While GIT expresses the distributed development nature of open source projects much better nowadays, SVN fits the workflow of enterprise projects much better:
Actually... git fits the workflow better than svn. I have to manage a project that spans multiple institutions and two continents. Instead of forcing everyone to use VPN while they develop, they only need to use VPN to push to the official repository.
SVN has much better visual tools and is simpler to operate
What? I use SourceTree on OS X and my coworkers on Windows like TortoiseGit. Also there is "git gui"
SVN has a simpler merge policies which are friendlier when there isn't a central person pulling the changes.
What? I don't think you understand how git works.
SVN is very friendly for projects with a lot of binary objects (ie videogames)
Not necessarily. We use both svn and git to manage very large BLOBs and I haven't seen any noticeable differences. I have people that version control gigabytes worth of design documents that are stored in binary format and I haven't heard any complaints from them.
SVN allows different people to work on different directories individually, GIT doesn't.
We used to think this was a big deal, but the advantages that git has over svn more than made up for this.
-SVN has fine grained permissions, access and authentication controls, very useful when parts of your project (ie, APIs) are under NDA or you don't want them to leak.
What? First not by default. The most popular method https+ssh does not. You can use Crowd to make it a little easier.
Whereas in git I use gitolite. I manage their public keys and assign privileges based on the public key. Keep the NDA (or more importantly ITAR) in a separate git repository which makes life easier all around and satisfies the regulators too. They weren't too comfortable with trusting the single repository to handle the compartmentation correctly.
They are different systems with different scenarios in mind, comparing them or claiming that GIT is killing SVN is just ignorance.
I operate both SVN and GIT systems. My anecdotal evidence show that most of my projects left SVN and went with GIT due to its distributive nature. We have operational processes in place that eliminates the need for physical enforcement of a centralized repository. As an extra bonus, my co-developers like the ability to check in while they develop and then push the changes once they are confident that it won't break the build on the official repository.
If they freely give all their information to an unknown corporation in exchange for game within Facebook or a cool feature on a smart phone, does it really matter if the NSA was included in the disclosure?
You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side
I think the NSA part of his comment was suppose to be humorous due to the meat of his argument being:
It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.
I'm not convinced that the "Microsoft Store" will be any better. It may be better for a short while, but soon the mini-store will be manned with the same retail people that couldn't answer a simply question about a HP laptop.
They did a similar thing for Apple. I don't know why BestBuy changing its floor plan is newsworthy.
Next thing you know they may have a game section with all the Xbox related stuff separated from the Playstation and Wii stuff, or better yet have a mobile phone store within a store... oh wait.
I believe the biggest problem Apple has with GPLv3 was that they couldn't use their signing keys at least this is the reason someone gave for dropping Samba.
The reason I picked GPL for my open source projects is because I want the code remain open and the modifications to remain available to the project. The extra benefit being that people are more likely to contribute to the project because they also won't have to worry about their work being used for some commercial package without the modifications being contributed back to the authors.
some OSS projects view GPL (in all versions) as utter poison and something to be avoided due to the nature of the downstream user community.
Nothing wrong with other licenses for OSS projects. I personally use 3-clause BSD on work that I really don't expect any contributions from and I have made contributions to other BSD licensed projects. That said, if someone wants to use my GPLed code and not have to contribute anything back then they are free to go elsewhere for similar code that has a license favorable to them.
(And no, they don't "steal" it. They're just building their products on top with a lot of their own extra code as well.)
No one mentioned anything about stealing. I'm sure you didn't intend to sound entitled by being defensive about "stealing" code. Regardless no one is entitled to use anything that doesn't belong to them. If you use GPL code in your proprietary program without intending to release the source code then it is a violation of the license and a copyright infringement. Do feel free to use code in a manner that is in compliance of its license.
3-clause BSD for small utilities, library function or scripts that are pretty much feature complete. It has the disclaimers and lets others used the code as they see fit without worrying about disclosing their source code.
GPL v.3 for code that are meant for open-source projects. It keeps the source code available and encourages others to contribute. I find that people are less likely to contribute if there is even a slight chance that someone else could make a commercial product out of it and keep the modifications to themselves.
The overwhelming bulk of my code is public-domain due to work requirements.
Agree. I haven't told my coworker who is from a MacOS (not to be confused with OS X) background about the wheel click since he was apprehensive about "right-clicks". I didn't want blow his mind.
If you read the article you would have found out that the "interns" were actually unpaid workers. From the article: "The judge noted that these internships did not foster an educational environment and that the studio received the benefits of the work." The judge correctly ruled that Fox Searchlight Pictures did not followed the criteria laid out by the U.S. Department of Labor. (You didn't even have to read the article - it's in the summary too). The criteria linked above is a good read btw.
It's about damn time the government went after the abuse. It doesn't affect our interns since (1) they are paid a stipend and (2) it is actually educational and benefits them way more than us. We use interns to foster growth in research. The movie industry use interns for free labor.
The time recorded in the onboard diagnostics (OBD) is relative anyway and all that is needed is to calculate the difference between the OBD's current time and the actual time. Once that is done, they can extrapolate the correct time of deployment. Assuming that the OBD recorded the event in the first place.
I've been lucky. I haven't had a fender bender severe enough to cause the airbags to deploy. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't deploy in a majority of accidents.
Doesn't always matter entirely. If the victim of a car accident was breaking the law, but driving fine, he could still be in trouble. We had an incident in town where everyone who saw the wreck was pointing at one person as being at fault, but the guy who got hit was drunk. Guess who got cuffs?
There is a good chance that the correct person at fault was noted on the accident report. Regardless of the cause of the accident, the drunk was still breaking the law and needed to be arrested.
They'll just get the logs from the carrier by subpoena which is what they should be doing in the first place. Unless you were the only person in the car, they will also have to prove that you used the phone while driving.
The law is totally worthless and up for abuse. First they would need to establish an accurate time when the accident took place. I'm sure an accurate time will be recorded while they wait the 10 minutes for the police to arrive. Better not use the phone after the accident, they may think that the call or text happened just prior to the accident and it would be up to you to prove otherwise (e.g. "I usually call may insurance agent AFTER an auto accident").
Yet another case of the 4th amendment being torn to shreds: DNA and now possible call records all without a warrant!
I guess you didn't see the part about the two Thunderbolt 2 expansion ports? There are enclosures available that offer PCIe expansion using Thunderbolt and 20Gb/s is more than enough to support PCIe 4.0's 16GT/s (which is roughly 16 Gb/s since PCIe is a 8 to 10 bit symbol system).
The hippies chose the city of San Francisco here in California and now it's one of the most liberal cities in the United States.
If you look at presidential election results since 1916, you'd notice that the plurality of the population of San Francisco have voted for a Democrat 21 out of 25 presidential elections with 19 of them being a clear majority of the votes (over 52%). Since this is almost a hundred years of voting, I don't see San Francisco ever being right-leaning during your lifetime.
If anything it shows that, when it comes to moving to a new community, people will choose a community that reflects their own personal views. The Free Staters are going against that trend by purposely moving to an area with the intent of changing that community's political landscape.
And the left hasn't done the same sorts of things in other places, notably in California?
Wait. I thought California was always left leaning. So I don't get your point.
Getting enough people who vote a certain way so as to consolidate political power in a particular area or state has long been a tactic employed or at least taken advantage of by the left, so why should we criticize these Americans for moving, as is their right, to a state of their choice in order to concentrate their voting power?
Let me introduce you to a very old concept called gerrymandering. It was used in Texas by the Tom DeLay in 2003 keep Texas republican base in power. It is also used in Alabama extensively to keep the democrat leaning urban areas in as few a districts as possible while giving the republican rural areas more seats in the state house of representatives. I find your assertion that somehow only the left is involved with this tactic laughable. If you consider that state lines are fixed and the Senate is almost always split down the middle between democrats and republicans, yet the House of Representatives whose seats are based on districts that are drawn every 10 years (or less) by the local party in power have disproportionate number of republicans to democrats.
Your statement is a prime example of why the US political system is so dysfunctional. Everything that is wrong is always the fault of the other side of the political spectrum and your side would never stoop to that level of shenanigans. There is never any room for compromise because the risk of making the opposing party look good is too great regardless of how it would benefit your actual constituents. The entire congress is filled with politicians who are hellbent on keeping their jobs and will do anything to keep it like creating a fiction that the other party is evil and you must keep the incumbent in place to keep that evil party in check. The sooner you stop only looking at the political party symbol next to the candidate's name and actually look at the bills they voted on, the better off this country will become.
There's a huge difference between not wanting to wear a seatbelt and not wanting to be forced to wear a seatbelt. I wear a helmet on my motorcycle, but I'm happy I'm not required to do so by law.
There is a huge difference between being totally responsible for your own actions and placing the burdens of your actions on your community. While you may not be required to wear a helmet (yet), you are free to get emergency medical care regardless of your ability to pay. This usually leads to the hospital having to make up for the expense by charging more to people who are able to afford care.
Now if we lived in a society where you are free to accept the risk of riding without a helmet and your inability to pay resulted in your lifeless corpse being left on the side of the road for garbage collection then I'd say you have a point. I think you will find that having the law require a helmet to be worn while riding a motorcycle at all times would be unnecessary since more people would actually consider their personal risk and the ones that don't would be eliminated by attrition.
Their definition of 'Liberty' is to submit to group think. They pretend that you are free to vote as you want (wink wink) but the idea is to transplant 20,000 libertarians into New Hampshire and introduce their political beliefs into that state. If you read the FAQ, you will notice that they don't consider current residents of New Hampshire as full members (they are allowed to subscribe to the newsletter). They do everything they can to not openly declare their intent since they don't want to be considered a political organization. They assume that the 20,000 members (i.e. artificially introduced voting block) will vote for the Libertarian candidate within the voting district that all 20,000 members agreed to reside.
The ability of a long time residents to continue to have their desired form of local government is not included in this group's definition of 'liberty'.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually... git fits the workflow better than svn. I have to manage a project that spans multiple institutions and two continents. Instead of forcing everyone to use VPN while they develop, they only need to use VPN to push to the official repository.
What? I use SourceTree on OS X and my coworkers on Windows like TortoiseGit. Also there is "git gui"
What? I don't think you understand how git works.
Not necessarily. We use both svn and git to manage very large BLOBs and I haven't seen any noticeable differences. I have people that version control gigabytes worth of design documents that are stored in binary format and I haven't heard any complaints from them.
We used to think this was a big deal, but the advantages that git has over svn more than made up for this.
What? First not by default. The most popular method https+ssh does not. You can use Crowd to make it a little easier.
Whereas in git I use gitolite. I manage their public keys and assign privileges based on the public key. Keep the NDA (or more importantly ITAR) in a separate git repository which makes life easier all around and satisfies the regulators too. They weren't too comfortable with trusting the single repository to handle the compartmentation correctly.
I operate both SVN and GIT systems. My anecdotal evidence show that most of my projects left SVN and went with GIT due to its distributive nature. We have operational processes in place that eliminates the need for physical enforcement of a centralized repository. As an extra bonus, my co-developers like the ability to check in while they develop and then push the changes once they are confident that it won't break the build on the official repository.
If they freely give all their information to an unknown corporation in exchange for game within Facebook or a cool feature on a smart phone, does it really matter if the NSA was included in the disclosure?
Too long; Don't really care anymore... that ship sailed.
People volunteer all their personal information to Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc...
I think the NSA part of his comment was suppose to be humorous due to the meat of his argument being:
Which couldn't be any more obvious.
I'm not convinced that the "Microsoft Store" will be any better. It may be better for a short while, but soon the mini-store will be manned with the same retail people that couldn't answer a simply question about a HP laptop.
They did a similar thing for Apple. I don't know why BestBuy changing its floor plan is newsworthy.
Next thing you know they may have a game section with all the Xbox related stuff separated from the Playstation and Wii stuff, or better yet have a mobile phone store within a store... oh wait.
I believe the biggest problem Apple has with GPLv3 was that they couldn't use their signing keys at least this is the reason someone gave for dropping Samba.
Not a shock but also not relevant to my coworker.
Let me clarify:
The reason I picked GPL for my open source projects is because I want the code remain open and the modifications to remain available to the project. The extra benefit being that people are more likely to contribute to the project because they also won't have to worry about their work being used for some commercial package without the modifications being contributed back to the authors.
Nothing wrong with other licenses for OSS projects. I personally use 3-clause BSD on work that I really don't expect any contributions from and I have made contributions to other BSD licensed projects. That said, if someone wants to use my GPLed code and not have to contribute anything back then they are free to go elsewhere for similar code that has a license favorable to them.
No one mentioned anything about stealing. I'm sure you didn't intend to sound entitled by being defensive about "stealing" code. Regardless no one is entitled to use anything that doesn't belong to them. If you use GPL code in your proprietary program without intending to release the source code then it is a violation of the license and a copyright infringement. Do feel free to use code in a manner that is in compliance of its license.
3-clause BSD for small utilities, library function or scripts that are pretty much feature complete. It has the disclaimers and lets others used the code as they see fit without worrying about disclosing their source code.
GPL v.3 for code that are meant for open-source projects. It keeps the source code available and encourages others to contribute. I find that people are less likely to contribute if there is even a slight chance that someone else could make a commercial product out of it and keep the modifications to themselves.
The overwhelming bulk of my code is public-domain due to work requirements.
Hey a cool new "feature"! It adds a new dimension to disembarkation.
Agree. I haven't told my coworker who is from a MacOS (not to be confused with OS X) background about the wheel click since he was apprehensive about "right-clicks". I didn't want blow his mind.
If you read the article you would have found out that the "interns" were actually unpaid workers. From the article: "The judge noted that these internships did not foster an educational environment and that the studio received the benefits of the work." The judge correctly ruled that Fox Searchlight Pictures did not followed the criteria laid out by the U.S. Department of Labor. (You didn't even have to read the article - it's in the summary too). The criteria linked above is a good read btw.
It's about damn time the government went after the abuse. It doesn't affect our interns since (1) they are paid a stipend and (2) it is actually educational and benefits them way more than us. We use interns to foster growth in research. The movie industry use interns for free labor.
Unlike slaves, Interns actually choose to become interns.
The time recorded in the onboard diagnostics (OBD) is relative anyway and all that is needed is to calculate the difference between the OBD's current time and the actual time. Once that is done, they can extrapolate the correct time of deployment. Assuming that the OBD recorded the event in the first place.
I've been lucky. I haven't had a fender bender severe enough to cause the airbags to deploy. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't deploy in a majority of accidents.
There is a good chance that the correct person at fault was noted on the accident report. Regardless of the cause of the accident, the drunk was still breaking the law and needed to be arrested.
They'll just get the logs from the carrier by subpoena which is what they should be doing in the first place. Unless you were the only person in the car, they will also have to prove that you used the phone while driving.
The law is totally worthless and up for abuse. First they would need to establish an accurate time when the accident took place. I'm sure an accurate time will be recorded while they wait the 10 minutes for the police to arrive. Better not use the phone after the accident, they may think that the call or text happened just prior to the accident and it would be up to you to prove otherwise (e.g. "I usually call may insurance agent AFTER an auto accident").
Yet another case of the 4th amendment being torn to shreds: DNA and now possible call records all without a warrant!
I guess you didn't see the part about the two Thunderbolt 2 expansion ports? There are enclosures available that offer PCIe expansion using Thunderbolt and 20Gb/s is more than enough to support PCIe 4.0's 16GT/s (which is roughly 16 Gb/s since PCIe is a 8 to 10 bit symbol system).
Maybe. However the helmetless rider that survives will more likely be the one with the more costly medical procedures.
If you look at presidential election results since 1916, you'd notice that the plurality of the population of San Francisco have voted for a Democrat 21 out of 25 presidential elections with 19 of them being a clear majority of the votes (over 52%). Since this is almost a hundred years of voting, I don't see San Francisco ever being right-leaning during your lifetime.
If anything it shows that, when it comes to moving to a new community, people will choose a community that reflects their own personal views. The Free Staters are going against that trend by purposely moving to an area with the intent of changing that community's political landscape.
Wait. I thought California was always left leaning. So I don't get your point.
Let me introduce you to a very old concept called gerrymandering. It was used in Texas by the Tom DeLay in 2003 keep Texas republican base in power. It is also used in Alabama extensively to keep the democrat leaning urban areas in as few a districts as possible while giving the republican rural areas more seats in the state house of representatives. I find your assertion that somehow only the left is involved with this tactic laughable. If you consider that state lines are fixed and the Senate is almost always split down the middle between democrats and republicans, yet the House of Representatives whose seats are based on districts that are drawn every 10 years (or less) by the local party in power have disproportionate number of republicans to democrats.
Your statement is a prime example of why the US political system is so dysfunctional. Everything that is wrong is always the fault of the other side of the political spectrum and your side would never stoop to that level of shenanigans. There is never any room for compromise because the risk of making the opposing party look good is too great regardless of how it would benefit your actual constituents. The entire congress is filled with politicians who are hellbent on keeping their jobs and will do anything to keep it like creating a fiction that the other party is evil and you must keep the incumbent in place to keep that evil party in check. The sooner you stop only looking at the political party symbol next to the candidate's name and actually look at the bills they voted on, the better off this country will become.
There is a huge difference between being totally responsible for your own actions and placing the burdens of your actions on your community. While you may not be required to wear a helmet (yet), you are free to get emergency medical care regardless of your ability to pay. This usually leads to the hospital having to make up for the expense by charging more to people who are able to afford care.
Now if we lived in a society where you are free to accept the risk of riding without a helmet and your inability to pay resulted in your lifeless corpse being left on the side of the road for garbage collection then I'd say you have a point. I think you will find that having the law require a helmet to be worn while riding a motorcycle at all times would be unnecessary since more people would actually consider their personal risk and the ones that don't would be eliminated by attrition.
Their definition of 'Liberty' is to submit to group think. They pretend that you are free to vote as you want (wink wink) but the idea is to transplant 20,000 libertarians into New Hampshire and introduce their political beliefs into that state. If you read the FAQ, you will notice that they don't consider current residents of New Hampshire as full members (they are allowed to subscribe to the newsletter). They do everything they can to not openly declare their intent since they don't want to be considered a political organization. They assume that the 20,000 members (i.e. artificially introduced voting block) will vote for the Libertarian candidate within the voting district that all 20,000 members agreed to reside.
The ability of a long time residents to continue to have their desired form of local government is not included in this group's definition of 'liberty'.
Agree.