It only takes one aspergers inflicted admin to make a good long term contributer throw their hands up in the air and say "fuck that shit". Additionally other people see this happening and decide not to get involved at all.
The fact that this issue is brough up nearly every time wikipedia is mentioned would indicate that this is a serious and obvious problem... not the editing interface. I have never heard anyone complain that "it was just so damn hard to get the text to look correct that I stopped contributing". I _have_ heard people rant about control-freak admins on a fairly regular basis.
I think the big problem, as someone mentioned, is that the people who make it to the top are the people who spend all day trolling through articles and correcting things. In other words... the people who are probably running on a lean mixture and take things just a little too seriously. The people you need admining wiki are the occasional contributers who are socially well adjusted (which is why they are "occasional" contributers.. they spend time doing other things with real people). How you achieve this I do not know.. but I think it's the answer.
People with niche interests will keep buying more if they like what they are getting. They recommend it to their friends with the same niche interest. If you are serving a small market, this is all important stuff.
The problem is that a niche market tends to be insanely profitable for a small group of people on a small scale.. but a lot less so on the large scale. As parent said, people are willing to pay for stuff that falls outside the generic porn that can be found free all over the internet... however if anything was common enough to be worth offering on a VOD service, you'd be able to find it free as well.
I agree, but what are the viable alternatives (not a snide comment, a serious question).
Your options are basically a lower level language like c++, or a really high level language like python or perl or.. ruby..
There doesn't appear to be many middle ground competitors.. probably because java was so damn good at that. It was just the right mixture of strong typing, rigid structure, and rapid development.
MySQL can die.. I don't hate it.. but I use postgres and really switching from one database to another is in most cases not entirely painful on the software side.
Java however.. there is such an investment in code and knowledge that just "moving to c++" is far from trivial.
I'm also not looking forward to the death of virtualbox.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something (which I suspect I am).
Unless I'm missing something also, it's probably the fact that a large majority of the population doesn't actually understand what the the word irony actually means.
Slashdot loves to rake on java.. but I always liked it. I don't work with it much any more, but I have fond memories.
Specifically I liked developing with it. Using it is an entirely different matter.. swing based UIs are still generally terrible. From the code side it was nice.
With their war chest of patents.. they could litigate any serious competitor into the ground.
Now whether they have any reason to do so is another question.
Personally I'd start transitioning away from Java at this point if possible/practical. It's a shame because it worked really well in a lot of situations:(
Look around... we live in a world where not just consumers, but the people who actually work with tech want stuff to "just work" without having to know how or why. Not saying this is a good thing (I happen to think it's a terrible thing), but it's a reality. People want simple lego blocks they can glue together.
I hate apple mainly due to the way they do business and their "we control all" approach and rampant fanboy-ism. I can however admit they do user friendly software quite well.
For a newbie learning how database work, they don't (initially) care about relevant indexes.. they just want a database they can start creating tables in and running queries on. I've not seen the GUI frontend for MySQL.. but if it has a "create user" and "create database" button.. it succeeds in making MySQL even simpler.
pgMyAdmin (the equivilant you speak of) is actually difficult to set up, due to the way postgres does user auth. phpMyAdmin you just drop in a directory and it works, pgMyAdmin requires a fair bit of configuration.
Additionally pgMyAdmin isn't nearly as straight forward for the same reason the command line utilities arn't. Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option.. you have to know what you want, which pretty much requires reading the same documentation, and _then_ learning how to do what you just read through a different interface.
There actually is a postgres equivilant of phpMyAdmin (or atleast, there was...). I seem to remember it being "ok".. if you are into that sorta thing;p
I wouldn't say hard (oracle is hard!).. just harder.
I agree once you get it up and running (and in my case, write a few wrapper scripts).. postgres is not any more difficult than MySQL. And it's nicer to use for sure (I like being able to rely on transactions).
It's more that there is that initial learning curve which drives newbies away.
Main different is in managing users/databases/tables.
MySQL uses a dead simple system. You have a username and password possibly linked to a hostname.. and it has some global permissions and some database specific permissions.
Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.
Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.
I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use. MySQL you can pretty much throw on a box and start using right away. This made it insanely newbie friendly (and cheap webhost admin friendly) and is probably the reason it became so prevalent.
For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.
And how, exactly, do you think that splitting up their hardware division from their software division would effect this? Why couldn't they simply continue to pick and choose which hardware they support?
Variety would worm its way into the system. Plus they would lose their precious total control over the "full user experience". And for that matter why pick and choose when you can dictate.
However my gut is telling me that this is probably going to be worse for us than better. Only reason I can think is that this is a trick to offload liability (for BP type disasters) to smaller, disposable companies. My brain just won't let me believe these guys are doing something for the good of the people.. even if indirectly.
If, for example, Apple were split into two companies, one for software, one for hardware, this would probably lead to a much richer variety of products. And, also important, more opportunities for users to tinker:)
Much as I hate apple, the tie in that have with software and hardware is one of the advantages they have over PC from (most) consumer perspectives. The operating system works nearly perfectly with the hardware because they define the hardware. They don't have to deal with a bazillion unique configurations.. only a few that they've chosen.
Apple splitting up this way would be a mistake on their part.
And I think what we draw from this is that in a lot of cases (especially cases where things are evolving) there is an advantage of being a big blob. I think where it makes sense to split something up is when the components stop evolving significantly (which may at this point be the case with oil). When a widget just becomes a widget, it makes sense.
What I got from the article is that one really big company is becoming two merely large companies for market purposes. How does this impact any of us down here?
I was however relieved that this wasn't another "year of the electric car" type article and it had a fair amount of substance!
I generally agree. I still think open source is good for security for other reasons... but operating under the assumption that _someone_ has gone through the code of whatever (even extremely popular) software you are using line by line with a fine tooth comb is just silly.
That said, in this case, the "source" they are talking about actually just generates more source (yy files -> bison -> c files).. the c files are there.. it's the yy files that are the issue. This is why you can still compile the package.. all the source that makes it into the binary is still there..
Who have they infringed on? (not a snarky reply, I really don't know. I don't know enough about how the FSF works). This seemed more an issue of contract violation (the contract the devs have with the FSF) in which case the FSF could sue RMS? Or the one who did the merging? Could someone who downloaded the software sue the FSF?
Ugh.. my head hurts now... we need less lawyers in the world..
Slashdot Mirror
Yup!
This is definitely the core of the problem.
It only takes one aspergers inflicted admin to make a good long term contributer throw their hands up in the air and say "fuck that shit". Additionally other people see this happening and decide not to get involved at all.
The fact that this issue is brough up nearly every time wikipedia is mentioned would indicate that this is a serious and obvious problem ... not the editing interface. I have never heard anyone complain that "it was just so damn hard to get the text to look correct that I stopped contributing". I _have_ heard people rant about control-freak admins on a fairly regular basis.
I think the big problem, as someone mentioned, is that the people who make it to the top are the people who spend all day trolling through articles and correcting things. In other words... the people who are probably running on a lean mixture and take things just a little too seriously. The people you need admining wiki are the occasional contributers who are socially well adjusted (which is why they are "occasional" contributers.. they spend time doing other things with real people). How you achieve this I do not know.. but I think it's the answer.
Problem with that is you lose repeat business.
People with niche interests will keep buying more if they like what they are getting. They recommend it to their friends with the same niche interest. If you are serving a small market, this is all important stuff.
The problem is that a niche market tends to be insanely profitable for a small group of people on a small scale .. but a lot less so on the large scale. As parent said, people are willing to pay for stuff that falls outside the generic porn that can be found free all over the internet... however if anything was common enough to be worth offering on a VOD service, you'd be able to find it free as well.
I agree, but what are the viable alternatives (not a snide comment, a serious question).
Your options are basically a lower level language like c++, or a really high level language like python or perl or.. ruby..
There doesn't appear to be many middle ground competitors.. probably because java was so damn good at that. It was just the right mixture of strong typing, rigid structure, and rapid development.
MySQL can die .. I don't hate it.. but I use postgres and really switching from one database to another is in most cases not entirely painful on the software side.
Java however .. there is such an investment in code and knowledge that just "moving to c++" is far from trivial.
I'm also not looking forward to the death of virtualbox.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if oracle bought sun just for their IP .. so the could sue the shit outa google.
Java and soon MySQL are just collateral damage.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something (which I suspect I am).
Unless I'm missing something also, it's probably the fact that a large majority of the population doesn't actually understand what the the word irony actually means.
Slashdot loves to rake on java.. but I always liked it. I don't work with it much any more, but I have fond memories.
Specifically I liked developing with it. Using it is an entirely different matter.. swing based UIs are still generally terrible. From the code side it was nice.
Fork the darn thing and see who lives.
With their war chest of patents.. they could litigate any serious competitor into the ground.
Now whether they have any reason to do so is another question.
Personally I'd start transitioning away from Java at this point if possible/practical. It's a shame because it worked really well in a lot of situations :(
I wouldn't .. lots would!
Look around... we live in a world where not just consumers, but the people who actually work with tech want stuff to "just work" without having to know how or why. Not saying this is a good thing (I happen to think it's a terrible thing), but it's a reality. People want simple lego blocks they can glue together.
That actually looks decent.. I might check it out!
I hate apple mainly due to the way they do business and their "we control all" approach and rampant fanboy-ism. I can however admit they do user friendly software quite well.
For a newbie learning how database work, they don't (initially) care about relevant indexes .. they just want a database they can start creating tables in and running queries on. I've not seen the GUI frontend for MySQL .. but if it has a "create user" and "create database" button.. it succeeds in making MySQL even simpler.
pgMyAdmin (the equivilant you speak of) is actually difficult to set up, due to the way postgres does user auth. phpMyAdmin you just drop in a directory and it works, pgMyAdmin requires a fair bit of configuration.
Additionally pgMyAdmin isn't nearly as straight forward for the same reason the command line utilities arn't. Postgres doesn't have a "just give me a damn database" option .. you have to know what you want, which pretty much requires reading the same documentation, and _then_ learning how to do what you just read through a different interface.
There actually is a postgres equivilant of phpMyAdmin (or atleast, there was...). I seem to remember it being "ok" .. if you are into that sorta thing ;p
I wouldn't say hard (oracle is hard!) .. just harder.
I agree once you get it up and running (and in my case, write a few wrapper scripts) .. postgres is not any more difficult than MySQL. And it's nicer to use for sure (I like being able to rely on transactions).
It's more that there is that initial learning curve which drives newbies away.
* new database
Installation is nothing as you said...
Main different is in managing users/databases/tables.
MySQL uses a dead simple system. You have a username and password possibly linked to a hostname.. and it has some global permissions and some database specific permissions.
Postgres has a much more robust (and as a result considerably more complicated) security setup.Authentication can happen through one or many different means.. most of which require a little configuration and more importantly you need to know they exist/how they work! This also complicates connecting to the database.
Additionally where MySQL has an ultra friendly console app with built in help for creating users and databases.. postgres has a series of scripts. The default way ot creating a new table is to copy one from a provided template (called template1). Again, this is all stuff you need to learn before doing. Someone can run the mysql command, run help, see "CREATE DATABASE" and kinda go from there. To use postgres you need to know that this template exists, how to use it, and what the hell you are actually doing... and then you need to figure out how to control who has acess to it.
I just wish it was a little more user friendly. That was the one thing MySQL had going for it.. dead simple to use and admin.. and I imagine Apple's frontend probably made it even more so. Postgres isn’t as bad as oracle (by a long shot) but it certainly requires a little background reading to use. MySQL you can pretty much throw on a box and start using right away. This made it insanely newbie friendly (and cheap webhost admin friendly) and is probably the reason it became so prevalent.
For the record I’m no fan of Apple and I think using apple as a server is insane but I actually agree with Apple on this one.
And how, exactly, do you think that splitting up their hardware division from their software division would effect this? Why couldn't they simply continue to pick and choose which hardware they support?
Variety would worm its way into the system. Plus they would lose their precious total control over the "full user experience". And for that matter why pick and choose when you can dictate.
Hmm, that's a good point :)
However my gut is telling me that this is probably going to be worse for us than better. Only reason I can think is that this is a trick to offload liability (for BP type disasters) to smaller, disposable companies. My brain just won't let me believe these guys are doing something for the good of the people.. even if indirectly.
Probably for the best, that would get torn to shreds.
Public key crypto don't work like that ;p
If, for example, Apple were split into two companies, one for software, one for hardware, this would probably lead to a much richer variety of products. And, also important, more opportunities for users to tinker :)
Much as I hate apple, the tie in that have with software and hardware is one of the advantages they have over PC from (most) consumer perspectives. The operating system works nearly perfectly with the hardware because they define the hardware. They don't have to deal with a bazillion unique configurations.. only a few that they've chosen.
Apple splitting up this way would be a mistake on their part.
And I think what we draw from this is that in a lot of cases (especially cases where things are evolving) there is an advantage of being a big blob. I think where it makes sense to split something up is when the components stop evolving significantly (which may at this point be the case with oil). When a widget just becomes a widget, it makes sense.
to anyone besides investors?
What I got from the article is that one really big company is becoming two merely large companies for market purposes. How does this impact any of us down here?
I was however relieved that this wasn't another "year of the electric car" type article and it had a fair amount of substance!
I generally agree. I still think open source is good for security for other reasons... but operating under the assumption that _someone_ has gone through the code of whatever (even extremely popular) software you are using line by line with a fine tooth comb is just silly.
That said, in this case, the "source" they are talking about actually just generates more source (yy files -> bison -> c files) .. the c files are there.. it's the yy files that are the issue. This is why you can still compile the package .. all the source that makes it into the binary is still there..
Who have they infringed on? (not a snarky reply, I really don't know. I don't know enough about how the FSF works). This seemed more an issue of contract violation (the contract the devs have with the FSF) in which case the FSF could sue RMS? Or the one who did the merging? Could someone who downloaded the software sue the FSF?
Ugh.. my head hurts now... we need less lawyers in the world ..