Well, I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'hard-line' anything, apart from being libertarian minded, perhaps. Let alone compare me with R.Stallman.;-)
I can't speak for Stallman, but if you think I'm considering it inherently 'immoral' as an argument, I aparently failed to make my point clear.
I have difficulties imagining how this could be, since I have explained several times now, what my arguments are. None of them was 'it is inherently immoral'. In fact, I gave you the reason right after the quote. And again, you didn't actually go into it. Once again: you do not know, in front, how long you can use proprietary systems. Thus, EVEN if they are beneficial on themselves, you do not know for how long you are going to be able to use them. Since there is always a cost at reversing or moving to something else, it is perfectly possible to have no benefit, or even outright a negative impact, on the development, when chosing proprietary systems.
Since you do not know how long you are going to be able to use it, you can not know in front if it's going to be beneficial or not. Thus, if you talk about balancing, it is always in hindsight: you balance the actual benefits it had + the time you were able to profit from it (- moving to something else, etc). So, for making a decision in front, in regard to the question what to use (as Linus did, 2 years ago), you CAN NOT argue that it is beneficial compared to other alternatives, since you do not know how long you can use the system. Linus may (rightfully or not) claim this now, in this instance (= in hindsight), but it does not validate his technological-superiority-before-ideology viewpoint as a principle.
I don't see where the problem seems to be in following this rational argument.
I've basically already answered this one, though I admit it was originally for other posts. But you don't counterargument or invalidate anything I've said, really.
'Linus himself says it has been beneficial...' Surely, you are aware that individual opinions, especially from people that have ties with a subject, are not the best persons to talk unbiased about said subject? Agreed, it is possible that there was that huge improvement, and it was all due to BitKeeper...but basically, if you base that on the fact that 'Linus said so' , it is a bit weak, me thinks. As I have said before: where there is, seemingly, a link, it therefor is not a causality. So even if there was more progress, it would be unwise to conclude that it was due to BitKeeper, let alone argue the extend.
Let's be honest: there have been developers who were greately against it, maybe were refusing to use it, were less productive, etc. You always have two sides (minimum), so, if a devl now said he thought Bitkeeper didn't improve things more then an alternative would have...would you then consider that proof that BitKeeper wasn't any good?
It really isn't about sides or who said it: it's simply the fact that we shouldn't make false assumptions. After all, if I use a road instead of strawling through the forrest, one can say: look how better and faster things go. But ofcourse, even when true, it doesn't say anything about what would have happend if you took another road - it might turn out, it would have gone even better and faster. So saying it was beneficial could not only be factual wrong, but impossible a statement to make, at least when you use it as a comparative.
Your last statement does not actually counter my argument neither. "sometimes going with non-open-source software is a good temporary solution" is not a good solution, temporary or not. It *CAN* be a good temporary solution, but this can only (and always) be said after the facts. As I've said before: there is an inherent risk in using proprietary systems, which is not elevated by Linus now saying, in hindsight, that it was beneficial (even when this would be true).
If BitKeeper had thrown out Linus after 2 days, instead of two years, I doubt anyone would have made a claim it had been beneficial. But you NEVER know in front how long the 'allowed use' is going to last, do you? So, ultimately, when push comes to shove, you don't know if it's going to be a solution, let alone a good one. Only the temporary seems pretty assured.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
Some think this is (matrix-like;-) freightening, because it is 'virus-like', but the treat to conquer new grounds is not a tell-tale sign of a virus, but of life in general.
And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.
The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.
Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).
If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.
As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.
Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is;-), we, humans, could be seen as merely the spermcells of Earth, and are the means to propagate itself so that the galaxy will eventually contain myriads of earths.
In any case: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But the counterargument that, therefor, it'sbetter to send robots is weak, because, well, this is ALWAYS going to be true. Even when the costs of technological hard&software go down a thousandfold, it STILL will be much cheaper to send robots then humans.
"Does Tridge work for OSDL? Not clear, but the point is that OSDL gave their word, so they either had an agreement with Tridge, which means he did break it, or OSDL is not being truthful, either way it casts OSDL/Tridge as lacking integrity."
First of all, you are mistaken: it could well be, that Larry is the one who lacks integrity - for instance, when he's just talking crap and there wasn't any agreement or word given.
Secondly, logic would suggest that, even if OSDL did give their word, it is still possible that Tridge didn't - and one can not reasonably expect to be bound to another persons' promise, when you never agreed to it.
So, even according to yourself, it is quite possible that Tridge didn't give his word at all, and thus, your former conclusion is rather unsubstantiated.
Since this is much in line with the answers I already gave to other posts like yours, let me repeat those:
"If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper."
There is, ofcourse, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Those are reasonable questions, and I think, even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen."
The cost will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
"So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice."
See above.
"When you are provided a powerful tool for no cost under the condition that you don't fund the creation of a competing tool based on that technology you are not at the whim of someone's goodwill."
Ermm...yes, you are. I don't follow you: you just describe a situation where, at least in that instance, you are at the whim, and you claim it's indicative that you aren't? Unless you equal 'whim' with totally unreasonable demands, this makes no sense. however, being depended on the goodwill of someone does not infer being unreasonable: they can have very good reasons (even economical ones are good too, in a sense); but still it remains a fact you are at their mercy.
"When they approached OSDL and said you have a employee doing this (reverse engineering our technology), please have them stop and OSDL says it's not our problem."
See above. Besides, reverse engeneering isn't illegal per sé, so they were right to say it's not there problem.
"Its not like they all of the sudden started says hey OSDL/Linus you now need to start paying for this since you like it. They said we are giving you free access to our tool but you have staff that are now striking at our revenue line, which happens to be how we fund this tool you like. Please have them stop and we will continue to provide this tool."
That's very amicable (or not) of them, but it still means one is not free to use the tool; thus, one is dependend on their goodwill.
"When you still thumb your nose at the company who has employees to support and revenue to generate you are only putting them under the gun."
See above.
"So based on this evidence you can see this isn't a RS versus Linus issue versus a OSDL taking responsibility issue. If OSDL came back to the table and said Ok, mea culpa, we will make this right then the problem wouldn't be there."
Yes, it would, since it would still be clear that they are not really free. If they can say 'do not do this" they can say "do not do that" neither. Whether it is reasonable from their perspective or not doesn't enter the picture: it still makes it clear that they can't use the tool totally free.
"Make Sense?"
Not really, when you look at it strictly from the viewpoint of whether or not they are delivered to the goodwill of the owners of Bitkeeper. This shows they aren't, whether Bitkeepers owners were reasonable in their demands or not.
"RMS was not necessarily right. In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound impr
Since people keep saying the same things, I'll keep responding with the same too:
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
"The sentence does not only contain a suggestion about Linus Torwalds' obvious reaction in a situation but also the suggestion that everything (in this domain) that is technologically superior is also proprietary."
Well, it's not an implicit suggestion about Linus, it's a logical conclusion, provided the premise is used he still prefers technological superior tools above anything that is inferior (albeit free).
As for the apparently implicit 'proprietary is always better' ; this would of course be an absurd statement. I meant to say that he would chose the proprietary system, if it is superior - which, according to himself fairly recently, are still properietary systems *in this instance*. Obviously, I did not mean properietary progs are by definition better, and certainly not that Linus would chose a properietary system, even if an open-source one would be better, because of his stech-sup-before-anything-else view. That would make no sense at all, and be contradictory.
You are probably right that I should have used 'yet possibly' instead of 'yet', but hey, my english ain't that bad as a whole, me thinks.:-)
Anyway, I thought I made it clear in the follow-up responses I posted.
"I'm saying that, like us, he is aware of it and that he is able to factor it into his decisions. I think that is one of the hallmarks of a mature, rational adult. I would like other people to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am capable of objectivity. I am simply extending the same courtesy to Linus."
This is all very true, and yet, no one - including mature, rational adults - and even people who are excuisitly aware of it (such as shrinks) are truelly capable of 'factoring this in'. In fact, it's a well known principle of psychologists NOT to be their own shrink, or even that of close family or friends, just because it is impossible to be objective. The more you've vested in an idea, decision, people, etc. the more one is inclined to be biased about it. Look at me; the epitome of logical and rational reasoning:-), though difficult to admit, it might well be that I'm not totally objective neither (but then again, I'm not very close to either side of this ideological battle).
'Benefit of the doubt' is a legalese term. In reality I think total objectivity does not exist (perhaps with some rare exeptions like in the mathimatical field), only varying degrees of (im)partiality. On itself, it's not because Linus says it has been beneficial (even when he means it), that it really IS beneficial. Does that mean he *not* right? Not necessarily neither, but it does mean, that you have to keep open the possiblity that he is, consiously or not, exagerating the benefits it gave. (Especially seen in the light that the costs for changing to a new system isn't really known. So how can one truelly say it was beneficial, without knowing the total cost-benefit picture?)
Acknowledging that Linus - or anyone else for that matter - could be biased to some degree, may not fall under 'courtesy', but it does fall under being realistic. Denying that this is a possible factor to be considered, is the NON mature thing to do, IM(H)O.
"You said "If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however." The condition was on whether or not it was beneficial, not whether or not a proprietary system was technologically superior. That was implicit in your statement."
I'm not following you anymore. Maybe it's because english isn't my native language, but I fail to see how I made something implicit that isn't there. The benefit I'm talking about, is about the technological superior system (which Linus claimed BitKeeper was). He didn't chose BitKeeper because it was free or not, but because it was better technologically speaking. Maybe we disagree on this?
"Okay, now I think you are a troll: you are using interchangeably "different" and "better". He didn't say it was different, he said it was better."
Quote of Linus (dixit yourself): "In fact, one impact BK has had is to very fundamentally make us (and me in particular) change how we do things."
Thus he DID say it 'changed' things, hence my argument that you can always say that. He also said that it was better, hence my answer about hindsight.
"Second, your logic is again flawed. He might decide to take a less superior but free alternative in this case and be right and he still could be right for making the exact opposite decision in the previous case."
Not when he is still is of the opinion that the technological superior system should be chosen above systems that are ideologically free, but are technologically inferior. (and provided that the technological superior system is a proprietary system, obviously).
"It is simple: technological superiority is not a trinary value."
But it is. Only when you take ideology or other values in it, could you come to another decision then when you decide on it because of the technological superiority (or not). On itself, 'technological superiority' clearly IS a trinary value.
"In the first case, it might be that the difference in technol
"Stop impugning Linus' objectivity unless you have some evidence that can demonstrate his bias. Otherwise, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And again you make your false assertion. What Linus chooses going forward proves nothing."
What, he ain't human?
As much as I valor Linus and his accomplishments, it is equally foolish to set him on a pedestal. The chance that he's totally immune to the most common human psychological effects and social behaviour seems rather farfetched.
People that make a decision and stick to it for years will have trouble acknowledging that it was a mistake after all. And especially when it's not a clear cut deal, one might think it was not that bad a thing after all - and that wouldn't necessarily even be malvolent or consciously lying about it, mind you.
"And your logic is seriously, fatally flawed in the last two lines I quoted from you. First, you falsely assume that the best technological choice must be proprietary."
I did no such thing. If you are going to attack my logic, please do not use strawman-attacks. It is more then clear that even today, the free alternatives are not yet to the point of some properietary systems (I believe Linus himself stated something like this only 4 months ago). Thus, my reasoning is correct: *IF* he really thinks it was all worth the trouble, and he stays true to his technological-superiority-before-anything-else viewpoint, then logic dictates he should use it again.
"The technologically superior system this time might be open source."
That is possible, but doubtfull. As far as I've seen, Linus has always - even fairly recently - maintained that the free alternatives are worse, not better. But in any case, my assertion wasn't that open source is inherently less superior, it was the logical conclusion that properietary systems which are superior (this is not a statement they are superior by definition, but it adds the condition to it, btw) should again be taken, if Linus thinks it is so beneficial.
"Second, and even worse, you assert that if choosing a proprietary system was a good decision this time, than it has to be a good decision this time. This is foolish."
See above. The foolishness is due in large part because you misinterpret what I say. Seen the if statement and the conditions therein, my reasoning and conclusion is fully justified.
"The largest benefit in choosing a proprietary system last time was the structural changes it made to the development process. According to Linus, it made them much more productive and it is very unlikely that *any* source management system, whether proprietary or not, will be able to produce a similar gain in efficiency."
I'm not very impressed by your counterarguments. Saying that that was the largest benefit, even when taken at face value, is justification in hindsight. And it's not really the actual reason neither, as you are well aware. He didn't say: "we'll take BK because it will force me to organise things differently", he just stated that it was technologically superior.
Furthermore, say he had chosen an other alternative, then what? Good chance he would say just the same; that he was forced to do things differently. This is an argument that is always true; the moment you manage things differently, one can say it is different. As for the 'better'; that is hindsight, as I already pointed out. Maybe some other (free) system would have been better then the cvs of sourceforge too, who knows. You should know how worthless it is, statistically spoken, to claim something has been proven to be 'better', when the sample of comparitative studies or experiments are extremely small. 'Better' is a comparsion; better then what? He hasn't actually worked with anything else as an alternative (apart from the old cvs). If you use hindsight to prove how things are better compared with others, you should at least do the same (in hindsight) of other systems as well.
"What Linus chooses this time in no way affects whether what
And now it's out Bitkeeper. Thus, the question remains valid whether it's not better to use alternatives that are less good, but will remain free in use, then those that are better, but where you are dependend on anothers' goodwill.
After all, as I said, the (unproven) argument that it was worth the trouble, is, even when taken at face value, only possible to say in hindsight. If someone had began back-engineering much sooner, they might have thrown Linus out after some months. This does not matter if you gamble, but it does matter if you want to be assured of steady progress.
As I said in response to the analogy: Is it not better to have a slow car which is yours to keep, then a fast car, that can be taken away at any moment?
First of all, as someone else said above: "Did you ever consider that he might have got a similar productivity boost by switching to a Free source control system instead of BitKeeper? "
It is dangerous to take a relation as a causality.
But, say it did boost the development. A more appropriate anaology would be some machinery that is used to build a building. The building being Linux (which lacks in your comparison, because when driving a car, you are not working on something collectively). Now, say you have the choice of free machinery, which would be at your disposal forever, but work more slowely, and unfree ones, which work faster.
After a copple of years, you get the finger with the unfree machinery. By then, everyone is used to the machinery, everything is managed according to it, and their is invariably a big cost (and considerable learning curve) in changing to any other machinery. Do you doubt that productivity will suffer because of it? I don't. Will it be worthwile, to have used the other macinery after all? That will depend on various factors, but it sure as hell isn't as clear-cut as in your analogy.
At the end, it might well be that you're indeed better of by using the slow-but-steady machines instead of the fast-but-unreliable ones. As is known already in the IT business, changing to a new platform or whatever - especially when you're users are used to it, applications are build on it, etc. can be prohibitive expensive. Also, you don't actually *know* when or for what reason you will get the finger, do you? So all this is talk 'in hindsight'. If that dude backengineered Bitkeeper much sooner, they might have say 'njet' much sooner too. In that case, say after 6 months, would you still be saying the same thing?
In cases like this, you do *not* know how long it will take to be allowed to use it, or if it is going to be worth the trouble. As with free alternatives, at least you know it will always remain free.
So, in fact, if someone offered me a car that drives 1000 km in a month, but which can be taken away at their will, or I can chose a car that only drives 500 km/month, but remains mine indefinately, I'll chose the latter - as would most sensible people, me thinks.
and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (2)
on
No More BitKeeper Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'll answer the next three responses here:
"If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper."
There is, ofcourse, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Those are reasonable questions, and I think, even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen."
The cost will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
"So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice."
See above.
"When you are provided a powerful tool for no cost under the condition that you don't fund the creation of a competing tool based on that technology you are not at the whim of someone's goodwill."
Ermm...yes, you are. I don't follow you: you just describe a situation where, at least in that instance, you are at the whim, and you claim it's indicative that you aren't? Unless you equal 'whim' with totally unreasonable demands, this makes no sense. however, being depended on the goodwill of someone does not infer being unreasonable: they can have very good reasons (even economical ones are good too, in a sense); but still it remains a fact you are at their mercy.
"When they approached OSDL and said you have a employee doing this (reverse engineering our technology), please have them stop and OSDL says it's not our problem."
See above. Besides, reverse engeneering isn't illegal per sé, so they were right to say it's not there problem.
"Its not like they all of the sudden started says hey OSDL/Linus you now need to start paying for this since you like it. They said we are giving you free access to our tool but you have staff that are now striking at our revenue line, which happens to be how we fund this tool you like. Please have them stop and we will continue to provide this tool."
That's very amicable (or not) of them, but it still means one is not free to use the tool; thus, one is dependend on their goodwill.
"When you still thumb your nose at the company who has employees to support and revenue to generate you are only putting them under the gun."
See above.
"So based on this evidence you can see this isn't a RS versus Linus issue versus a OSDL taking responsibility issue. If OSDL came back to the table and said Ok, mea culpa, we will make this right then the problem wouldn't be there."
Yes, it would, since it would still be clear that they are not really free. If they can say 'do not do this" they can say "do not do that" neither. Whether it is reasonable from their perspective or not doesn't enter the picture: it still makes it clear that they can't use the tool totally free.
"Make Sense?"
Not really, when you look at it strictly from the viewpoint of whether or not they are delivered to the goodwill of the owners of Bitkeeper. This shows they aren't, whether Bitkeepers owners were reasonable in their demands or not.
"RMS was not necessarily right. In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound improvements to the workflow""
Pitty I have responded in this thread also, or I would mod you up for this post, and down in the one below (which, indeed, was flamebite).
But you were right in your original assessement. That said, let's not forget that, at least in the former version, Freenet was heavily dependent on suns' java too.
There IS merit in taking the " only technological superiour" route, only one takes a risk as well, as is shown in this case.
and thus, R.Stallman was right after all
on
No More BitKeeper Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merrit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
It was EXACTLY what I have been thinking all along. The free GIMP was all good and well, but I always got frustrated because of (at the start) the bunch of floating windows it consisted of (insteead of a rigid window), and the fact that it was much less intuitive then photoshop.
I think it is wondeful that this hack is made, and it will certainly appeal to a lot of preople.
But I personally, though I'm a fan of SF, I really thought firefly sucked. I've maybe seen one or two episodes that were not TOO bad, but most were...I dunno...bullocks. And I don't mean that in a technical sense (since most SF always has a large fiction-side), but just because it was like a cheap soap-themed thing. Nothing really happend much, I was never thrilled about the underlying story, and even the characters weren't all that great.
I know Star Trek had some less good episodes too, but overall it was pretty good, and a lot less soapy then firefly. But it's not that on its own; Farscape had much soap-tendencies too, yet, it was one of the more interesting series I ever watched. But that was mainly due to the strong character buildup, the special tension between the main characters, the strong performance of "Scorpio", etc. It was much less eclectic then Star Trek (especially NG), but within it's own style it was extremely good, and in some ways superior to every other SF series I've seen as yet.
None of this attractiveness comes out in firefly; the episodes are cheap wanna-be SF episodes with a weak cast and a weak story. I mean, if the spaceship wasn't shown for a minute every time, one could easily mistake the series for some amateurish western. Nothing really happend, and it was never enticing, nor did it have any other attributes of Farscape where the characters were complex and the sets simply amazing. Nor did it have the more intellectually orientated approach of Startrek.
Well, I know others will dispute this and give a lot of things why they think it was the best thing since sliced bread, but that's what it was for me, and I can't believe I'm the only one. Firefly was just weak and amateurish, and hardly worth the term "SF". Star Trek was much better (though this is comparing apples with oranges), but Farscape is more inline with the style of Firefly, and was still 100 times better.
"What RPM is not good at is non-core packages, ie programs available from the net, from commercial vendors, magazine coverdisks and so on. "
You can say that again. In fact, this has exactly been my gripe with linux, including the so-called user-freindly distro's.
Apt-get, rpm, whatever - but if you are just browsing the Net and want to install something it's a real PITA, with Linux. There is no equivalent of an.exe, so you either have to be lucky that they not only have a linux version, but the right rpm for your specific distro, or you can get messy with hopefully clearly mentionned commands on the commandline - which defeats the purpose of having a GUI somewhat.
I have recently have another try at linux, but I just had to give up: while the installation of the OS itself went very well (impressive, even), the real problem was getting applications installed and working. when apt-get or urpmi or whatever doesn't have what you want, or fail for some reason, you just can't do shit, as a joe doe newbie.
Linuw really isn't ready for prime-time on the desktop, that's my honest opinion. But, maybe through projects like these, which *really* try to give the same klick-and-install ease of use, it might finally get there.
Well...the parent poster is being ironic, but at least partially right.
I mean, no one can deny, when even having a superficial look at the different projects that are on sourceforge, that an enormous amount of them are just plain dead, or whithering away. Exept for the really big projects - which have like, a treshold of minimum 3 developers (or people that at least keep busy themselves a bit with the code) and half a dozen 'helpers' - almost all the smaller projects really just sizzle out.
And then, some day, a new lonely coder gets up with the same idea, and he begins from scratch again, even though there are already myriads of dead projects that do the same. So, indeed, small projects keep being replicated, and, contrary to what one might exept, rarely is it working on top of an already existing (dead) project. Mostly they invent the wheel all over again, then they whizzle out (if they can't muster enough critical interest), and the whole process repeats itself.
The result is what you see on sourceforge: some big thriving projects, a lot of smaller almost-one-man projects that usually go completely dead real soon (you always have exeptions, ofcourse), and already massive amounts of complete stone-cold-graves of forgotten small projects. Which anyone hardly seem to notice even when they decide to do similar things.
It is rather mysterious how this is possible, seen the fact that FOSS projects are open to all. Why does there have to be 8 little projects that do in essence the same (but starve to death), instead that they all pull together and make one viable project? why do people reinvent the wheel, when there are so many basic (yet dead) projects they could use to build upon? Something is missing here...
I think, the answer has partly to do with ego's: ppl want it to be "their" project, and even if others are welcome to contribute, those that started with the project (especially if it are one-man-projects) like to feel it is and remains 'theirs'. So, *even* if they know there are other, similar projects, they will rather steal (well, in case of OSS it's just allowed use;-) code from other projects and incorporate it in theirs, then just to join an already existing one.
But that doesn't explain it all, because not all coders are like that, and even those don't seem to be able to make efficient use of other works. The plain fact is, some do not really bother, or think it's to dificult to get to learn an already existing codebase (and simply prefer to start with one, so they know it well), and - more importantly - sourceforge sucks in finding projects that are similar to others, based on their internal code. Yes, sure you can search for generic terms on the application-level, but it's real hard to actually know what code could be useful or similar to some project you envisage.
In any case, it's very clear which curve the projects on sourceforge follow: a very large part of dead or near-dead small projects at one end, a certain amount of medium projects that never seem to amass the critical level but still keep hanging on, and then a few big projects that have 3 or more active developers, a buch of 'helpers' and a large userbase, which will thrive.
I'm not sure if all this is good or bad or 'normal', but I do think a system should be found to pull together all the working forces and/or code of (similar) small projects, so the chance of survival rises, there is less redundancy and reinventing the wheel and a critical mass can be more easily abtained. For that to happen, I fear sourceforge (and the likes) will have to become more efficient and just plain capable of letting people more easily recognise and bundle together similar projects in the first place.
Some time ago, I've converted one of my sites/projects (and the works it contains) www.verbumvanum.org to the CC, but whatever I search with - verbum vanum, greek, latin, literature, thesises, etc. - nowhere is my site or any of the works to be found. I thought this searchengine would perform better then the one on the CC page itself, but no. I wonder how much they actually spidered the Net for it, and how much it's just a take-over of the not-to-good-working database of the CC?
Guess they still have a lot of automated indexing to do, or there is a bug somewhere...
It should be noted that in some countries, DRM could even be considered illegal, depending if it broke some basic consumer-rights (fair use, backupcopy, personal copy, etc.) or not.
Which is why 'imagine a beowulf cluster' is a/. joke.:-)
But clustering is feasable, as is the possibility of equally mass-produced pico-processors (like those envisaged in future 'throw-away' cellular phones). Some (not too far away) day, some nerd is going to build his own box out of these kinds of disgarded waste. And he probably will get a/. article of it too.;-)
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ freenet/website/pages/fairshare.php?rev=1.1).
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'hard-line' anything, apart from being libertarian minded, perhaps. Let alone compare me with R.Stallman. ;-)
I can't speak for Stallman, but if you think I'm considering it inherently 'immoral' as an argument, I aparently failed to make my point clear.
I have difficulties imagining how this could be, since I have explained several times now, what my arguments are. None of them was 'it is inherently immoral'. In fact, I gave you the reason right after the quote. And again, you didn't actually go into it. Once again: you do not know, in front, how long you can use proprietary systems. Thus, EVEN if they are beneficial on themselves, you do not know for how long you are going to be able to use them. Since there is always a cost at reversing or moving to something else, it is perfectly possible to have no benefit, or even outright a negative impact, on the development, when chosing proprietary systems.
Since you do not know how long you are going to be able to use it, you can not know in front if it's going to be beneficial or not. Thus, if you talk about balancing, it is always in hindsight: you balance the actual benefits it had + the time you were able to profit from it (- moving to something else, etc). So, for making a decision in front, in regard to the question what to use (as Linus did, 2 years ago), you CAN NOT argue that it is beneficial compared to other alternatives, since you do not know how long you can use the system. Linus may (rightfully or not) claim this now, in this instance (= in hindsight), but it does not validate his technological-superiority-before-ideology viewpoint as a principle.
I don't see where the problem seems to be in following this rational argument.
I've basically already answered this one, though I admit it was originally for other posts. But you don't counterargument or invalidate anything I've said, really.
'Linus himself says it has been beneficial...' Surely, you are aware that individual opinions, especially from people that have ties with a subject, are not the best persons to talk unbiased about said subject? Agreed, it is possible that there was that huge improvement, and it was all due to BitKeeper...but basically, if you base that on the fact that 'Linus said so' , it is a bit weak, me thinks. As I have said before: where there is, seemingly, a link, it therefor is not a causality. So even if there was more progress, it would be unwise to conclude that it was due to BitKeeper, let alone argue the extend.
Let's be honest: there have been developers who were greately against it, maybe were refusing to use it, were less productive, etc. You always have two sides (minimum), so, if a devl now said he thought Bitkeeper didn't improve things more then an alternative would have...would you then consider that proof that BitKeeper wasn't any good?
It really isn't about sides or who said it: it's simply the fact that we shouldn't make false assumptions. After all, if I use a road instead of strawling through the forrest, one can say: look how better and faster things go. But ofcourse, even when true, it doesn't say anything about what would have happend if you took another road - it might turn out, it would have gone even better and faster. So saying it was beneficial could not only be factual wrong, but impossible a statement to make, at least when you use it as a comparative.
Your last statement does not actually counter my argument neither. "sometimes going with non-open-source software is a good temporary solution" is not a good solution, temporary or not. It *CAN* be a good temporary solution, but this can only (and always) be said after the facts. As I've said before: there is an inherent risk in using proprietary systems, which is not elevated by Linus now saying, in hindsight, that it was beneficial (even when this would be true).
If BitKeeper had thrown out Linus after 2 days, instead of two years, I doubt anyone would have made a claim it had been beneficial. But you NEVER know in front how long the 'allowed use' is going to last, do you? So, ultimately, when push comes to shove, you don't know if it's going to be a solution, let alone a good one. Only the temporary seems pretty assured.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
;-) freightening, because it is 'virus-like', but the treat to conquer new grounds is not a tell-tale sign of a virus, but of life in general.
;-), we, humans, could be seen as merely the spermcells of Earth, and are the means to propagate itself so that the galaxy will eventually contain myriads of earths.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
Some think this is (matrix-like
And frankly, the exploration of earth (or its ecology) is hardly that of a virus killing it's host, though the ultra-greens may often portray it that way. Earths' ecology ALWAYS changes; species appear and dissapear, and those that are most suited (and have spread the most around the globe) have the most chance of surviving.
The fact that a lot of current change is done by humans, may give it an air of artificiality, but to that idea I don't subscribe. Humans are still biological identies, and as such, need an ecology to survive in. 'Nature' or 'the world' does not care what particular ecology it sustains; as long as there is biological life, it exists, period.
Your premise that being self-aware is not a reason to colonise the solar system and then the galaxy is based on...what? I would claim it DOES (though it would not excuse us from being responsable - to alien life - while colonising).
If alien life is not omni-present on the planet, but only in small niches, I think it's worth considering to protect those niches, or create articial enclosures to preserve it - but still go on with the colonisation. Things would only be different if it's a planetwide alien ecology, or if there is alien sentient life involved.
As for your argument that it does not benefit the host; allow me to contradict. The mere fact that we would colonise other planets and introduce earths' ecology there, would augment the chances of earths' 'nature' to survive...therefor, it would benefit from our actions.
Infact, viewed from the point of 'Nature' (if it had a viewpoint, that is
In any case: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But the counterargument that, therefor, it'sbetter to send robots is weak, because, well, this is ALWAYS going to be true. Even when the costs of technological hard&software go down a thousandfold, it STILL will be much cheaper to send robots then humans.
"Does Tridge work for OSDL? Not clear, but the point is that OSDL gave their word, so they either had an agreement with Tridge, which means he did break it, or OSDL is not being truthful, either way it casts OSDL/Tridge as lacking integrity."
First of all, you are mistaken: it could well be, that Larry is the one who lacks integrity - for instance, when he's just talking crap and there wasn't any agreement or word given.
Secondly, logic would suggest that, even if OSDL did give their word, it is still possible that Tridge didn't - and one can not reasonably expect to be bound to another persons' promise, when you never agreed to it.
So, even according to yourself, it is quite possible that Tridge didn't give his word at all, and thus, your former conclusion is rather unsubstantiated.
Since this is much in line with the answers I already gave to other posts like yours, let me repeat those:
"If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper."
There is, ofcourse, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Those are reasonable questions, and I think, even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen."
The cost will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
"So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice."
See above.
"When you are provided a powerful tool for no cost under the condition that you don't fund the creation of a competing tool based on that technology you are not at the whim of someone's goodwill."
Ermm...yes, you are. I don't follow you: you just describe a situation where, at least in that instance, you are at the whim, and you claim it's indicative that you aren't? Unless you equal 'whim' with totally unreasonable demands, this makes no sense. however, being depended on the goodwill of someone does not infer being unreasonable: they can have very good reasons (even economical ones are good too, in a sense); but still it remains a fact you are at their mercy.
"When they approached OSDL and said you have a employee doing this (reverse engineering our technology), please have them stop and OSDL says it's not our problem."
See above. Besides, reverse engeneering isn't illegal per sé, so they were right to say it's not there problem.
"Its not like they all of the sudden started says hey OSDL/Linus you now need to start paying for this since you like it. They said we are giving you free access to our tool but you have staff that are now striking at our revenue line, which happens to be how we fund this tool you like. Please have them stop and we will continue to provide this tool."
That's very amicable (or not) of them, but it still means one is not free to use the tool; thus, one is dependend on their goodwill.
"When you still thumb your nose at the company who has employees to support and revenue to generate you are only putting them under the gun."
See above.
"So based on this evidence you can see this isn't a RS versus Linus issue versus a OSDL taking responsibility issue. If OSDL came back to the table and said Ok, mea culpa, we will make this right then the problem wouldn't be there."
Yes, it would, since it would still be clear that they are not really free. If they can say 'do not do this" they can say "do not do that" neither. Whether it is reasonable from their perspective or not doesn't enter the picture: it still makes it clear that they can't use the tool totally free.
"Make Sense?"
Not really, when you look at it strictly from the viewpoint of whether or not they are delivered to the goodwill of the owners of Bitkeeper. This shows they aren't, whether Bitkeepers owners were reasonable in their demands or not.
"RMS was not necessarily right. In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound impr
Since people keep saying the same things, I'll keep responding with the same too:
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
"The sentence does not only contain a suggestion about Linus Torwalds' obvious reaction in a situation but also the suggestion that everything (in this domain) that is technologically superior is also proprietary."
:-)
Well, it's not an implicit suggestion about Linus, it's a logical conclusion, provided the premise is used he still prefers technological superior tools above anything that is inferior (albeit free).
As for the apparently implicit 'proprietary is always better' ; this would of course be an absurd statement. I meant to say that he would chose the proprietary system, if it is superior - which, according to himself fairly recently, are still properietary systems *in this instance*. Obviously, I did not mean properietary progs are by definition better, and certainly not that Linus would chose a properietary system, even if an open-source one would be better, because of his stech-sup-before-anything-else view. That would make no sense at all, and be contradictory.
You are probably right that I should have used 'yet possibly' instead of 'yet', but hey, my english ain't that bad as a whole, me thinks.
Anyway, I thought I made it clear in the follow-up responses I posted.
You're the one that allowed the one-klick patent of Amazone, aren't you?!
;-)
j/k!
(I think)
"I'm saying that, like us, he is aware of it and that he is able to factor it into his decisions. I think that is one of the hallmarks of a mature, rational adult. I would like other people to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am capable of objectivity. I am simply extending the same courtesy to Linus."
:-), though difficult to admit, it might well be that I'm not totally objective neither (but then again, I'm not very close to either side of this ideological battle).
This is all very true, and yet, no one - including mature, rational adults - and even people who are excuisitly aware of it (such as shrinks) are truelly capable of 'factoring this in'. In fact, it's a well known principle of psychologists NOT to be their own shrink, or even that of close family or friends, just because it is impossible to be objective. The more you've vested in an idea, decision, people, etc. the more one is inclined to be biased about it. Look at me; the epitome of logical and rational reasoning
'Benefit of the doubt' is a legalese term. In reality I think total objectivity does not exist (perhaps with some rare exeptions like in the mathimatical field), only varying degrees of (im)partiality. On itself, it's not because Linus says it has been beneficial (even when he means it), that it really IS beneficial. Does that mean he *not* right? Not necessarily neither, but it does mean, that you have to keep open the possiblity that he is, consiously or not, exagerating the benefits it gave. (Especially seen in the light that the costs for changing to a new system isn't really known. So how can one truelly say it was beneficial, without knowing the total cost-benefit picture?)
Acknowledging that Linus - or anyone else for that matter - could be biased to some degree, may not fall under 'courtesy', but it does fall under being realistic. Denying that this is a possible factor to be considered, is the NON mature thing to do, IM(H)O.
"You said "If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however." The condition was on whether or not it was beneficial, not whether or not a proprietary system was technologically superior. That was implicit in your statement."
I'm not following you anymore. Maybe it's because english isn't my native language, but I fail to see how I made something implicit that isn't there. The benefit I'm talking about, is about the technological superior system (which Linus claimed BitKeeper was). He didn't chose BitKeeper because it was free or not, but because it was better technologically speaking. Maybe we disagree on this?
"Okay, now I think you are a troll: you are using interchangeably "different" and "better". He didn't say it was different, he said it was better."
Quote of Linus (dixit yourself):
"In fact, one impact BK has had is to very fundamentally make us (and me in particular) change how we do things."
Thus he DID say it 'changed' things, hence my argument that you can always say that. He also said that it was better, hence my answer about hindsight.
"Second, your logic is again flawed. He might decide to take a less superior but free alternative in this case and be right and he still could be right for making the exact opposite decision in the previous case."
Not when he is still is of the opinion that the technological superior system should be chosen above systems that are ideologically free, but are technologically inferior. (and provided that the technological superior system is a proprietary system, obviously).
"It is simple: technological superiority is not a trinary value."
But it is. Only when you take ideology or other values in it, could you come to another decision then when you decide on it because of the technological superiority (or not). On itself, 'technological superiority' clearly IS a trinary value.
"In the first case, it might be that the difference in technol
"Stop impugning Linus' objectivity unless you have some evidence that can demonstrate his bias. Otherwise, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And again you make your false assertion. What Linus chooses going forward proves nothing."
What, he ain't human?
As much as I valor Linus and his accomplishments, it is equally foolish to set him on a pedestal. The chance that he's totally immune to the most common human psychological effects and social behaviour seems rather farfetched.
People that make a decision and stick to it for years will have trouble acknowledging that it was a mistake after all. And especially when it's not a clear cut deal, one might think it was not that bad a thing after all - and that wouldn't necessarily even be malvolent or consciously lying about it, mind you.
"And your logic is seriously, fatally flawed in the last two lines I quoted from you. First, you falsely assume that the best technological choice must be proprietary."
I did no such thing. If you are going to attack my logic, please do not use strawman-attacks. It is more then clear that even today, the free alternatives are not yet to the point of some properietary systems (I believe Linus himself stated something like this only 4 months ago). Thus, my reasoning is correct: *IF* he really thinks it was all worth the trouble, and he stays true to his technological-superiority-before-anything-else viewpoint, then logic dictates he should use it again.
"The technologically superior system this time might be open source."
That is possible, but doubtfull. As far as I've seen, Linus has always - even fairly recently - maintained that the free alternatives are worse, not better. But in any case, my assertion wasn't that open source is inherently less superior, it was the logical conclusion that properietary systems which are superior (this is not a statement they are superior by definition, but it adds the condition to it, btw) should again be taken, if Linus thinks it is so beneficial.
"Second, and even worse, you assert that if choosing a proprietary system was a good decision this time, than it has to be a good decision this time. This is foolish."
See above. The foolishness is due in large part because you misinterpret what I say. Seen the if statement and the conditions therein, my reasoning and conclusion is fully justified.
"The largest benefit in choosing a proprietary system last time was the structural changes it made to the development process. According to Linus, it made them much more productive and it is very unlikely that *any* source management system, whether proprietary or not, will be able to produce a similar gain in efficiency."
I'm not very impressed by your counterarguments. Saying that that was the largest benefit, even when taken at face value, is justification in hindsight. And it's not really the actual reason neither, as you are well aware. He didn't say: "we'll take BK because it will force me to organise things differently", he just stated that it was technologically superior.
Furthermore, say he had chosen an other alternative, then what? Good chance he would say just the same; that he was forced to do things differently. This is an argument that is always true; the moment you manage things differently, one can say it is different. As for the 'better'; that is hindsight, as I already pointed out. Maybe some other (free) system would have been better then the cvs of sourceforge too, who knows. You should know how worthless it is, statistically spoken, to claim something has been proven to be 'better', when the sample of comparitative studies or experiments are extremely small. 'Better' is a comparsion; better then what? He hasn't actually worked with anything else as an alternative (apart from the old cvs). If you use hindsight to prove how things are better compared with others, you should at least do the same (in hindsight) of other systems as well.
"What Linus chooses this time in no way affects whether what
And now it's out Bitkeeper. Thus, the question remains valid whether it's not better to use alternatives that are less good, but will remain free in use, then those that are better, but where you are dependend on anothers' goodwill.
After all, as I said, the (unproven) argument that it was worth the trouble, is, even when taken at face value, only possible to say in hindsight. If someone had began back-engineering much sooner, they might have thrown Linus out after some months. This does not matter if you gamble, but it does matter if you want to be assured of steady progress.
As I said in response to the analogy: Is it not better to have a slow car which is yours to keep, then a fast car, that can be taken away at any moment?
First of all, as someone else said above: "Did you ever consider that he might have got a similar productivity boost by switching to a Free source control system instead of BitKeeper? "
It is dangerous to take a relation as a causality.
But, say it did boost the development. A more appropriate anaology would be some machinery that is used to build a building. The building being Linux (which lacks in your comparison, because when driving a car, you are not working on something collectively). Now, say you have the choice of free machinery, which would be at your disposal forever, but work more slowely, and unfree ones, which work faster.
After a copple of years, you get the finger with the unfree machinery. By then, everyone is used to the machinery, everything is managed according to it, and their is invariably a big cost (and considerable learning curve) in changing to any other machinery. Do you doubt that productivity will suffer because of it? I don't. Will it be worthwile, to have used the other macinery after all? That will depend on various factors, but it sure as hell isn't as clear-cut as in your analogy.
At the end, it might well be that you're indeed better of by using the slow-but-steady machines instead of the fast-but-unreliable ones. As is known already in the IT business, changing to a new platform or whatever - especially when you're users are used to it, applications are build on it, etc. can be prohibitive expensive. Also, you don't actually *know* when or for what reason you will get the finger, do you? So all this is talk 'in hindsight'. If that dude backengineered Bitkeeper much sooner, they might have say 'njet' much sooner too. In that case, say after 6 months, would you still be saying the same thing?
In cases like this, you do *not* know how long it will take to be allowed to use it, or if it is going to be worth the trouble. As with free alternatives, at least you know it will always remain free.
So, in fact, if someone offered me a car that drives 1000 km in a month, but which can be taken away at their will, or I can chose a car that only drives 500 km/month, but remains mine indefinately, I'll chose the latter - as would most sensible people, me thinks.
I'll answer the next three responses here:
"If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper."
There is, ofcourse, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Those are reasonable questions, and I think, even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen."
The cost will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
"So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice."
See above.
"When you are provided a powerful tool for no cost under the condition that you don't fund the creation of a competing tool based on that technology you are not at the whim of someone's goodwill."
Ermm...yes, you are. I don't follow you: you just describe a situation where, at least in that instance, you are at the whim, and you claim it's indicative that you aren't? Unless you equal 'whim' with totally unreasonable demands, this makes no sense. however, being depended on the goodwill of someone does not infer being unreasonable: they can have very good reasons (even economical ones are good too, in a sense); but still it remains a fact you are at their mercy.
"When they approached OSDL and said you have a employee doing this (reverse engineering our technology), please have them stop and OSDL says it's not our problem."
See above. Besides, reverse engeneering isn't illegal per sé, so they were right to say it's not there problem.
"Its not like they all of the sudden started says hey OSDL/Linus you now need to start paying for this since you like it. They said we are giving you free access to our tool but you have staff that are now striking at our revenue line, which happens to be how we fund this tool you like. Please have them stop and we will continue to provide this tool."
That's very amicable (or not) of them, but it still means one is not free to use the tool; thus, one is dependend on their goodwill.
"When you still thumb your nose at the company who has employees to support and revenue to generate you are only putting them under the gun."
See above.
"So based on this evidence you can see this isn't a RS versus Linus issue versus a OSDL taking responsibility issue. If OSDL came back to the table and said Ok, mea culpa, we will make this right then the problem wouldn't be there."
Yes, it would, since it would still be clear that they are not really free. If they can say 'do not do this" they can say "do not do that" neither. Whether it is reasonable from their perspective or not doesn't enter the picture: it still makes it clear that they can't use the tool totally free.
"Make Sense?"
Not really, when you look at it strictly from the viewpoint of whether or not they are delivered to the goodwill of the owners of Bitkeeper. This shows they aren't, whether Bitkeepers owners were reasonable in their demands or not.
"RMS was not necessarily right. In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound improvements to the workflow""
I answered this already at th
Pitty I have responded in this thread also, or I would mod you up for this post, and down in the one below (which, indeed, was flamebite).
But you were right in your original assessement. That said, let's not forget that, at least in the former version, Freenet was heavily dependent on suns' java too.
There IS merit in taking the " only technological superiour" route, only one takes a risk as well, as is shown in this case.
It's a bit silly to say 'I told you so" - especially since I didn't actually say it. I thought the arguments made by Linus had some logic behind it too (the technical-merrit-before-anything-else approach). Often I thought both sides (Stallman and Linus) had some valuable viewpoint on it, and it was difficult to say who actually was right on the matter.
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
It has been mathematically proven that there is no such thing as a mathematical proof!!
It was EXACTLY what I have been thinking all along. The free GIMP was all good and well, but I always got frustrated because of (at the start) the bunch of floating windows it consisted of (insteead of a rigid window), and the fact that it was much less intuitive then photoshop.
I think it is wondeful that this hack is made, and it will certainly appeal to a lot of preople.
Ofcourse, about tastes...
But I personally, though I'm a fan of SF, I really thought firefly sucked. I've maybe seen one or two episodes that were not TOO bad, but most were...I dunno...bullocks. And I don't mean that in a technical sense (since most SF always has a large fiction-side), but just because it was like a cheap soap-themed thing. Nothing really happend much, I was never thrilled about the underlying story, and even the characters weren't all that great.
I know Star Trek had some less good episodes too, but overall it was pretty good, and a lot less soapy then firefly. But it's not that on its own; Farscape had much soap-tendencies too, yet, it was one of the more interesting series I ever watched. But that was mainly due to the strong character buildup, the special tension between the main characters, the strong performance of "Scorpio", etc. It was much less eclectic then Star Trek (especially NG), but within it's own style it was extremely good, and in some ways superior to every other SF series I've seen as yet.
None of this attractiveness comes out in firefly; the episodes are cheap wanna-be SF episodes with a weak cast and a weak story. I mean, if the spaceship wasn't shown for a minute every time, one could easily mistake the series for some amateurish western. Nothing really happend, and it was never enticing, nor did it have any other attributes of Farscape where the characters were complex and the sets simply amazing. Nor did it have the more intellectually orientated approach of Startrek.
Well, I know others will dispute this and give a lot of things why they think it was the best thing since sliced bread, but that's what it was for me, and I can't believe I'm the only one. Firefly was just weak and amateurish, and hardly worth the term "SF". Star Trek was much better (though this is comparing apples with oranges), but Farscape is more inline with the style of Firefly, and was still 100 times better.
So I think the parent poster was right.
"What RPM is not good at is non-core packages, ie programs available from the net, from commercial vendors, magazine coverdisks and so on. "
.exe, so you either have to be lucky that they not only have a linux version, but the right rpm for your specific distro, or you can get messy with hopefully clearly mentionned commands on the commandline - which defeats the purpose of having a GUI somewhat.
You can say that again. In fact, this has exactly been my gripe with linux, including the so-called user-freindly distro's.
Apt-get, rpm, whatever - but if you are just browsing the Net and want to install something it's a real PITA, with Linux. There is no equivalent of an
I have recently have another try at linux, but I just had to give up: while the installation of the OS itself went very well (impressive, even), the real problem was getting applications installed and working. when apt-get or urpmi or whatever doesn't have what you want, or fail for some reason, you just can't do shit, as a joe doe newbie.
Linuw really isn't ready for prime-time on the desktop, that's my honest opinion. But, maybe through projects like these, which *really* try to give the same klick-and-install ease of use, it might finally get there.
Well...the parent poster is being ironic, but at least partially right.
;-) code from other projects and incorporate it in theirs, then just to join an already existing one.
I mean, no one can deny, when even having a superficial look at the different projects that are on sourceforge, that an enormous amount of them are just plain dead, or whithering away. Exept for the really big projects - which have like, a treshold of minimum 3 developers (or people that at least keep busy themselves a bit with the code) and half a dozen 'helpers' - almost all the smaller projects really just sizzle out.
And then, some day, a new lonely coder gets up with the same idea, and he begins from scratch again, even though there are already myriads of dead projects that do the same. So, indeed, small projects keep being replicated, and, contrary to what one might exept, rarely is it working on top of an already existing (dead) project. Mostly they invent the wheel all over again, then they whizzle out (if they can't muster enough critical interest), and the whole process repeats itself.
The result is what you see on sourceforge: some big thriving projects, a lot of smaller almost-one-man projects that usually go completely dead real soon (you always have exeptions, ofcourse), and already massive amounts of complete stone-cold-graves of forgotten small projects. Which anyone hardly seem to notice even when they decide to do similar things.
It is rather mysterious how this is possible, seen the fact that FOSS projects are open to all. Why does there have to be 8 little projects that do in essence the same (but starve to death), instead that they all pull together and make one viable project? why do people reinvent the wheel, when there are so many basic (yet dead) projects they could use to build upon? Something is missing here...
I think, the answer has partly to do with ego's: ppl want it to be "their" project, and even if others are welcome to contribute, those that started with the project (especially if it are one-man-projects) like to feel it is and remains 'theirs'. So, *even* if they know there are other, similar projects, they will rather steal (well, in case of OSS it's just allowed use
But that doesn't explain it all, because not all coders are like that, and even those don't seem to be able to make efficient use of other works. The plain fact is, some do not really bother, or think it's to dificult to get to learn an already existing codebase (and simply prefer to start with one, so they know it well), and - more importantly - sourceforge sucks in finding projects that are similar to others, based on their internal code. Yes, sure you can search for generic terms on the application-level, but it's real hard to actually know what code could be useful or similar to some project you envisage.
In any case, it's very clear which curve the projects on sourceforge follow: a very large part of dead or near-dead small projects at one end, a certain amount of medium projects that never seem to amass the critical level but still keep hanging on, and then a few big projects that have 3 or more active developers, a buch of 'helpers' and a large userbase, which will thrive.
I'm not sure if all this is good or bad or 'normal', but I do think a system should be found to pull together all the working forces and/or code of (similar) small projects, so the chance of survival rises, there is less redundancy and reinventing the wheel and a critical mass can be more easily abtained. For that to happen, I fear sourceforge (and the likes) will have to become more efficient and just plain capable of letting people more easily recognise and bundle together similar projects in the first place.
Ofcourse, this is not without controversy -especially with leet-speeking people.
I tried to have a slashdot article of it, but apparently the Higher Mods were of the opinion leet wasn't interesting enough...untill now (?).
The reasearchpaper can be found on: http://www.verbumvanum.org/indexlingua.html
Some time ago, I've converted one of my sites/projects (and the works it contains) www.verbumvanum.org to the CC, but whatever I search with - verbum vanum, greek, latin, literature, thesises, etc. - nowhere is my site or any of the works to be found. I thought this searchengine would perform better then the one on the CC page itself, but no. I wonder how much they actually spidered the Net for it, and how much it's just a take-over of the not-to-good-working database of the CC?
Guess they still have a lot of automated indexing to do, or there is a bug somewhere...
It should be noted that in some countries, DRM could even be considered illegal, depending if it broke some basic consumer-rights (fair use, backupcopy, personal copy, etc.) or not.
Which is why 'imagine a beowulf cluster' is a /. joke. :-)
/. article of it too. ;-)
But clustering is feasable, as is the possibility of equally mass-produced pico-processors (like those envisaged in future 'throw-away' cellular phones). Some (not too far away) day, some nerd is going to build his own box out of these kinds of disgarded waste. And he probably will get a
The IFPI/RIAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
/ freenet/website/pages/fairshare.php?rev=1.1).
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.