I agree, in some cases it may become more refined. However, I would imagine that in many cases, for large projects, large numbers of people working independently could dilute it. The project may gain un-needed features and all sorts of quirks. In an organized company, however, people know their place and what they have to do, and not fool around.
Games could be an example. I haven't seen many open source games succeed in a large way, or at least big games requiring many people to work on. I think open source does get refined when worked on by small groups of good coders who are constantly communicating, but too many cooks spoil the stew.
Agreed on that point. But will you have the ability to strive all the way through the project, along with other people? You have to admit, it is far easier to write a program when you are copying off of an existing one. It really isn't possible for open-source developers to create a whole new framework such as.NET completely independently. I admit I was somewhat ambigous in my original post, but what I was referring to was entirely new concepts that really haven't been tried before.
Lastly, a customer can go to Microsoft and request a feature? Really? Even one as small as us? Yeah, right.
There is a project called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which uses primarily Microsoft architecture. It has been very successful, and as bugs come up along the way due to situations in databases which have never been tested, they can call up the company and have a patch for the bug by the next day. I guess their budget is higher than most companies', however, because they have gained a substantial amount of funding from grants. But Microsoft does work permitting that you have money and you know how to use it.
In terms of innovations, Microsoft truly leads (agaist open-source). Microsoft tries to hire people with ideas, for the sole purpose of designing better interfaces and new concepts. I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.
I think this might have to do with the premise of open-source. OSS does not really have profit. It is easy to recreate an existing idea, because you know what you have to do and how. It is far harder to create a new idea and implement it, and your chances of success are far lower. For this reason, paid employees are more likely to try and innovate. I'm not saying Linux doesn't have anything new - just that I haven't really seen anything.
In my opinion, one thing gets overlooked. That is the evolution of technology. I don't mean speedwise, I mean the actual tech. I expect that more and more games would have additional tech features to suck its users in as good engines become commonplace, such as stereo support, multiple monitor support, etc. There will most likely be a rush to make new engines as technologies such as holography become available, or perhaps a revolution in control devices instead of mouse and keyboard. I expect games to utilize available tech to the fullest.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing some new concepts once in a while. You can write a FPS engine and beat it to death all you want with many other games (Quake III anyone?), but you won't be able to use it for a fighting game, for a RTS game, or space sim. I would like to see more effort be put into original game genres instead of rehashing the old ones. If the Doom 3 engine is robust, stable, fast, and easily modifiable (as I'm sure it will be), many companies will have less need for programmers and more for artists and concept designers. If this comes about, I expect and hope companies will try to go for a new concept with a new engine, because that's where the future is. Right now, sales are good for FPS games. They will probably continue to be. So, it won't be easy to compete, but I really hope to see some original games written by talented programmers with smooth execution. And I have faith I will.
From the site: It is unclear as of this writing if Dunwoody's proof will last even a fraction of that duration.
In fact, it appears that the purported proof has already been found lacking, judging by the facts that (1) the abstract begins, "We give a prospective [italics added] proof of the Poincaré Conjecture" and (2) the revised April 11 version of the preprint contains a small but significant change in title from "A Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture" to "A Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture?" In particular, a critical step in the paper appears to remain unproven, and Dunwoody himself does not see how to fill in the missing proof.
Site: Someone set up us the lawsuit! AOL: How are you hobbitses AOL: All your base are belong to us AOL: You are on the way to destruction Site: What you say !! AOL: You have no chance to survive make your time Site: Take off every 'precious'
Site: Someone set up us the lawsuit!
AOL: How are you hobbitses
AOL: All your base are belong to us
AOL: You are on the way to destruction
Site: What you say !!
AOL: You have no chance to survive make your time
Site: Take off every 'precious'
So they forgot to update. The error here, believe it or not, isn't all upon Microsoft.
First off, they didn't patch. Microsoft had the patch available since June. It's not like you never have to patch open-souce either...
Second, Microsoft explicitly warns users of SQL databases to not put them openly on the internet, for obvious reasons. And yet, they did it anyway.
You can blame Microsoft for this if you want, but it isn't car companies' fault that people get killed because they can't drive.
Open source has its merits, as does Microsoft.
Now, NASA uses a space shuttle that has computer technology in it so old they had to get some off eBay. For all I know, it still uses vacuum tubes. They had the opportunity for a new space shuttle program, but I believe they scrapped it at some point. I don't see how anyone at NASA can be surprised that this happened, given time. The shuttle may have just been struck by a tiny piece of debris in a heat shield tile, which punctured it and compromised the whole shuttle.
Things like this happen, but they can be made a lot less likely. I recommend, for anyone interested, to read about Feynman's challenger investigation. It details many things about NASA and its bureaucracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, in some cases it may become more refined. However, I would imagine that in many cases, for large projects, large numbers of people working independently could dilute it. The project may gain un-needed features and all sorts of quirks. In an organized company, however, people know their place and what they have to do, and not fool around.
Games could be an example. I haven't seen many open source games succeed in a large way, or at least big games requiring many people to work on. I think open source does get refined when worked on by small groups of good coders who are constantly communicating, but too many cooks spoil the stew.
Well, it seems I was wrong. Oops. The editors'll probably repost the article in a day or two anyway, maybe they'll fix it then.
...you would probably find
int fo_sheezy;
char wassup;
double dawg;
float homie_g;
void homies(int truedat)
{
}
However, it seems to be related to both, hence Java/Script. Read past the title, too.
"Opposites attract..."
1. Think of a bigger and better ad.
2. Piss off everyone that sees the ad.
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Agreed on that point. But will you have the ability to strive all the way through the project, along with other people? You have to admit, it is far easier to write a program when you are copying off of an existing one. It really isn't possible for open-source developers to create a whole new framework such as .NET completely independently. I admit I was somewhat ambigous in my original post, but what I was referring to was entirely new concepts that really haven't been tried before.
1. Create command-line only server
2. Claim command-line is innovation
3. Re-sell MS-DOS 1.0
4. ???
5. Profit!
Lastly, a customer can go to Microsoft and request a feature? Really? Even one as small as us? Yeah, right.
There is a project called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which uses primarily Microsoft architecture. It has been very successful, and as bugs come up along the way due to situations in databases which have never been tested, they can call up the company and have a patch for the bug by the next day. I guess their budget is higher than most companies', however, because they have gained a substantial amount of funding from grants. But Microsoft does work permitting that you have money and you know how to use it.
In terms of innovations, Microsoft truly leads (agaist open-source). Microsoft tries to hire people with ideas, for the sole purpose of designing better interfaces and new concepts. I really, honestly, haven't seen much innovation from Linux.
I think this might have to do with the premise of open-source. OSS does not really have profit. It is easy to recreate an existing idea, because you know what you have to do and how. It is far harder to create a new idea and implement it, and your chances of success are far lower. For this reason, paid employees are more likely to try and innovate. I'm not saying Linux doesn't have anything new - just that I haven't really seen anything.
In my opinion, one thing gets overlooked. That is the evolution of technology. I don't mean speedwise, I mean the actual tech. I expect that more and more games would have additional tech features to suck its users in as good engines become commonplace, such as stereo support, multiple monitor support, etc. There will most likely be a rush to make new engines as technologies such as holography become available, or perhaps a revolution in control devices instead of mouse and keyboard. I expect games to utilize available tech to the fullest.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing some new concepts once in a while. You can write a FPS engine and beat it to death all you want with many other games (Quake III anyone?), but you won't be able to use it for a fighting game, for a RTS game, or space sim. I would like to see more effort be put into original game genres instead of rehashing the old ones. If the Doom 3 engine is robust, stable, fast, and easily modifiable (as I'm sure it will be), many companies will have less need for programmers and more for artists and concept designers. If this comes about, I expect and hope companies will try to go for a new concept with a new engine, because that's where the future is. Right now, sales are good for FPS games. They will probably continue to be. So, it won't be easy to compete, but I really hope to see some original games written by talented programmers with smooth execution. And I have faith I will.
It doesn't appear that the paper will survive the two years...
From the site:
It is unclear as of this writing if Dunwoody's proof will last even a fraction of that duration.
In fact, it appears that the purported proof has already been found lacking, judging by the facts that (1) the abstract begins, "We give a prospective [italics added] proof of the Poincaré Conjecture" and (2) the revised April 11 version of the preprint contains a small but significant change in title from "A Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture" to "A Proof of the Poincaré Conjecture?" In particular, a critical step in the paper appears to remain unproven, and Dunwoody himself does not see how to fill in the missing proof.
Top officials have decided to post it on Slashdot.
Site: Someone set up us the lawsuit!
AOL: How are you hobbitses
AOL: All your base are belong to us
AOL: You are on the way to destruction
Site: What you say !!
AOL: You have no chance to survive make your time
Site: Take off every 'precious'
Site: Someone set up us the lawsuit! AOL: How are you hobbitses AOL: All your base are belong to us AOL: You are on the way to destruction Site: What you say !! AOL: You have no chance to survive make your time Site: Take off every 'precious'
1. Gain monopoly 2. Make insecure products 3. ??? 4. Profit!
So they forgot to update. The error here, believe it or not, isn't all upon Microsoft. First off, they didn't patch. Microsoft had the patch available since June. It's not like you never have to patch open-souce either... Second, Microsoft explicitly warns users of SQL databases to not put them openly on the internet, for obvious reasons. And yet, they did it anyway. You can blame Microsoft for this if you want, but it isn't car companies' fault that people get killed because they can't drive. Open source has its merits, as does Microsoft.
First, my condolences to all involved.
Now, NASA uses a space shuttle that has computer technology in it so old they had to get some off eBay. For all I know, it still uses vacuum tubes. They had the opportunity for a new space shuttle program, but I believe they scrapped it at some point. I don't see how anyone at NASA can be surprised that this happened, given time. The shuttle may have just been struck by a tiny piece of debris in a heat shield tile, which punctured it and compromised the whole shuttle.
Things like this happen, but they can be made a lot less likely. I recommend, for anyone interested, to read about Feynman's challenger investigation. It details many things about NASA and its bureaucracy.