There is a project in Canberra Austrlia that uses a variation of the XML format to do the archiving. The OpenOffice.org file is a zipped file with xml files within it, there is a flat version of the xml file that can be used specifically for archiving. I don't know specifics but this will work with CVS. you might want to ask for more information on users@openoffice.org
The XML format for MS Word is not very useful because it is highly restricted who is going to be able to use it, it will cost too much money for the average company to upgrade.
For the rest of it there are always new features being added, I have not specifically seen these features on the list. It really depends on whether these really are that useful to the people using the software. My personal opinion is that most will continue to rely on templates and forcing a format is too restrictive for most document developers.
I am really curious whether people see restrictive templates as positive or negative.
OpenOffice is scriptable and there are web backends being produced using OpenOffice.org that convert documents on the fly. LOok up the mailing lists for more information.
The response mentions 5 hundred files, do we know the filenames so that we can do some investigation?
I wonder if IBM supplied the AIX and DYNIX source was supplied hard copy as it is typically required by law. Would make for an interesting truckload of paper that is totally useless for the purpose intended.
Software development and complexity is staying about static. The tools that we use today I would have been astounded 20 years ago but the reality is that I am now developing more complex programs and my users want more than they ever have. 5 years ago I had never written a threaded program, today I would never write a program without it. I could have ruled the world with a simple word processor when I started (pcwrite anyone) now I have to have all the bells and whistles like tool bars, menus, fast keys all on programs that simply balance your checkbook.
I started using Borland Builder. I was astounded by the simplicity of the application. I developed suites of programs in weeks that I had on the backburner for years. Then the boom dropped, the users wanted better error handling, etc. I had to start subclassing the VCL components and bending them to my (or my users) will. Suddenly those clean simple plug and play programs blossomed to a complex program.
What about tools like Borland Builder and VB leading developers into temptation. The road to all evil I have found is the simplicity of adding code to a button on the screen. The programmer stops designing their applications and just building them as they go. Portability lost, clean intefaces gone, and modifications are now complex impossibilities.
I love the golden bullet, I beleive that better tools like Borland Delphi will continue to hide the horrors below the surface of programming through clean concise interfaces however the bar will shift higher, expectations will move and there will always need that logical structured mind to make something that will last and not be a write only application.
Consider what the simple phrase means "Extensible without modification". Write something that can be used in ways you have not imagined without adding any further code. Tricky.
I am an Australian who has written GPL code in the time specified. The US govt has no rights over me and could never construe any rights. Therefore any declaration of GPL code as public domain is null and void.
The intent of the GPL is clear and even if the letter of the license is not legal the intent of GPL must be enforced or the more restrictive copyright (mine!) must be used. I have never and will never release my code as PD because I want amendments made on my code by other parties freely available to others. This is my freedom to choose, it is your freedom to write your own under PD or BSD or any one of the thousand licenses out there.
I wrote a cywin script using curl to access the server. I signed on 100 users and tracked each response. I then did a few different paths down an application chain and then did a few major image loads. I could get response times for each screen and using 10 PC's around the place running 10 instances I had a simple load test. (25 bash scripts appeared to blow a P4 windows, but cruised on a PII350 pure Linux)
OK this is not comprehensive and slick but it worked sufficiently to prove we could handle 100 concurrent users with concurrent image retreives under 5 seconds which was our required benchmark.
The interesting thing was that a few users, say 5, performed worse than 50 users. Some serious cache management in there that gets in the road of small sites.
I think YAGNI is double talk. On one hand we say that you should not develop code that you don't need, yet we try and teach our coders to look at what they are doing and prepare for change.
I really have yet to reconcile the two concepts together, I know that they are both equally valid.
The reality to this is that you already had a concrete design. Not on paper but in your mind. You did not have to describe it to anyone to get it built correctly. So this is not strictly JFDI.
Get a phone call at 17:00 from a section that you have never heard of and get a project dumped in your lap to be ready by 10:00am, now that is a JFDI.
This is more complex than just a simple metric.
I would agree that the cost of that coding bug could have been 20 minutes to test, 10 minutes to fix and after implementation it two weeks to placate the client, prove my software, etc. So the management of people costs a lot of time hence money. XP does NOT fix this "people perception" problem.
Now look on the counter side. How long would it have taken me to construct the testing regime that would have eventually found that bug on an existing product without real tests. I set up a minimal test system over a period of 12 months and I would estimate it took me about say 10 days (probably more). Was this testing regime stringent, no! Would it have picked up that bug, no!
Why not, very simple if I had thought about it I would not have coded it that way. Because I failed to think about that boundary I would not have tested it anyway. So the real cost metric that management are focused on here is:
What is the cost of testing vs the cost of bugs in production. I never make this call, I always advise more testing! The cost of testing can far exceed the cost of the code. Is this realistic in your particular environment? Was the code change that you made worth that level of stringent testing? I know that XP brings in test for a bug, fix bug, never repeat bug, I now live by this dogma and it has saved my arse many times. The down side is that you have to "see" the bug and this is the bug problem.
There are no golden bullets. Quality is relative, determine your level. Set a reasonable level of certainty that you want to release to.
Medical Embedded systems - test, test, and test!
Medical Accounting records - test, test.
Automatic door closer with manual work around and fast load for software - quick functional test.
One size does not fit all.
There is a perceived difference. My company can buy AIX and IBM "protects" my company from lawsuit because IBM is saying the removal of license is not valid.
Linux has no such protection for my company so therefore managers are holding any Linux implementations until this is resolved.
This is having an impact. There is one word that covers SCO's actions "fraud".
I will spend $30 on a netowrk cable for work if it available NOW. At home I pay about $10 for the same cable but my time at work is worth more than the $20 that I would have saved. You pay for convenience sometimes.
If you don't investigate then so be it. I am building, I have saved $500 on blocks, $400 on garage door, $300 on steel, etc. It is simply the time taken to find this out. I don't have it but my wife does, given what she is saving she is earning more than me per week.
It is worth the effort for the volumes I am buying at. If I want a single piece then I will go to the hardware and pay the over 100% markup for convenience. I am not ripped off, I knowingly pay the extra.
On that thought I was paid by work to look over sudo. I looked through it, declared it safe and the very next day there was an upgrade for buffer overflow conditions.
Many eyes travel the first half carefully, then get bored. Start at the bottom and work backwards.
For LPIC notes and intro notes to a linux course you could look at http://lcdp.sf.net. The cvs versions are being maintained reasonably actively and have been used for about 2 years in Granville TAFE, Sydney Australia.
It is all about time. There are three very active Mac developers working on Mac stuff. They have had to fight bad compilers from Apple and have some a long way in an incredibly short time.
There is a lot of people interested in the aqua port but few willing to scratch the itch in coding support. If you are volunteering I will see you on porting@OOo:-)
On the Mac port. The X windows for 1.1 is progressing nicely. The main porters get a lot of support from Sun in terms of answers but no other real support. One of them were given a new computer to ensure they work faster. There will be intermediate releases along the way but the full package will indeed take sometime to complete.
Frankly I am impressed by the amount of time and energy these Mac guys put in. They have had problems with compilers that have only really just been resolved by Apple.
Regarding support for new developers unfortunately there are still problems getting a build bedded down for new developers in OOo. All at dev@OOo will help anybody interested in having a go. Start at http://tools.openoffice.org and read the ximian hackers guide to start with.
I noticed when I was fixing a sendmail problem that the sysexits.h in AIX is an exact duplicate of the linux one minus the BSD license. I would be curious to see if this was a claimed as SCO source as well.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a project in Canberra Austrlia that uses a variation of the XML format to do the archiving. The OpenOffice.org file is a zipped file with xml files within it, there is a flat version of the xml file that can be used specifically for archiving. I don't know specifics but this will work with CVS. you might want to ask for more information on users@openoffice.org
The XML format for MS Word is not very useful because it is highly restricted who is going to be able to use it, it will cost too much money for the average company to upgrade.
For the rest of it there are always new features being added, I have not specifically seen these features on the list. It really depends on whether these really are that useful to the people using the software. My personal opinion is that most will continue to rely on templates and forcing a format is too restrictive for most document developers.
I am really curious whether people see restrictive templates as positive or negative.
OpenOffice is scriptable and there are web backends being produced using OpenOffice.org that convert documents on the fly. LOok up the mailing lists for more information.
The response mentions 5 hundred files, do we know the filenames so that we can do some investigation?
I wonder if IBM supplied the AIX and DYNIX source was supplied hard copy as it is typically required by law. Would make for an interesting truckload of paper that is totally useless for the purpose intended.
Software development and complexity is staying about static. The tools that we use today I would have been astounded 20 years ago but the reality is that I am now developing more complex programs and my users want more than they ever have. 5 years ago I had never written a threaded program, today I would never write a program without it. I could have ruled the world with a simple word processor when I started (pcwrite anyone) now I have to have all the bells and whistles like tool bars, menus, fast keys all on programs that simply balance your checkbook.
I started using Borland Builder. I was astounded by the simplicity of the application. I developed suites of programs in weeks that I had on the backburner for years. Then the boom dropped, the users wanted better error handling, etc. I had to start subclassing the VCL components and bending them to my (or my users) will. Suddenly those clean simple plug and play programs blossomed to a complex program.
What about tools like Borland Builder and VB leading developers into temptation. The road to all evil I have found is the simplicity of adding code to a button on the screen. The programmer stops designing their applications and just building them as they go. Portability lost, clean intefaces gone, and modifications are now complex impossibilities.
I love the golden bullet, I beleive that better tools like Borland Delphi will continue to hide the horrors below the surface of programming through clean concise interfaces however the bar will shift higher, expectations will move and there will always need that logical structured mind to make something that will last and not be a write only application.
Consider what the simple phrase means "Extensible without modification". Write something that can be used in ways you have not imagined without adding any further code. Tricky.
After all my company wants me to fly pigs on a regular basis and I seem to manage some of them :-)
I am an Australian who has written GPL code in the time specified. The US govt has no rights over me and could never construe any rights. Therefore any declaration of GPL code as public domain is null and void.
The intent of the GPL is clear and even if the letter of the license is not legal the intent of GPL must be enforced or the more restrictive copyright (mine!) must be used. I have never and will never release my code as PD because I want amendments made on my code by other parties freely available to others. This is my freedom to choose, it is your freedom to write your own under PD or BSD or any one of the thousand licenses out there.
I wrote a cywin script using curl to access the server. I signed on 100 users and tracked each response. I then did a few different paths down an application chain and then did a few major image loads. I could get response times for each screen and using 10 PC's around the place running 10 instances I had a simple load test. (25 bash scripts appeared to blow a P4 windows, but cruised on a PII350 pure Linux)
OK this is not comprehensive and slick but it worked sufficiently to prove we could handle 100 concurrent users with concurrent image retreives under 5 seconds which was our required benchmark.
The interesting thing was that a few users, say 5, performed worse than 50 users. Some serious cache management in there that gets in the road of small sites.
I think YAGNI is double talk. On one hand we say that you should not develop code that you don't need, yet we try and teach our coders to look at what they are doing and prepare for change.
I really have yet to reconcile the two concepts together, I know that they are both equally valid.
Get a phone call at 17:00 from a section that you have never heard of and get a project dumped in your lap to be ready by 10:00am, now that is a JFDI.
This is more complex than just a simple metric. I would agree that the cost of that coding bug could have been 20 minutes to test, 10 minutes to fix and after implementation it two weeks to placate the client, prove my software, etc. So the management of people costs a lot of time hence money. XP does NOT fix this "people perception" problem. Now look on the counter side. How long would it have taken me to construct the testing regime that would have eventually found that bug on an existing product without real tests. I set up a minimal test system over a period of 12 months and I would estimate it took me about say 10 days (probably more). Was this testing regime stringent, no! Would it have picked up that bug, no! Why not, very simple if I had thought about it I would not have coded it that way. Because I failed to think about that boundary I would not have tested it anyway. So the real cost metric that management are focused on here is: What is the cost of testing vs the cost of bugs in production. I never make this call, I always advise more testing! The cost of testing can far exceed the cost of the code. Is this realistic in your particular environment? Was the code change that you made worth that level of stringent testing? I know that XP brings in test for a bug, fix bug, never repeat bug, I now live by this dogma and it has saved my arse many times. The down side is that you have to "see" the bug and this is the bug problem. There are no golden bullets. Quality is relative, determine your level. Set a reasonable level of certainty that you want to release to. Medical Embedded systems - test, test, and test! Medical Accounting records - test, test. Automatic door closer with manual work around and fast load for software - quick functional test. One size does not fit all.
What about the nagle algorythm for Telnet then?
Openoffice.org must have the trailing .org because openoffice was already used by someone else
Your secondary MX should pick up anything that overloads yours so you should not dump any real traffic.
This was discussed a few months ago on slug.org.au on the mailing list. Take a look at the archives google with site:slug.org.au
Linux has no such protection for my company so therefore managers are holding any Linux implementations until this is resolved.
This is having an impact. There is one word that covers SCO's actions "fraud".
I will spend $30 on a netowrk cable for work if it available NOW. At home I pay about $10 for the same cable but my time at work is worth more than the $20 that I would have saved. You pay for convenience sometimes. If you don't investigate then so be it. I am building, I have saved $500 on blocks, $400 on garage door, $300 on steel, etc. It is simply the time taken to find this out. I don't have it but my wife does, given what she is saving she is earning more than me per week. It is worth the effort for the volumes I am buying at. If I want a single piece then I will go to the hardware and pay the over 100% markup for convenience. I am not ripped off, I knowingly pay the extra.
On that thought I was paid by work to look over sudo. I looked through it, declared it safe and the very next day there was an upgrade for buffer overflow conditions. Many eyes travel the first half carefully, then get bored. Start at the bottom and work backwards.
For LPIC notes and intro notes to a linux course you could look at http://lcdp.sf.net. The cvs versions are being maintained reasonably actively and have been used for about 2 years in Granville TAFE, Sydney Australia.
It is all about time. There are three very active Mac developers working on Mac stuff. They have had to fight bad compilers from Apple and have some a long way in an incredibly short time. There is a lot of people interested in the aqua port but few willing to scratch the itch in coding support. If you are volunteering I will see you on porting@OOo :-)
On the Mac port. The X windows for 1.1 is progressing nicely. The main porters get a lot of support from Sun in terms of answers but no other real support. One of them were given a new computer to ensure they work faster. There will be intermediate releases along the way but the full package will indeed take sometime to complete.
Frankly I am impressed by the amount of time and energy these Mac guys put in. They have had problems with compilers that have only really just been resolved by Apple.
Regarding support for new developers unfortunately there are still problems getting a build bedded down for new developers in OOo. All at dev@OOo will help anybody interested in having a go. Start at http://tools.openoffice.org and read the ximian hackers guide to start with.
I noticed when I was fixing a sendmail problem that the sysexits.h in AIX is an exact duplicate of the linux one minus the BSD license. I would be curious to see if this was a claimed as SCO source as well.