuals to review every projects code is very inefficient, and not realistic. It may work for the Linux kernel, but what about the rest of open source?
> A far more reliable solution is to have unit > tests (like with JUnit [sourceforge.net] or > xUnit).
The plan is to reuse projects such as JUnit and other testing facilities rather than write them from scratch.
Although no final design decisions have been made at this point.
> An expert at writing good unit tests is far more > useful to a team than someone that just scans > code.
This is very true. That's why the proposed solutions include testing as well as reviewing. But there are some defects that can be found in a reviewing process that can be missed by regression testing. Testing only finds the defects that are tested for. Reviewing can find others, as well as improve code.
> But if someone comes from the outside and starts to > say "no-no-no, you have to do it *this* way, and > write all these papers *before* you start coding, > this outsider will most likely feel himself not at > all welcome, no matter how fine theories he is > trying to push.
Yes, this is a situation that I wish to avoid at all costs.
> I think it is fine to make some of these > techniques available to those who see the need of > them. Good introduction material about such would > be welcome.
And that is exactly what I want to do. To make it available to those who can benefit from it, but in no way whatsoever even attempt to force it on anyone.
> But do accept that most OS projects are better > off without a pointy-haired boss and his > bureaucracy.
I don't think any open sourcers are fans of bureaucracy, I know I'm not. But if I'm working on a big project, it would be nice to have confidence that the other developers are working towards the same goals that I am.
It would also be nice to spend more developing new code and less time fire fighting.
That's funny, but also a very good point that I agree with. The problem is that I want to speak the language of the the people who know how to do this stuff. But in the products that are actually used by developers, I am all for toning down confusing words and phrases.
The main goal here is to help those who aren't experienced in "good plans", not the ones who already use them. So using words everyone understands is important.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you use "people in frats buy their friends" differently than most do. Everyone I've heard say that before has gone on to explain that they mean buying friendship from your frat brothers.
I kind of agree with you the way you mean it. The point I made is that it's no different than having roommates and sharing the cost of parties. If you consider throwing a party to be "buying friends" then I am guilty of that before, during and after I was in a frat. In fact, I highly recommend it. It's how most friends are made. It's also known as being social. It's an investment with a very good ROI.
I've also "bought friends" by listening to people I don't know complain about their problems and offering kind words or advice. I've even bought friends by teaching people I don't know about software and providing people I don't know with free software.
If you think that those 4/5 of the people, which I didn't know, were only coming for the free beer then you have a lot to learn. The beer was actually pretty bad. The purpose of the beer was social. It helped them feel confident enough to approach me and start a conversation, which took a lot of nerve because I was looking so "cool" since all those people came to my party.
I did not emphasize the point I was trying to rebuke. You tried to change my point to make it seem that way.
If by "group of morons" you mean some of the people in that group are morons then I agree. If you mean that all or most of that people in the group are morons, or that spending time getting drunk or laid makes you a moron, then I disagree. From my experience, as a member of both groups, the fraction of frat members that are morons is pretty similar to the fraction of computer geeks that are morons. I don't think it's very smart to assume that a person who enjoys drinking with friends or having sex is a moron, especially if that so called moron who considers those things valuable is resourceful enough make them happen.
I was in a fraternity as an undergrad. The majority of the money I paid went toward housing, food, and parties. The cost of living there was cheaper than getting my own apartment. I think those people who whine that frat members buy their friends are either too stupid to realize that it's pretty much just living with roommates and sharing the cost of throwing parties, or they're acting on feelings of jealously because the good frats have a lot more fun in college than a typical "I'm too cool for frats" jack ass. If they didn't really care I'd expect them not to throw out the "frat members have to buy friends" cliche every chance they get.
I wonder if the same argument could be made about conservative christiantity. This is of course based on interacting with people I know, not a true study but it makes sense. They seem to get addicted to their cause to a point where they can't think about anything else. There are probably some checmical effects on the brain that come with the righteous feeling they get for "doing god's work". And they have a negative effect on society by attacking people who make lifestyle choices they disagree with through slander and legistlation.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (91%) Click here for info
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (43%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (43%) Click here for info
5. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%) Click here for info
7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (32%) Click here for info
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (29%) Click here for info
Not as often as I'd like.
> prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields,
> similar to those emitted by such common household
> devices as blow dryers
So that explains women.
Microsoft has the same advantage it had over netscape, and it's a big one. They can integrate their searches into their desktop software. As much as I hate Microsoft (and that's a lot), I'm pretty sure that all they have to do is cleverly integrate their web searches with Office and the Windows desktop and they will win this battle too.
.Net C# system. Hell, a little MSN search field built into the windows taskbar would probably win over the majority of Windows/google users.
They are in a very good position to do this with their
Why is it that Americans seem to often make the argument that something
should not change because it would cost millions of people jobs? It seems
to me that capitalism is based on people having to earn jobs that are
useful, not the public having to to suffer so that a group of people can
keep their useless jobs, getting paid for useless work.
It's like a slave driving company arguing against abolition because it
will cost thousands of slave drivers their jobs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In the future, if you ever hear someone make the argument that something
should not change because people will lose their jobs, kick them in the
teeth.
The easiest and most rewarding way is to join a gym and lift weights 3 or 4 times a week. Do some cardio and some heavy weight lifting and and you will actually begin to look healthy. Then eat a nice balanaced diet like the kind doctors recommend. Don't ever say the word Atkins, but also don't eat huge amounts of bread like foods. Don't give that lame argument that you don't want to look like a body builder. YOU WON'T unless you train like one. If you are this lazy to begin with your won't train like one. The simple high intensity excersise will make you look good. Don't over-do the cardio either. Marathon runners are not especially attractive, and besides lifting heavier weights is easier than running extreme distances but gives better results.
Of course there is no perfect solution, but a really good repository would help developers reuse free software.
;). If you want to help join the dev list.
If I could go to a single place and search a large database of open software components easily, I would be more inclined to reuse fee software. Sourceforge or the Gnu free software directory do not do this well. I need much more than just a name and short description and I don't have time to spend weeks trying different halfway completed projects every time I want to reuse something.
I would like to see something that is actually useful. For example, the repository should include design and implementation information for each component, as well as complete test results and profiling results. And I should be able to search based on all that and more. Basically, it should make the search as painless and accurate as possible. It should also be managed so that the only correct information is allowed.
I am working on a project called Hoot that aims at centralizing and standardizing open software process and engineering. A repository like this is one of the goals. Not much has been accomplished yet, mostly due to poor leadership
Not really dumb ass. You can teach the same computing concepts on either, but with Linux you can actually see how everything works. Most colleges aren't trying to be "tech schools" that are only there to teach a particular programming environment. They are trying the teach the computing concepts that are true on all machines. You can read a short book to learn a programming environment.
With your aerospatial engineering example, would you still consider the school dumb if they taught McDonnell Douglas technology instead of Boeing? It's just another platform. The difference is that MS is completely closed, an illegal monopoly, and their programming environment sucks.
PS. I'm sure you not really a dumb ass but my posting is more interesting this way.
First of all a completely non-MS school would not be removing choice in any way that is different from the many, many all MS schools I have seen. Computer science and graphic design departments aside, most schools are all MS already, forcing students to learn that good competing systems also exist and are much cheaper is a good thing. It's a guarantee they have already been exposed to MS stuff so let the school provide them another option and if they don't like it let them go out and spend the money for the MS shit. My money is on the students liking the alternatives.
Second of all, when it comes to students wanting to learn Visual Studio and Win32 because that's what they'll be using in the "real world", they don't have a clue. I work for a well respected software company and I have only used Linux and Solaris through my college years. Still when I am forced against my own will to use Win32 and Visual Studio at work I run circles around the people who only know MS. For some reason engineers who only know the MS environment are not as sharp. They never seem to know how things actually work and they have trouble learning. They usually have spent their technical lives learning abstractions created by MS that end up being more complicated and confusing than the standard stuff they should have known in the first place before they were given the title of engineer.
I asked Microtel back in November if they would be selling Linux laptops. Here was the response I got...
> hi ryan,
>
> we are about ready to offer linux notebooks.
>
> thanks,
I still don't see any Linux laptops on their website though.
Make sure they see winamp and gaim!!!
1. Do not bother with installing. Show them the cool stuff first.
2. I would show the the latest RedHat, because it's the most widely used and I find it to be the most well tested.
3. GUI. If you show them the text shells first they will say Linux is harder. If you let them get used to the GUI and then show them what they can do with the shells they will say Linux is powerful.
4. Give away as many CD's as you can. And give away RedHat, not Debian.
5. Be sure to have all common software installed BEFORE they start using them. For example, have the flash and java plugins for Mozilla already in place. Don't make them ask you if Linux can do all the stuff they like about their windows machines. Let it just happen for them.
We are brainstorming for features that Hoot will possess. See http://hoot.tigris.org/Brainstorm.html for details.
> I'm betting that there are many eyes out there
> willing to find the bugs, but not sufficient
> tools to track where the eyes are (and should
> be) looking.
Good point.
Hoot could display source code that the developer would like to have audited, and there could be a central listing of code like this. If there is no one specifically that he wants to do the audit, it could be marked as open for people like you come and audit when you have time.
There would have to be some way to authenticate that the auditor can be trusted, just to make sure that enemies of OSS don't come along and screw with the process.
You raise a lot of good points. Please continue posting or email dev@hoot.tigris.org if you have any more.
> Although I would like to contribute more to OSS
> development, I have very little time or
> opportunity. In a project of any maturity which
> has a well designed and documented code > structure and is employing DBC (design by
> contract), it is very easy to audit a single
> function now and then.
Amen. Frustration with current OSS development is one of the main reasons I want to do this. It takes a lot longer than necessary to get up to speed on an OSS project and start doing positive work on it.
In some cases, I have contributed code to OSS projects in which I really didn't have a clue what the requirements were or whether or not my code was correct. I knew it worked, and that seemed to be enough for the maintainers because they just threw it in the release.
That made me wonder, should I really be going around and advocating that everyone use this stuff when I am not even confident in my own contributions?
So I decided this project would be the best way I could really help OSS.
I have had a quick look at XP, but not a thorough one. I will look into it further. Are there any specific points of XP that you suggest we concentrate on?
The project is not locked to CMM/CMMI, they just happen to be what I am familiar with. As well as being an open source project, this is also a research project. The research is aimed at identifying processes that open source projects can get the most benefit from, without sacrificing a lot of time and effort to maintaining a process. Those processes may come from a number of sources, including XP.
P.S. Ideas can also go to dev@hoot.tigris.org.
> 3) Not using outside code / help. Often times,
> portions of what you want to do have already
> been beaten to death. Look hard.
Very good point! I wonder, rather than telling people to look hard, if we could find a way to make it easier for them.
The solutions I proposed in the problem statement would certainly make it easier to judge whether or not a given piece of code can be reused in your project, but it doesn't address the problem of finding that peice of code among the many thousands of open source projects out there.
That's a great idea, thanks!
As a clarification, this is not an open source vs closed source debate. Many intellectual property companies certainly suffer from the same issues described in the problem statement.
The goal of this project is to provide a process and tools that any distributed collaborative development team can use. The interesting part is that it is built on/as free software and is specifically designed to help solve the problems that open source teams run into.
> I believe the saying goes "with enough eyes, all ..."
> bugs become shallow", not "with an arbitrary number
> of eyes
But most projects have an "arbitrary" number of eyes, not "enough" eyes. Relying on thousands of individuals to review every projects code is very inefficient, and not realistic. It may work for the Linux kernel, but what about the rest of open source?
> A far more reliable solution is to have unit
> tests (like with JUnit [sourceforge.net] or
> xUnit).
The plan is to reuse projects such as JUnit and other testing facilities rather than write them from scratch.
Although no final design decisions have been made at this point.
> An expert at writing good unit tests is far more
> useful to a team than someone that just scans
> code.
This is very true. That's why the proposed solutions include testing as well as reviewing. But there are some defects that can be found in a reviewing process that can be missed by regression testing. Testing only finds the defects that are tested for. Reviewing can find others, as well as improve code.
> But if someone comes from the outside and starts to > say "no-no-no, you have to do it *this* way, and
> write all these papers *before* you start coding,
> this outsider will most likely feel himself not at
> all welcome, no matter how fine theories he is
> trying to push.
Yes, this is a situation that I wish to avoid at all costs.
> I think it is fine to make some of these
> techniques available to those who see the need of
> them. Good introduction material about such would
> be welcome.
And that is exactly what I want to do. To make it available to those who can benefit from it, but in no way whatsoever even attempt to force it on anyone.
> But do accept that most OS projects are better
> off without a pointy-haired boss and his
> bureaucracy.
I don't think any open sourcers are fans of bureaucracy, I know I'm not. But if I'm working on a big project, it would be nice to have confidence that the other developers are working towards the same goals that I am.
It would also be nice to spend more developing new code and less time fire fighting.
That's funny, but also a very good point that I agree with. The problem is that I want to speak the language of the the people who know how to do this stuff. But in the products that are actually used by developers, I am all for toning down confusing words and phrases.
The main goal here is to help those who aren't experienced in "good plans", not the ones who already use them. So using words everyone understands is important.