Collaboration is great yeah... but I think the point of the article was that in some groups one person does the majority of the work; sort of like a personal tutor to the others in the group, while developing the SAME project. This said person then does most of the work on the project and the project is acessed as a whole and that the individuals effort is not recognised or credited.
Sure, collaboration is great and needed but I agree with the ask/. question... how do individuals get credit for the work they've done.
The idea of stealing implementations (code) here is not really an issue... it's an issue of who understands what, and who contributed that to the project. Possibly person-x contributed 95% of the understanding to the project, and yet the project is acessed as a whole - the person(s) contributing 5% getting the same mark/grade/credit as the person who did most of the work (the one who understands the problem/task).
Nearly all algorithms are not the creation of the programmer; just the implementation of the algorithm is the programmers work. They're learnt from books etc. Would be a pain in the !*# to credit them all in the source code (IMO).
Most programming uses standard algorithms in general everyday programming, so I can't see why it's not ok to discuss and include algorithms in your project WITHOUT giving credit - unless of course you used that persons IMPLEMENTATION of the said algorithm.
You've got to remember that during the era when when the patent was filed (circa 92?) that this wasn't all that obvious (well... to most).
On a slightly offtopic note, I can't help thinking of the story on/. earlier today about email... pity that guy didn't think to patent the idea of "Sending messages to a remote machine".:-)
No, C is/was not designed to "save a few keystrokes here and there". It was designed to be able to be terse yes, and to not limit the programmer (Mr Programmer asks to do x and asserts: Yes, this is _really_ what I want to do), but it's got nothing to do with typing speed.
Often C allows the programmer to express things in a short (terse) form that are intrinsically "obvious".. if it's not, then it's obfusticated; which is allowed too... but it's not the compilers job to decide what humans can and can't easily read.
Optusnet.com.au, reports they have shut down the dynamic-DNS spam service run by the Dean Westbury gang on their network. In response, the SPEWS listed network addresses were removed from the list.
They say (on the webpage) that a version is planned for Linux. Do we really need another C/C++ compiler for linux? We'd just end up with the trouble we had on DOS with people writing silly compiler dependent code and everything a big mess.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what makes the results so astounding? Did the experimenters think the GPS satellites transmitted/responded in one direction only (toward Earth)?
Great. Sun has blasted a heap of debri all over planet Earth. My Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) is never going to be the same. With all this debri strewn across it, it's basically useless. SUN Microsystems should not be allowed to get away with this. Who do they think they're are? It's an atrocity. I am calling my lawyer now to discuss possible damages related to the Sun discharge.
I've always lived by that, and it seems to work (err no pun intended there). I work in a job where the "work" is exactly what I did before somebody paid me to do it. If your job isn't "fun" maybe you need to look at your "work"....
or is licensing (in this case at least) getting out of control? Sheesh, I have enough trouble understanding the nuances of ONE license let alone THREE. Then you have interactions between each of the licenses, mutual exclusions maybe... my mind shudders at the mere thought of it. I'm sure the lawyers have thought about all this, but it just seems strange to me to have three different licenses. Oh yeah, the FAQ confuses me even more... maybe I'm just a confused person.
The problem is that with linux a new type of user has entered the UNIX(like) OS space. 15 years ago you'd not have found all that many "non-expert" people running a *NIX on their home computer. Hence, what I see happening is a lot of semi-capable people running linux without the experience or knowledge or motiviation to make and keep it secure... heck, why bother making it secure at all? Nobody can hax0r a linux box (ahem).
Using UNIX for a desktop is a fricken moronic idea.
I've heard this before and really don't understand it, so I'll take this opportunity to maybe get some clarification.
Maybe it comes down to the definition of desktop... I'm not sure, but I use SCO Unix at work (on my desktop, not on the floor) and a Unix like OS at home (linux), also on my desktop. I've tried using Windows(R)(TM)(C)(!GNU) many times but I always end up frustrated. Surely an OS should be chosen with what you want to do with it in mind, rather than a definition like desktop OS, whether it's on your desk or your fridge or on the floor, or in your ceiling... makes no difference.
I can't help but wonder where this leaves me. Some (few ?) of us are still using dialup 56K (or lower) connections. All this wonderful new content is great, but remember it takes some of use a bit longer to download stuff. Yep, you could say "Get with the times" and "Get Cable or ASDL or something" but it's not exactly affordable in some places... sigh
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine my IRC mates jaws drop when I do a cat /proc/cpuinfo running that!
Will it fit in my bedroom, and does it need special cooling?
Collaboration is great yeah... but I think the point of the article was that in some groups one person does the majority of the work; sort of like a personal tutor to the others in the group, while developing the SAME project. This said person then does most of the work on the project and the project is acessed as a whole and that the individuals effort is not recognised or credited.
/. question... how do individuals get credit for the work they've done.
Sure, collaboration is great and needed but I agree with the ask
The idea of stealing implementations (code) here is not really an issue... it's an issue of who understands what, and who contributed that to the project. Possibly person-x contributed 95% of the understanding to the project, and yet the project is acessed as a whole - the person(s) contributing 5% getting the same mark/grade/credit as the person who did most of the work (the one who understands the problem/task).
Nearly all algorithms are not the creation of the programmer; just the implementation of the algorithm is the programmers work. They're learnt from books etc. Would be a pain in the !*# to credit them all in the source code (IMO).
:-)
Most programming uses standard algorithms in general everyday programming, so I can't see why it's not ok to discuss and include algorithms in your project WITHOUT giving credit - unless of course you used that persons IMPLEMENTATION of the said algorithm.
Note that I am agreeing with you here (mostly)
You've got to remember that during the era when when the patent was filed (circa 92?) that this wasn't all that obvious (well... to most).
/. earlier today about email... pity that guy didn't think to patent the idea of "Sending messages to a remote machine". :-)
On a slightly offtopic note, I can't help thinking of the story on
check out this
and look under the C link.
No, C is/was not designed to "save a few keystrokes here and there". It was designed to be able to be terse yes, and to not limit the programmer (Mr Programmer asks to do x and asserts: Yes, this is _really_ what I want to do), but it's got nothing to do with typing speed.
Often C allows the programmer to express things in a short (terse) form that are intrinsically "obvious".. if it's not, then it's obfusticated; which is allowed too... but it's not the compilers job to decide what humans can and can't easily read.
that's not even C... very nice
I'd say that Dingo Blue would have been affected as their hostnames are still optusnet.com.au (for some strange reason).
from www.spews.org:
Optusnet.com.au, reports they have shut down the dynamic-DNS spam service run by the Dean Westbury gang on their network. In response, the SPEWS listed network addresses were removed from the list.
They say (on the webpage) that a version is planned for Linux. Do we really need another C/C++ compiler for linux? We'd just end up with the trouble we had on DOS with people writing silly compiler dependent code and everything a big mess.
I have an old amiga 500 laying about somewhere if they want spare bits to replace the ones in their amiga... anyone know where to send them?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what makes the results so astounding? Did the experimenters think the GPS satellites transmitted/responded in one direction only (toward Earth)?
Compact nanosatellites will have everything you'd want in a full-size, luxury satellite
Excellent! So they'll have a bar and mini-fridge and in room service. None of those second rate MacroSat's for me.. I'm going for the luxury model.
The programmer probably didn't know how to insert that funny looking o character in "Soren" using vi, so just left it out...
Great. Sun has blasted a heap of debri all over planet Earth. My Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) is never going to be the same. With all this debri strewn across it, it's basically useless. SUN Microsystems should not be allowed to get away with this. Who do they think they're are? It's an atrocity. I am calling my lawyer now to discuss possible damages related to the Sun discharge.
At least I'd know who I was. Anytime I forgot I could look proudly down at my chest and point to my ID.
Too many ftp users. Already. Surely /. isn't that popular :/
I've always lived by that, and it seems to work (err no pun intended there). I work in a job where the "work" is exactly what I did before somebody paid me to do it. If your job isn't "fun" maybe you need to look at your "work"....
or is licensing (in this case at least) getting out of control? Sheesh, I have enough trouble understanding the nuances of ONE license let alone THREE. Then you have interactions between each of the licenses, mutual exclusions maybe... my mind shudders at the mere thought of it. I'm sure the lawyers have thought about all this, but it just seems strange to me to have three different licenses. Oh yeah, the FAQ confuses me even more... maybe I'm just a confused person.
Red Hat would make a much bigger profit if they implemented a licensing scheme similiar to MS-Linux (http://www.mslinux.org).
The problem is that with linux a new type of user has entered the UNIX(like) OS space. 15 years ago you'd not have found all that many "non-expert" people running a *NIX on their home computer. Hence, what I see happening is a lot of semi-capable people running linux without the experience or knowledge or motiviation to make and keep it secure... heck, why bother making it secure at all? Nobody can hax0r a linux box (ahem).
Using UNIX for a desktop is a fricken moronic idea.
I've heard this before and really don't understand it, so I'll take this opportunity to maybe get some clarification.
Maybe it comes down to the definition of desktop... I'm not sure, but I use SCO Unix at work (on my desktop, not on the floor) and a Unix like OS at home (linux), also on my desktop. I've tried using Windows(R)(TM)(C)(!GNU) many times but I always end up frustrated. Surely an OS should be chosen with what you want to do with it in mind, rather than a definition like desktop OS, whether it's on your desk or your fridge or on the floor, or in your ceiling... makes no difference.
I can't help but wonder where this leaves me. Some (few ?) of us are still using dialup 56K (or lower) connections. All this wonderful new content is great, but remember it takes some of use a bit longer to download stuff. Yep, you could say "Get with the times" and "Get Cable or ASDL or something" but it's not exactly affordable in some places... sigh