You're exactly right. From a management perspective, that's exactly what should be done. Problem is that management in this case doesn't have total control over it's own people, making an exceutive decision relatively impossible.
Anyway it's not dissimilar to the factions and dissent occuring in any corporation at periods of massive growth.
Actually a significant difference is that in a corporation, the decision ultimately comes down to a single decision maker that says, "My way or the highway." There is no forking.
That's exactly how it works from the DEVELOPER end. From the USER end it works like this:
1. Cool tool. And it's free? Sure, I'll play with it for a while.
2. I've been using it for a while. No big problems that I can see. Maybe I should consider deploying this at work.
3. Oh, wait, it's splitting into 5 versions, and they're each a bit different? How do I know which one to go with? Which one will survive and which ones will die off?
4. Hell, there's just too much risk. I'll just stick with the ol' proprietary standby. It may not be the best, but at least we won't be stuck up shit creek without a paddle with this one. It's worth spending a bit of money just to know that we're getting a product that'll still exist in a few years.
If you don't care about users, then sure, fork away. You don't care about users now, so you won't care when they leave your projects in droves.
Now, the customers are PHB's thinking about maybe doing an enterprise deployment of firefox. But, they will now be worried that if the foundation that backs it splits up, there will be no further development and it will stagnate. You and I both that's not true, but PHB's aren't like you or I, they don't possess common sense, they are like scared springboks being chased by an,in this case imaginary, lion.
Oh right. Open Source projects never die. I forgot. Hell, the Netscape browser died on the vine just a few years ago. Management is going to be (rightly) thinking, "Is this going to be another Netscape dud, if it splits? Shouldn't I just be safe and stick with something that definitely will be supportable a few years down the road, like IE?"
Aren't these kinds of problems going on with most projects, including proprietry software projects?
No. That's the benefit of proprietary software. One entity owns it and controls it. If somebody wants to do their own version of proprietary software, they'll be prompty sued and shut down. There is no code forking in proprietary software. If there is, then the project manager/owner is generally promptly canned. Hence, there's ONE recent version of IE, ONE of Quickbooks, ONE of just about every proprietary app out there.
This is a HUGE problem that scares many people away (including myself and my business) from open source. I won't deploy Linux in our business, because compatibility is so difficult between versions, versions come and go so quickly (Red Hat was releasing new full versions every 6 months before they dumped their personal version). People who are using software for more than just a hobby want STABILITY, and code forks are the exact opposite of stability. If Firefox forks, that'll severely damage any credibility that Firefox once had.
First off, if Linux only took an hour to install and to get working properly, you'd have tons and tons of Linux users (including myself).
Secondly, no, companies selling Linux products for PPC doesn't have any impact on whether or not this is an "obscure hobby". There are companies that do nothing but cater to obhscure hobbyists, and just the existence of a company doesn't indicate whether it's successful (remember the dot-com boom a few years ago)?
Yes, there are a handful of comments about people wanting to do it, but again, none say WHY other than "it'd be cool". I'm honestly curious as to why somebody would delibritely do this. This sounds like masochism of the higest order. Like I said in an earlier post, it sounds like somebody who buys a Ferrari and switches out the engine for a four cylinder Chevy made engine. It makes -zero- sense to me. If that makes me a troll, then yes, I'm a troll because I don't understand why in the hell anybody would but a half-assed Linux install on overpriced MAC hardware (which, without the OS, amounts to overpriced generic PC hardware these days).
OK, so my post got modded a troll. I guess Slashdot never changes... but I'm curious... can a single person give one single good reason to install Linux onto a Mac? I've read every post, and not a single one mentions why somebody would do this.
Who in their right mind would run a generic Linux instead of OS X? I thought that the whole point of OS X was to be a usable form of Linux/BSD?
I personally, can't wait. This is the worst of both worlds! The usability (lack thereof) of Linux, and the astronomical pricing of Apple. Jesus, you'd have to be either 1. an idiot or 2. a masochist to buy a Mac and install Linux on it. This might be fun for a hobbyist with lots and lots of extra time and money, but that's all Linux on a Mac will ever be: an obscure hobby.
If it's slander, then "Linux" can sue, just like any other industry. The problem is who would sue these vendors, but hey, that's one of the big drawbacks to Open Source. The facts are largely irrelevant. This is marketing.
If a criminal gives a small proportion of his ill-gotten gains to good causes, does he deserve an award?
I can only assume that the silly "anti-trust" thing is what you're referring to. So I have a question for you:
Do you know of a single person in the United States that is not a "criminal" as you so loosely define it? I know I'm a criminal. I speed in my car every day.
Re:The Problem With XML
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I've got some XML files from a 3rd party app that I use quite heavily that are pretty impossible to decipher, even with the silly "descriptors". If you've got some extra time, you can try to prove me wrong by deciphering these nasty things. It's just as easy (if not easier) to use a delimited file, with the first line of the file being the descriptions of the data.
Even with the "descriptors", you still have to know how the data is laid out. It adds a ton of overhead, with, as far as I have been able to tell, little benefit. Hence, everything I program is still in good ol' comma (or some other character) delimited, without all of the XML fluff.
Maybe they're interested in being the target of a libel lawsuit? Maybe Slashdot is interested in removing any scrap of jounalistic integrity that could possibly still exist? Who knows?
It goes further than that. Firefox isn't even a "program loader". It's an application. Period. It's not an OS any more than my shoe is an operating system. This was, quite frankly, a very stupid interview question (which are rare).
This is a great idea. Actually, companies like Google and MS and Yahoo could hire the legions of unemployed dot-commers who keep refusing to get a new job/career and let them do it. Sure, every search would take a minute or so, but the results would be great, and all of the dot-commers could go back to the cube life they so enjoyed.
So then, really, this is nothing new, just a new package made by marketing as a new way of selling accessories that have been on the market for years? And why is this being advertised as a "story" on Slashdot? I don't remember reading about Tide's new 64 oz bottle, with New Easy To Pour Handle (tm)
I find it ironic that Slashdot is always slamming software patents, when at the same time, in their company's 10Q and 10K statements, they're discussing how they are going to profit from creating and defending software patents. Beautiful.
I've got to ask, as a beta tester, didn't you sign a NDA? I beta test several software applications, but I can't talk about any kind of details about the applications until they hit the market officially.
I agree... how in the hell is TCP/IP going to be faster than going to memory? This kind of sounds like a cross between "Cold-Fusion-will-change-the-world" hype and "Make-everything-Internet-based" hype to me.
Does that mean that they used all stolen credit cards and "frozen" account assets to pay for this ridiculous thing? That gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...
I, for one, am impressed that a company like Motorola is doing product development with a technology that is largely dead. Bluetooth has been largely irrelevant for what... forever? It never took off except in a few specialized geek gadgets, and last I checkced, even geeks were calling Bluetooth dead at least a year ago. What's up with this? What are we going to see next? A brand new gadget using VHS tapes?
This is GREAT news from a qualified source! A guy who is a programmer dabbles with a 10 year old technology for a few days, and this is news?? You gotta be kidding me.
I happen to be an expert in PL/SQL development, and this weekend, I looked at COBOL, and guess what... it's hard!/. articles are getting ridiculously bad, recently.
I love it when clueless newbies seem to think that they have more business acumen then the people who started with nothing and created the largest software company in the world in less than 20 years. So you just keep on writing those letters to Bill Gates and the other management detailing your stunning business insight, that, if only they would follow, would make them into a successful company, and I'm sure they'll keep throwing them away.
Slashdot Mirror
You're exactly right. From a management perspective, that's exactly what should be done. Problem is that management in this case doesn't have total control over it's own people, making an exceutive decision relatively impossible.
Anyway it's not dissimilar to the factions and dissent occuring in any corporation at periods of massive growth.
Actually a significant difference is that in a corporation, the decision ultimately comes down to a single decision maker that says, "My way or the highway." There is no forking.
That's exactly how it works from the DEVELOPER end. From the USER end it works like this:
1. Cool tool. And it's free? Sure, I'll play with it for a while.
2. I've been using it for a while. No big problems that I can see. Maybe I should consider deploying this at work.
3. Oh, wait, it's splitting into 5 versions, and they're each a bit different? How do I know which one to go with? Which one will survive and which ones will die off?
4. Hell, there's just too much risk. I'll just stick with the ol' proprietary standby. It may not be the best, but at least we won't be stuck up shit creek without a paddle with this one. It's worth spending a bit of money just to know that we're getting a product that'll still exist in a few years.
If you don't care about users, then sure, fork away. You don't care about users now, so you won't care when they leave your projects in droves.
Now, the customers are PHB's thinking about maybe doing an enterprise deployment of firefox. But, they will now be worried that if the foundation that backs it splits up, there will be no further development and it will stagnate. You and I both that's not true, but PHB's aren't like you or I, they don't possess common sense, they are like scared springboks being chased by an ,in this case imaginary, lion.
Oh right. Open Source projects never die. I forgot. Hell, the Netscape browser died on the vine just a few years ago. Management is going to be (rightly) thinking, "Is this going to be another Netscape dud, if it splits? Shouldn't I just be safe and stick with something that definitely will be supportable a few years down the road, like IE?"
Aren't these kinds of problems going on with most projects, including proprietry software projects?
No. That's the benefit of proprietary software. One entity owns it and controls it. If somebody wants to do their own version of proprietary software, they'll be prompty sued and shut down. There is no code forking in proprietary software. If there is, then the project manager/owner is generally promptly canned. Hence, there's ONE recent version of IE, ONE of Quickbooks, ONE of just about every proprietary app out there.
This is a HUGE problem that scares many people away (including myself and my business) from open source. I won't deploy Linux in our business, because compatibility is so difficult between versions, versions come and go so quickly (Red Hat was releasing new full versions every 6 months before they dumped their personal version). People who are using software for more than just a hobby want STABILITY, and code forks are the exact opposite of stability. If Firefox forks, that'll severely damage any credibility that Firefox once had.
First off, if Linux only took an hour to install and to get working properly, you'd have tons and tons of Linux users (including myself).
Secondly, no, companies selling Linux products for PPC doesn't have any impact on whether or not this is an "obscure hobby". There are companies that do nothing but cater to obhscure hobbyists, and just the existence of a company doesn't indicate whether it's successful (remember the dot-com boom a few years ago)?
Yes, there are a handful of comments about people wanting to do it, but again, none say WHY other than "it'd be cool". I'm honestly curious as to why somebody would delibritely do this. This sounds like masochism of the higest order. Like I said in an earlier post, it sounds like somebody who buys a Ferrari and switches out the engine for a four cylinder Chevy made engine. It makes -zero- sense to me. If that makes me a troll, then yes, I'm a troll because I don't understand why in the hell anybody would but a half-assed Linux install on overpriced MAC hardware (which, without the OS, amounts to overpriced generic PC hardware these days).
OK, so my post got modded a troll. I guess Slashdot never changes... but I'm curious... can a single person give one single good reason to install Linux onto a Mac? I've read every post, and not a single one mentions why somebody would do this.
Why?
Specifically, why'd you pay so much for an iBook, just to get rid of the one thing that makes it valuable: the OS?
Why in the hell would you run Linux instead of OSX?
To me, that sounds like somebody who buys a Ferrari, then swaps out the engine for a Chevy 4 cylinder. It makes no sense, whatsoever.
Who in their right mind would run a generic Linux instead of OS X? I thought that the whole point of OS X was to be a usable form of Linux/BSD?
I personally, can't wait. This is the worst of both worlds! The usability (lack thereof) of Linux, and the astronomical pricing of Apple. Jesus, you'd have to be either 1. an idiot or 2. a masochist to buy a Mac and install Linux on it. This might be fun for a hobbyist with lots and lots of extra time and money, but that's all Linux on a Mac will ever be: an obscure hobby.
If it's slander, then "Linux" can sue, just like any other industry. The problem is who would sue these vendors, but hey, that's one of the big drawbacks to Open Source. The facts are largely irrelevant. This is marketing.
If a criminal gives a small proportion of his ill-gotten gains to good causes, does he deserve an award?
I can only assume that the silly "anti-trust" thing is what you're referring to. So I have a question for you:
Do you know of a single person in the United States that is not a "criminal" as you so loosely define it? I know I'm a criminal. I speed in my car every day.
Hey, I've got some XML files from a 3rd party app that I use quite heavily that are pretty impossible to decipher, even with the silly "descriptors". If you've got some extra time, you can try to prove me wrong by deciphering these nasty things. It's just as easy (if not easier) to use a delimited file, with the first line of the file being the descriptions of the data.
Even with the "descriptors", you still have to know how the data is laid out. It adds a ton of overhead, with, as far as I have been able to tell, little benefit. Hence, everything I program is still in good ol' comma (or some other character) delimited, without all of the XML fluff.
Maybe they're interested in being the target of a libel lawsuit? Maybe Slashdot is interested in removing any scrap of jounalistic integrity that could possibly still exist? Who knows?
It goes further than that. Firefox isn't even a "program loader". It's an application. Period. It's not an OS any more than my shoe is an operating system. This was, quite frankly, a very stupid interview question (which are rare).
Dude, where's my corpse?
Where's your corpse, dude?
Dude, where's my corpse?
Where's your corpse, dude?
This is a great idea. Actually, companies like Google and MS and Yahoo could hire the legions of unemployed dot-commers who keep refusing to get a new job/career and let them do it. Sure, every search would take a minute or so, but the results would be great, and all of the dot-commers could go back to the cube life they so enjoyed.
So then, really, this is nothing new, just a new package made by marketing as a new way of selling accessories that have been on the market for years? And why is this being advertised as a "story" on Slashdot? I don't remember reading about Tide's new 64 oz bottle, with New Easy To Pour Handle (tm)
I find it ironic that Slashdot is always slamming software patents, when at the same time, in their company's 10Q and 10K statements, they're discussing how they are going to profit from creating and defending software patents. Beautiful.
I've got to ask, as a beta tester, didn't you sign a NDA? I beta test several software applications, but I can't talk about any kind of details about the applications until they hit the market officially.
I agree... how in the hell is TCP/IP going to be faster than going to memory? This kind of sounds like a cross between "Cold-Fusion-will-change-the-world" hype and "Make-everything-Internet-based" hype to me.
Does that mean that they used all stolen credit cards and "frozen" account assets to pay for this ridiculous thing? That gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...
I, for one, am impressed that a company like Motorola is doing product development with a technology that is largely dead. Bluetooth has been largely irrelevant for what... forever? It never took off except in a few specialized geek gadgets, and last I checkced, even geeks were calling Bluetooth dead at least a year ago. What's up with this? What are we going to see next? A brand new gadget using VHS tapes?
This is GREAT news from a qualified source! A guy who is a programmer dabbles with a 10 year old technology for a few days, and this is news?? You gotta be kidding me.
/. articles are getting ridiculously bad, recently.
I happen to be an expert in PL/SQL development, and this weekend, I looked at COBOL, and guess what... it's hard!
I love it when clueless newbies seem to think that they have more business acumen then the people who started with nothing and created the largest software company in the world in less than 20 years. So you just keep on writing those letters to Bill Gates and the other management detailing your stunning business insight, that, if only they would follow, would make them into a successful company, and I'm sure they'll keep throwing them away.