Assuming you have 2 people on an email, there is only one possible connection, A to B. If it doubles, there is A to B, A to C, A to D, B to C, and C to D.
Any reason that B and D aren't talking to each other? The amount of bad math in this thread is amazing!
Of course. Given 4 people, and given that 8.3% of all pairs of people hate each other, of course there would be a pair that do not talk to each other. Given a suitable renaming, this trivially leads to the grandparents conclusion.
No KingMotley's right. n(n-1)/2 is the number of connections where n is the number of users. Expanded we have (n^2-n)/2. Now n doubles so we have 2n^2-n. So it's actually increasing by a factor of 4-2/(1-n).
That depends on what you mean by a connection. For email, a connection is one way, and might possibly be to the computer itself. That leaves exactly N^2 possible connections. The law you refer to seems to disallow connection to yourself and a connection are considered to be the same as the inverse connection. That leaves the result you have above. In any case, if you have a law that say g(N)=K*f(N), that is, g(N) (connections here) relates proportionally with f(N) (N^2 here, approx. for big N's), the g(2N)=K*f(2N) or concretely g(2N)=K*4N^2.. or a 4-fold increase. So if you read the original, this might simply be what they mean... that an 2-fold increase in nodes lead to a 4-fold number of connections. For a big number of nodes, of course, so that you assume N(N-1) app.=N^2.
Mathematician out;)
PS: Monocultures are trivially more suceptible to having *all* nodes infected, but less to have any node infected. I'm sure I don't have to draw you a picture, here:D
The first thing I did with my laptop was to reinstall Vista with the DVD that came with it. Is there a way to get malware from there or the driver disk?
Replace "Vista" with Ubuntu/Red Hat/SuSE/Debian and you should be fine:P
More seriously, why hasn't Microsoft made a package manager+repositories yet? It is absurd that people and companies have to verify that drivers and (basic) applications are clean. The problem is a problem that already has a proven solution: signed packages from a large repository. Signed to guard against tampering after the repository. Large, so that any foul play is discovered quickly. Heck, I'm sure that you could port apt+dpkg or rpm to windows and be down with it:)
These kinds of shenanigans will turn off the open source community for good. Their half-hearted attempt to court the community by open sourcing their Flex toolkit, while leaving the underlying Flash runtime closed, will do them no good.
Here's hoping JavaFX takes off and open sources the remaining proprietary extensions and the open source community has an RIA framework to rally around.
For my money, SVG is (currently) the real hope for a flash killer. It is open, it has momentum, it is original and better in many ways. Plus, it isn't limited to a beginner's language.
Governor Schwartz, when asked for comment said "Youu continant sizzed eloments think you're all thaat? Califooornia is just one state and we haf an eloment named after ous"
You should have tried someone from Copenhagen.... they have Hafnium, and they are just a city. Don't know any toughies from there, though;)
Why would you not have one of the wheel brakes be activated when you press the main brake? That significantly reduces stopping power.
All of my vehicles(I'm one of the weird americans who actually drive a manual), as well as all the ones I've driven have the main brakes use all four wheels.
The parking/emergency brake is more a term for the same thing, I tend to use 'parking brake' for the manuals and 'emergency brake' for the automatics.
I've never paid much attention to the exact mechanics, but I was always under the impression it wasn't a hydraulic system, but a cable. Just in case the hydraulics go out...
As for circuits, the main brakes in the USA are normally on at least two circuits as well. The idea being that if something fails you still have braking power.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of terminology. When you stop on the brake on a car around here, you activate 2 independent hydraulic braking system at once, thus braking on all 4 wheels. In Europe, we call one of those systems the "emergency" brake and the other the main brake, in the sense that should one of the 2 systems fall, the brake will still work though not so well. The parking brake, on the other hand, is not really meant for stopping a car, but to prevent it rolling when parked on an incline. Pulling that brake while doing 60km/h makes the car do really funny stuff;)
The trick is probably spotting them. Depending on how advanced they are, that might be neigh-impossible.
Not really. Even all that supposedly secure, military grade, bust transmission, other buzzwords as applicable, are easy to detect. Encryption being what it is, you may never decode the message, but if its going 'beep, beep, beep' and its coming from my car I can guess what its doing.
How about the simple expedient about using a cell phone circuit, and send the data by SMS whenever another SMS is sent nearby? That won't fly for the military,of course, but for the police?
No idea why they would encrypt the signal, though. Except if the care about your privacy:)
I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
Huh? Are you talking about a parking/emergency brake that doesn't use the main braking system? Perhaps some sort of direct linkage instead of the hydraulic that the main brake does?
Well, as you know, cars have 3 brakes: The main brake, the emergency brake and the parking brake. 2 of these are usually combined, either the emergency and brake (usually by making 2 independent hydraulic circuits, each going to 1-3 wheels) or the emergency and the parking brake. When I visited US some 16 years ago I gathered that the later was the norm. In Europe, the former is almost exclusively the norm now-a-days.
Besides, the classic and traditional response is to move the device to another car. Or your wheelbarrow;)
The trick is probably spotting them. Depending on how advanced they are, that might be neigh-impossible. As for placing them, could be as simple as stopping you and inspecting your car (I assume that the US police can do spot-check on cars to see if they live up to regulations in the US too). I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
I used GPL too, but I found it difficult for students to use their work at university later in life when transitioning to software for real life use, a medical software as it is my experience. I found BSD license more flexible, less constraining and better suited for such situations.
Yep, that sounds like a situation better suited to BSD. I prefer that license, too, for something that is going to be used extensively in business software.. like parsers and such.
Atheism is the absense of religion. Agnosticism is an acknowledgement that god has not yet been proven to not exist. It's just simple honesty, though I feel that god like in the Bible is about as likely as having god be a 7 foot tall bunny made of spaghetti, used video tape and lug nuts.
Well, it's a joke. But in any case, almost all atheists I have met are agnostics in that sense. I feel that the chance of any gods existence (I believe about 2000 has been documented) is about as likely as a dropped beer can not falling according to the laws of gravity, thus I call myself an atheist. From what you say you would be an atheist too, in the sense I feel I am.
BSD code is truly free no matter what you use (or misuse) it for.
Stating that GPL mean free software is like saying that Patriot act protects freedom in America.
It merely depends on what you mean by free, and to whom. One could claim that BSD is the ultimate freedom for the coder, and GPL for the code. So could we stop this silly contest now? All of us know the difference between BSD, GPL and LGPL, and I, for one, use all 3 licenses depending on my wishes. The argument is akin to an argument whether men in a society that allows murder is more or less free than one that does not.
Well, trademarks aren't that hard to get around. E.g, for the conference, I cannot find anything to prevent a conference of "Rapid Web Application Conference for Ruby on Rails users". From wikipedia, that should be ok since you are "using the mark to describe accurately an aspect of its products". Wikipedia gives the example "In a related sense, an auto mechanic can truthfully advertise that he services Cadillacs", which is basically the same thing and is a car analogy, almost;)
Misappropriating a community designed logo, if that is what he has done, is violation of copyright law. But (again from wikipedia), the license of the logo is MIT, which means that said community chose a license that permits this, much as if Mr. Hansson had bought the logo from an artist. Perhaps they should have considered a copyleft license? Still, the laws of trademarks severely limits what he prevent; e.g., "A book to quickly learn Ruby on Rails [logo]" is again, probably ok.
I do agree, however, that Mr. Hanssons approach is hindering rather than helping ruby on rails, which is a shame because it is a very sweet framework for web services and applications. Especially for people like me who only do web as an aside from our "real" skills:) But of course, the community could fork off and change the trademark (maybe even get a non-ugly logo?:P) in a week, with very little momentum lost.
Most of the tasks which you list below can be handled by Fedora-originated, distro-agnostic tools such as YUM or PackageKit. (Well, YUM is only distro-agnostic to the extent that it must be an RPM-based distro).
Thanks for answering. I haven't used an RPM based distribution since Suse 7.2, so I was somewhat behind.
* suggested packages, ie., packages has a list of packages which enhances the package in quesiton.
PackageKit does this in recent versions of Fedora, see this link for information on Fedora 11 font and mime-type installation.
* recommended packages, ie, packages which are not strictly required but should normally be installed with a package.
Not sure about this, seems like the previous point?
* support for packages deprecating and/or providing other packages
From reading the link, I think you misunderstood me. Probably my fault... but cute integration feature on that page:) Sort of like missing-command but for file types and fonts.
What I meant that when installing a package, there are often related packages. A stupid example: I install a compiler. Now, having a compiler without its standard library is technically possible, but probably not what the user wants. Hence, the compiler would *recommend* installing the standard library, which would mean that the package manager installs the standard library unless the user somehow tells it not to (config, command-line switch). Also, the user might want to have API documentation for the standard library (if the user are going to write source code for that language), but might not if the user is just installing to compile some code somebody else wrote. Hence, the package manager *suggest* installing the documentation, but does not do so by default.
Does that make sense? It is a very nice way to split up dependencies: must-have, probably-should-have, might-want.
Again, thanks for information. Package manager is one of those programs that fascinates me, but it's not really feasible to use a lot of different ones at one time.
openSUSE has a neat package manager since 11.0. Issues were in 10.1 times, 3 years ago. Today you have a neat zypper, YaST using the same engine, PackageKit integration, etc.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that stuff like
unused packages removal - ie, if a a package is only installed as a dependency, and if no package which depend on it are still installed, the package can be automatically removed.
suggested packages, ie., packages has a list of packages which enhances the package in quesiton.
recommended packages, ie, packages which are not strictly required but should normally be installed with a package.
support for packages deprecating and/or providing other packages
support for running configuration utilities and such during installation
Just curious, the comparisons chart I have found are obviously out of date.
As Eric Raymond says, "scratch one's itch" does not imply listening to users.
Put it as follows. We all drive cars, but using scratch one's itch it implies that we are all mechanics as well. And that is not the case, though it can be said that all mechanics do drive cars.
What the article is getting at is that you understand the user that you are empowering. In my case it is being able to understand the formulas and mathematics of the trader trying to define a trading system.
The main difference between the open source you're thinking of and the user situation is that these user's are actually willing to pay. Thus, any itch they have will the developer's itch, since the developer want them happy. Of course, for this to work, user happiness would need to actually figure in the bill payers success criterion, which is surprisingly often not the case. I'd argue that the developers would do themselves a favor making sure that it does, though.
Still, for pure open source (scratch you itch) type of open source, the user (=developer) is listened to. Indeed, that does mean that everyone who is not a mechanic is not a user --- because everyone who is not a mechanic does not pay (in time).
Is it clear now? Not entirely sober, so if I'm not I apologize.
Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.
Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.
Hacking is, contrary to myth, not that hard to avoid, no matter the resources. If push comes to shove, you could run the server yourself (as I do, though I don't blog).
To elaborate: Hacking is not like forced physical entry. It is entirely possible to perfectly lock out hacking your computer remotely. In contrast, you can only delay a determined person gaining entry, unless you are willing and able to use force directly against said person: No mere lock or wall will keep out a determined person.
Sort of like death really. TREMBLE BRIEF MORTAL! FOR I AM DEATH WHOM NO LOCK CAN HOLD NOR FASTENED PORTAL BAR! (yeah, yeah, shamely Pratchett quote there)
Start up companies just a far simpler structure: director, software/hardware architect, team leader, senior programmer and programmer.
Everyone knew about the hazards of "dead man's shoes" and how important it was to keep your skills up to date or lose your career.
That is far too many levels. Cut out the software/hardware architect, they are pretty useless with a skilled force anyway. Then have a group that includes strong people skills, strong architectural skills, good system programming, good organization skills and make sure everyone except perhaps one or two is a strong programmer. Then have everyone code (perhaps only a few hours each week for 1-2 people), everyone help out with customer interaction and Bob's your uncle;) Of course, budget and such needs to be worked out at least to some degree beforehand, and perhaps someone external should be able to pull the plug.
Of course, that does require a team of independent, passionate and good people. But seriously, I don't think it pays to have any other kind on your team.
Disclaimer: This home-brewn claims to be 5.5% alcohol, but I get the feeling that I measured it wrongly, so what I write might make no sense;)
Open source development is not Agile. One of the critical activities in Agile development is paying some attention to the users.
Actually, open source developers do. Sometimes, it's just that the users are themselves.
Besides, Agile isn't about paying attention to the users per se... it's paying attention to the people who the payer wants to enable. Again, in the open source world, that might well be the developer himself (paying in time, not money).
You misunderstood the grandparent. The konqueror feature he talked about is exactly the bookmark keyword, except that setting them up is not a pain and there are a lot including (though not enabled) by default.
The keyword search, I think, is rather standard and rather annoying.
Try picking up an old game or whatever and run in a new windows version. For me, it usually doesn't work. No made Severance: Blade of Darkness for me:(
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that appears to be an old sin.
Eh, 16.7% of all pairs, of course. Slip of the keyboard.
Assuming you have 2 people on an email, there is only one possible connection, A to B. If it doubles, there is A to B, A to C, A to D, B to C, and C to D.
Any reason that B and D aren't talking to each other? The amount of bad math in this thread is amazing!
Of course. Given 4 people, and given that 8.3% of all pairs of people hate each other, of course there would be a pair that do not talk to each other. Given a suitable renaming, this trivially leads to the grandparents conclusion.
No KingMotley's right. n(n-1)/2 is the number of connections where n is the number of users. Expanded we have (n^2-n)/2. Now n doubles so we have 2n^2-n. So it's actually increasing by a factor of 4-2/(1-n).
That depends on what you mean by a connection. For email, a connection is one way, and might possibly be to the computer itself. That leaves exactly N^2 possible connections. The law you refer to seems to disallow connection to yourself and a connection are considered to be the same as the inverse connection. That leaves the result you have above. In any case, if you have a law that say g(N)=K*f(N), that is, g(N) (connections here) relates proportionally with f(N) (N^2 here, approx. for big N's), the g(2N)=K*f(2N) or concretely g(2N)=K*4N^2.. or a 4-fold increase. So if you read the original, this might simply be what they mean... that an 2-fold increase in nodes lead to a 4-fold number of connections. For a big number of nodes, of course, so that you assume N(N-1) app.=N^2.
Mathematician out ;)
PS: Monocultures are trivially more suceptible to having *all* nodes infected, but less to have any node infected. I'm sure I don't have to draw you a picture, here :D
The first thing I did with my laptop was to reinstall Vista with the DVD that came with it. Is there a way to get malware from there or the driver disk?
Replace "Vista" with Ubuntu/Red Hat/SuSE/Debian and you should be fine :P
More seriously, why hasn't Microsoft made a package manager+repositories yet? It is absurd that people and companies have to verify that drivers and (basic) applications are clean. The problem is a problem that already has a proven solution: signed packages from a large repository. Signed to guard against tampering after the repository. Large, so that any foul play is discovered quickly. Heck, I'm sure that you could port apt+dpkg or rpm to windows and be down with it :)
These kinds of shenanigans will turn off the open source community for good. Their half-hearted attempt to court the community by open sourcing their Flex toolkit, while leaving the underlying Flash runtime closed, will do them no good.
Here's hoping JavaFX takes off and open sources the remaining proprietary extensions and the open source community has an RIA framework to rally around.
For my money, SVG is (currently) the real hope for a flash killer. It is open, it has momentum, it is original and better in many ways. Plus, it isn't limited to a beginner's language.
On the down side, it *is* XML :/
Take that, Americium!
Governor Schwartz, when asked for comment said "Youu continant sizzed eloments think you're all thaat? Califooornia is just one state and we haf an eloment named after ous"
You should have tried someone from Copenhagen.... they have Hafnium, and they are just a city. Don't know any toughies from there, though ;)
Why would you not have one of the wheel brakes be activated when you press the main brake? That significantly reduces stopping power.
All of my vehicles(I'm one of the weird americans who actually drive a manual), as well as all the ones I've driven have the main brakes use all four wheels.
The parking/emergency brake is more a term for the same thing, I tend to use 'parking brake' for the manuals and 'emergency brake' for the automatics.
I've never paid much attention to the exact mechanics, but I was always under the impression it wasn't a hydraulic system, but a cable. Just in case the hydraulics go out...
As for circuits, the main brakes in the USA are normally on at least two circuits as well. The idea being that if something fails you still have braking power.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of terminology. When you stop on the brake on a car around here, you activate 2 independent hydraulic braking system at once, thus braking on all 4 wheels. In Europe, we call one of those systems the "emergency" brake and the other the main brake, in the sense that should one of the 2 systems fall, the brake will still work though not so well. The parking brake, on the other hand, is not really meant for stopping a car, but to prevent it rolling when parked on an incline. Pulling that brake while doing 60km/h makes the car do really funny stuff ;)
The trick is probably spotting them. Depending on how advanced they are, that might be neigh-impossible.
Not really. Even all that supposedly secure, military grade, bust transmission, other buzzwords as applicable, are easy to detect. Encryption being what it is, you may never decode the message, but if its going 'beep, beep, beep' and its coming from my car I can guess what its doing.
How about the simple expedient about using a cell phone circuit, and send the data by SMS whenever another SMS is sent nearby? That won't fly for the military,of course, but for the police?
No idea why they would encrypt the signal, though. Except if the care about your privacy :)
I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
Huh? Are you talking about a parking/emergency brake that doesn't use the main braking system? Perhaps some sort of direct linkage instead of the hydraulic that the main brake does?
Well, as you know, cars have 3 brakes: The main brake, the emergency brake and the parking brake. 2 of these are usually combined, either the emergency and brake (usually by making 2 independent hydraulic circuits, each going to 1-3 wheels) or the emergency and the parking brake. When I visited US some 16 years ago I gathered that the later was the norm. In Europe, the former is almost exclusively the norm now-a-days.
Besides, the classic and traditional response is to move the device to another car. Or your wheelbarrow ;)
The trick is probably spotting them. Depending on how advanced they are, that might be neigh-impossible. As for placing them, could be as simple as stopping you and inspecting your car (I assume that the US police can do spot-check on cars to see if they live up to regulations in the US too). I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
I used GPL too, but I found it difficult for students to use their work at university later in life when transitioning to software for real life use, a medical software as it is my experience. I found BSD license more flexible, less constraining and better suited for such situations.
Yep, that sounds like a situation better suited to BSD. I prefer that license, too, for something that is going to be used extensively in business software.. like parsers and such.
Atheism is the absense of religion. Agnosticism is an acknowledgement that god has not yet been proven to not exist. It's just simple honesty, though I feel that god like in the Bible is about as likely as having god be a 7 foot tall bunny made of spaghetti, used video tape and lug nuts.
Well, it's a joke. But in any case, almost all atheists I have met are agnostics in that sense. I feel that the chance of any gods existence (I believe about 2000 has been documented) is about as likely as a dropped beer can not falling according to the laws of gravity, thus I call myself an atheist. From what you say you would be an atheist too, in the sense I feel I am.
BSD code is truly free no matter what you use (or misuse) it for. Stating that GPL mean free software is like saying that Patriot act protects freedom in America.
It merely depends on what you mean by free, and to whom. One could claim that BSD is the ultimate freedom for the coder, and GPL for the code. So could we stop this silly contest now? All of us know the difference between BSD, GPL and LGPL, and I, for one, use all 3 licenses depending on my wishes. The argument is akin to an argument whether men in a society that allows murder is more or less free than one that does not.
Well, trademarks aren't that hard to get around. E.g, for the conference, I cannot find anything to prevent a conference of "Rapid Web Application Conference for Ruby on Rails users". From wikipedia, that should be ok since you are "using the mark to describe accurately an aspect of its products". Wikipedia gives the example "In a related sense, an auto mechanic can truthfully advertise that he services Cadillacs", which is basically the same thing and is a car analogy, almost ;)
Misappropriating a community designed logo, if that is what he has done, is violation of copyright law. But (again from wikipedia), the license of the logo is MIT, which means that said community chose a license that permits this, much as if Mr. Hansson had bought the logo from an artist. Perhaps they should have considered a copyleft license? Still, the laws of trademarks severely limits what he prevent; e.g., "A book to quickly learn Ruby on Rails [logo]" is again, probably ok.
I do agree, however, that Mr. Hanssons approach is hindering rather than helping ruby on rails, which is a shame because it is a very sweet framework for web services and applications. Especially for people like me who only do web as an aside from our "real" skills :) But of course, the community could fork off and change the trademark (maybe even get a non-ugly logo? :P) in a week, with very little momentum lost.
Most of the tasks which you list below can be handled by Fedora-originated, distro-agnostic tools such as YUM or PackageKit. (Well, YUM is only distro-agnostic to the extent that it must be an RPM-based distro).
Thanks for answering. I haven't used an RPM based distribution since Suse 7.2, so I was somewhat behind.
PackageKit does this in recent versions of Fedora, see this link for information on Fedora 11 font and mime-type installation.
Not sure about this, seems like the previous point?
From reading the link, I think you misunderstood me. Probably my fault... but cute integration feature on that page :) Sort of like missing-command but for file types and fonts.
What I meant that when installing a package, there are often related packages. A stupid example: I install a compiler. Now, having a compiler without its standard library is technically possible, but probably not what the user wants. Hence, the compiler would *recommend* installing the standard library, which would mean that the package manager installs the standard library unless the user somehow tells it not to (config, command-line switch). Also, the user might want to have API documentation for the standard library (if the user are going to write source code for that language), but might not if the user is just installing to compile some code somebody else wrote. Hence, the package manager *suggest* installing the documentation, but does not do so by default.
Does that make sense? It is a very nice way to split up dependencies: must-have, probably-should-have, might-want.
Again, thanks for information. Package manager is one of those programs that fascinates me, but it's not really feasible to use a lot of different ones at one time.
openSUSE has a neat package manager since 11.0. Issues were in 10.1 times, 3 years ago. Today you have a neat zypper, YaST using the same engine, PackageKit integration, etc.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that stuff like
Just curious, the comparisons chart I have found are obviously out of date.
So what we *really* need is right-of-the-people-to-own-explosives?
Now, that might be interesting.
I don't agree here...
As Eric Raymond says, "scratch one's itch" does not imply listening to users.
Put it as follows. We all drive cars, but using scratch one's itch it implies that we are all mechanics as well. And that is not the case, though it can be said that all mechanics do drive cars.
What the article is getting at is that you understand the user that you are empowering. In my case it is being able to understand the formulas and mathematics of the trader trying to define a trading system.
The main difference between the open source you're thinking of and the user situation is that these user's are actually willing to pay. Thus, any itch they have will the developer's itch, since the developer want them happy. Of course, for this to work, user happiness would need to actually figure in the bill payers success criterion, which is surprisingly often not the case. I'd argue that the developers would do themselves a favor making sure that it does, though.
Still, for pure open source (scratch you itch) type of open source, the user (=developer) is listened to. Indeed, that does mean that everyone who is not a mechanic is not a user --- because everyone who is not a mechanic does not pay (in time).
Is it clear now? Not entirely sober, so if I'm not I apologize.
Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.
Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.
Hacking is, contrary to myth, not that hard to avoid, no matter the resources. If push comes to shove, you could run the server yourself (as I do, though I don't blog).
To elaborate: Hacking is not like forced physical entry. It is entirely possible to perfectly lock out hacking your computer remotely. In contrast, you can only delay a determined person gaining entry, unless you are willing and able to use force directly against said person: No mere lock or wall will keep out a determined person.
Sort of like death really. TREMBLE BRIEF MORTAL! FOR I AM DEATH WHOM NO LOCK CAN HOLD NOR FASTENED PORTAL BAR! (yeah, yeah, shamely Pratchett quote there)
Start up companies just a far simpler structure: director, software/hardware architect, team leader, senior programmer and programmer.
Everyone knew about the hazards of "dead man's shoes" and how important it was to keep your skills up to date or lose your career.
That is far too many levels. Cut out the software/hardware architect, they are pretty useless with a skilled force anyway. Then have a group that includes strong people skills, strong architectural skills, good system programming, good organization skills and make sure everyone except perhaps one or two is a strong programmer. Then have everyone code (perhaps only a few hours each week for 1-2 people), everyone help out with customer interaction and Bob's your uncle ;) Of course, budget and such needs to be worked out at least to some degree beforehand, and perhaps someone external should be able to pull the plug.
Of course, that does require a team of independent, passionate and good people. But seriously, I don't think it pays to have any other kind on your team.
Disclaimer: This home-brewn claims to be 5.5% alcohol, but I get the feeling that I measured it wrongly, so what I write might make no sense ;)
Open source development is not Agile. One of the critical activities in Agile development is paying some attention to the users.
Actually, open source developers do. Sometimes, it's just that the users are themselves.
Besides, Agile isn't about paying attention to the users per se... it's paying attention to the people who the payer wants to enable. Again, in the open source world, that might well be the developer himself (paying in time, not money).
You misunderstood the grandparent. The konqueror feature he talked about is exactly the bookmark keyword, except that setting them up is not a pain and there are a lot including (though not enabled) by default.
The keyword search, I think, is rather standard and rather annoying.
Try picking up an old game or whatever and run in a new windows version. For me, it usually doesn't work. No made Severance: Blade of Darkness for me :(
What is the difference between "don't save" and "cancel", anyway? You hit the exit button, and this pops up.
There are many places where there are multiple operations occurring at one time.
Poor button texts, then. Kate uses "Save", "Don't save" and "Abort closing" --- much clearer.