"Well as someone who's looking to implement Unix servers and not to write things, I'm not sure I care how hard it is for a newbie to jump into kernel hacking."
You should. From your description, you are on sysadmining (or, even worse, managing sysadmins). Once you go onto the greatness of open source, you are *doomed* to hack something, someday, either bugfixing or to fit specs. But you are not there to write things, so you -again, are *doomed* to be a newbie at it when the turn comes. So much better if it's easy for newbies to jump into it because that's exactly what you will be.
"So... the point you are trying to make is that a 3 or 4 year old OS with a SP doesnt support as much as your fresh Ubuntu download?"
The point is that when you don't have hardware support from your vendor, you are out of luck, be it XP or Ubuntu.
On one hand, I think there's a "slight" difference between XP and Ubuntu that makes it apples-to-oranges comparation: You take two persons that installed 3 o 4 year ago XP and Ubuntu and see, the XP install becomes a 3 or 4 year old OS today, while the Ubuntu installation is still a current OS; quite an interesting difference (and if you are going to say "Ubuntu is not 3 or 4 years old, take Debian or any other: my computer is growing old but still has an up to date easy to upgrade system and so will be for the time being. XP users? Bad luck; if they want to stay current, they'll need a new license and a non-hassle-free upgrade to Vista -provided their hardware is able to move it). On the other, you have problems with XP because it is "a 3 or 4 year old OS", but then you have hardware and software support problems on Vista *too*, maybe because it is a "too current OS", what the f*?
"The Ubuntu names are branded and visible in the OS after release,"
I challenge your assertion. Please go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and tell where do you see the "feisty fauns and friends". All I can see is "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" and "Ubuntu Server Edition". The "Download Now!" button friendly explains me I'll go for "Ubuntu 7.04 The power of free software. On your laptop, desktop and server. Smart. Secure. Easy". They go further and explain me how long Ubuntu 7.04 and/or Ubuntu 6.06 LTS will be supported.
But then, they have a "search" box. If I explicitly intro "feisty" on it all references are about test releases or clearly indicate it as a nickname after the release number (just like you'll find Microsoft Windows XP "Whistler" or Microsoft Windows Vista "Longhorn").
On the other hand, I don't remember seing the codename neither on Ubuntu's installer nor on the default desktop.
"In contrast, the Microsoft OSes contain no official mention of their codenames after public release"
The truth is that Ubuntu makes no more "official mention" to their distribution's codenames nor they are any more "intended to be used in any official capacity" than Microsoft's.
"For a server it hardly matters which distribution you use."
How can anyone say such a thing? On a desktop? Yeah, it really doesn't matter which distribution you use. All of them leave place enough to tweak it and get the result you wanted. And even if it's more work than expected/wanted, you just weep it out and start again, no problem.
But a server? Once you deploy a server you usually have to stand for it for three or more years; any minor unsuitability gets then multiplied; and it's no fun to redeploy a complex system a lot of people depends on, so you are in all practicality tied to it.
I do sysadmining for a living, and I know I usually don't care too much about my desktop distribution as long as it has the tools I usually manage (and I'd say almost anyone would fit that goal). But I know there are hugh differences regarding which OS (which Linux distribution, in this case) the servers run.
"As to the release names, he may or may not choose those. It would be interesting to really know."
Maybe it would be interesting for a f* retard. Anyone else already knows that Shuttleworth's answer if he thought that Ubuntu's naming conventions are hurting his bussiness plans wouldn't be "but, what can I do? after all, I only fund the project!"
I'm going right now to start a model using my Rational Rose, which I'll feed with a lot of to-the-point data from Google, taking advantage of the synergies only my shiny Longhorn OS can give, so no valid idea is lost through the Windows.
Uh... And I somehow will use a mouse to tame all that power at my fingertips.
"But I'm not sure I follow your Scientology analogy. Don't they mostly sue for copyright infringement?"
Sure. But I bet that's because they sue mostly to fair play people. Think about it: I can say "Scientiology is crackpotery"; then they might sue me for defamation and I probably would earn it. But then I could say "Scientiology is crackpotery because [here citation that shows how crackpots they are]". That's what any sane one would do in that case: show the elements that sustain your opinion. But obviously, in this case the proveable facts must be citations of their written works/opinions and that would make (in their opinion) copyright infringement, so there they go.
"Bad example. Placing an item into the mouth of a person who is having a seizure is a potentially fatal mistake. They can swallow it or chip their teeth on a spoon"
And that's exactly why it is a *good* example. You did a harm, still you went legally untouched because you can argue both good intentions and ignorance.
There's no need for a law to protect you in case you are trying to do something (legally percieved as) good and indeed you achieve something (legally percieved as) good!
"What happens in the large corporate is, devs end up keeping their "working copy" of the code on their local machine because"
Because they usually don't know the tool or the tool's potential.
"if they just checked their experimental/broken stuff in, other devs would complain"
I've been working both on Subversion and CVS (among others) and never experienced it. Why? Maybe because I knew about the use of the tool; about how to deploy "this_is_head" moving tags and how to properly use branches, so one developer's experiments doesn't break other's work and still they are "near enough" to main development lines to merge frecuently as needed (and no, abandoned branches were not a problem since they can be pruned out when needed no more).
"Same for creating branches in the central repository, if you are doing it for you own experiments you will get unpopular fast."
That's even more extraneous. Why other developers should have to give a damn about branches they don't use? Clearcase, for instance, is mostly based on the "developer branch" concept to great amount and while the product isn't the most popular among developers, it is not because the "developer branch" concept which is the one they tend to like the most.
"So what happens instead is, a dev makes changes to their checked out copy and does not check in for days or weeks at a time"
Because: a) They ignore the tools possibilities b) Their company ignore the advantages of founding proper SCM (people, tools and time) and the SCM tool manager only too often ends up being one of them, or someone without the knowledge and too overburden to do a proper work.
"then bits of this work get lost for one reason or another"
And then the proud git user's hard disk fried and his git repo is lost all the same. And then the devolper gets hit by the bus, or resigns and nobody understands what's the hell on his harddisk.
"Meanwhile, development on the trunk eventually orphans the experiment, merging is too much work"
That's just the natural outcome of a too long lived branch, no matter is you use a central or a distributed repo. It is the code the one that distances, not the tool that manages the code.
Subversion should have proper branching and merging. CVS should properly manage whole hirarchies. Both of them should properly handle deltas. But they are all limitations of the tools, not flaws on the paradigm. Surely distributed SCM has his place but centrally managed SCM has it too and it's much more important the former than the latter in corporate environments. Maybe in a future there will come a tool that will allow seemlessly for proper central or distributed SCM, and I can tell I'll be glad for it, but I can assure that the central paradigm will stay strong within corps, because that's what's needed.
"As somebody who does software for a living, i can tell you that the biggest factor in the success of a company is... business processes."
I can tell I buy all your points and I see why it has been modded insightful....Except it is *not* insightful, but quite experienced and realistic. Of course you are right about success being in people and bussiness processes. But you seem to forget the tremendous empowering IT can give to those proper people and processes. Just like a formula one pilot success is in the pilot himself but it is the car the one that will make the pilot run 200mph, which is one order of magnitude beyond the pilot's physical abilities, proper IT-driven people and processes can "run" one order of magnitude faster than without them. We saw a similar case on the first days of the Industrial Revolution when the new steam-powered machines boosted productivity, and we saw it again on the first days of computing-aided processes. It came so inbred into our productivity fibers we are almost unaware about what IT is doing for us. Just think the enormous nightmare (even impossibility) it would mean just managing the paychecks of a 20.000 employees company.
Now we see a new (probably not as big as the previous two ones) revolution: pervasiveness of very strong individual computer power and peer-to-peer comunication channels (both computer-based and "classic" telco) offer a tremendous potential to companies. Think about the fast response and flexibility of a ten people company ported to a 20.000 one; that's current IT potential. The problem is that big companies and the management practices their "strategists" -CxO and the like, are accustomed were ironed out on "the old days" (piramidal management, red tape, plan for your average "greyish" employee that has the ability to know nothing nor manage the information but about his minimal part of the company) *because* that was what the old days tools allowed for. You are right it is people and processes the ones that need to change, but they need to change *because* the outstanding power new IT brings to the companies. It's needed a new generation of managers with the ability to understand and tame such power IT offers not only to them but to the whole members of their companies.
"However, although an atheist myself, we ought to realize that religion is pervasive in society and is not necessarily a bad thing. It provides the majority with a moral compass and drives them to lead productive and positive lives."
Like, oh well, burning witches, or taking hearts off their bodies, or turning down people that says Earth is not the center or the Universe?
*Ethics* is what gives people "the moral compass" that drives society. You, being a declared atheist should know better: it is not God the one that tells people not to kill other people, but *you*. At most, you, once decided not to kill other people because of their thoughts, call then God into your side as an authority argument. But it is not God the one that makes you not to kill people (as there is as many people killing others "in the name of God" than not); it's you.
"The few members of the different religions (and I suppose there are fundamentalist atheists as well) who gain the most notoriety for extreme acts are sadly considered representative of those religions and religion in general."
Well, most religions considered word-by-word as they are, expresly ask you for such extreme acts. It's only when religion is not religion anymore that you will find a "sensible" society: if God asks you for such an such, who are you to say "well, this I'll do, but that I won't"; it's God no less asking you going each Sunday to church than asking to lapidate to death in case of blasphemy; who are you to say "I'm a moderate theist, so I will believe Almighty God when He says I shall go church on Sunday, but I won't take Him seriously when He say I shall lapidate the blaspheme"? It's all or nothing, for God's shake! (pun intended).
But once you take that path, that God is not to be taken seriously on such and such "unimportant" details, why not follow it in its entirity and just not take God seriously *at all*? After all, you can't be wrong, not at least for a long time: if you are making God ungry disbelieving Him, He will bring upon you a flooding or a notable rain of sulphur and fire, so you can't misunderstand His mightyness, so why not try?
"Muslim people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Islam against Western targets, and have come right out and said there will be no peace until all the infidels are gone. It's not that Westerners feel threatened by Muslims, it's that we are threatened by Muslims. Muslims are threatening our lives, our society, our way of life. Is it a surprise that you don't feel welcome?"
Well, once upon a time there was Inquisition so Christian people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Christianity against Western targets, and have come right out and said there will be no peace until all the infidels are gone. It's not that Westerners feel threatened by Christians, it's that we are threatened by Christians (Inquisition has not gone away). Christians are threatening our lives, our society, our way of life. Is it a surprise that you don't feel welcome?
Maybe you forgot the meaning of the word "some"? Maybe it has more to do with the fact that they are terrorists than with the fact they are muslims? I for one know for certain some muslims that are far from terrorits and I can say I know (not personally) some Christians that *are* terrorists. The circumnstace that I'm worried about is not if they are Christians or Muslims, but if they are terrorists or not.
"Putting in process and regular refreshes of hardware is the surest way to prevent a multi-disk loss. (Yes, you'd want to do this offline)"
In order for this to be true, you should demonstrate that the expected probability of failure for the new disks is lower than for the removed ones plus the risks of any ground operation. Google demonstrates that this is not the case on his own very big data set: within three or four years (that is, more or less the expected operative live of the equiment as a whole, at least on "first line"), the rate failure is almost constant, so there's no real advantage on changing the disks except for the case when this means that the array is made up from different series and brands to avoid the defficient lot case (which you could have avoided from the very begining if that was the point). Of course you gain a false sense of security and that you did everything the right way so nobody can point their finger on you in case something go nuts. On the other hand you can directly cause the failure exchanging disks "live" if you have bad luck, you will reduce uptime if you go offline and you certainly increase the risk of human error. So while changing disks "feels" right, it is not; it's much better having some "hot spares" within the array and some already tested "cold spares" ready on the datacenter in order to reduce to a minimum the window where you operate a degraded array and then don't go anywhere near the premises unless really necesary (remember number one cause of problems is a sysadmin/field technician near the computer, even if he's only peeking around).
"I don't understand how you think a company can make money then."
_By_some_other_means_.
I don't think it's so hard to grasp. And no, I don't have to provide any insight about what those other means might be no more that I have to look for other means for a slaver to earn a life prior to tell slavery is unethical. All I can say is that since you don't see any other means, don't start a software company.
"If they can't...they can't pay coders to keep developing software."
I'll beat anyway. Have you ever seen an attorney peaking by the courts, seeing a trial on its way, then coming in and start speaking by one side and after that asking for the money? No: they don't move a finger *unless* there's a contract that states that the lawyer will do this and this and then he will recieve such and such compensation. You can change the attorney from the example with almost any other trade, and it usually works. Why not in software? Instead of advancing a lot of money and efforts "for free" in the expectance that you will recover them later by means of a legal distortion of free market in the form of copy rights and "intellectual property" on an operation that is totally unethical market-wise (fixed costs and unlimited benefits? no way) they could fix the contract terms and only *then* start coding, just like the attorney does. In fact, the vast majority of software produced in the world *already* uses this strategy, either directly (a software mill that produces software on-demand for a client) and indirectly (a software developer or division on a company that works to suit their own company needs), so it is well known it *works*. It won't produce the indecent benefit margins that closed-source-in-a-box can do, but it works.
"If I license something under license x, then no one can revoke that license (but me, and yes, this includes code written under the GPL)."
Sorry to say, but you are wrong. You can't revoke the GPL on your own code. Point in case: you write your "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" and pass me a copy under the GPL; you can't come tomorrow telling me you were wrong and my copy of "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" is under the GPL no more. Yes, you can distribute further copies of "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" under a different license (but then you aren't revoking anything, since those copies were never distributed under the GPL or any other license), but you certainly can't revoke the GPL on copies already distributed.
"The actions of a third party are IRRELEVANT when talking about the freedom of code that _I_ have released."
Unless, of course, you decide them NOT TO BE IRRELEVANT when talking about the freedom of code that _YOU_ have released. Which is exactly the position of those that decide to release their code under the GPL.
"making your definition ("does not grant the freedom to deny other people the same freedom") completely meaningless."
What does COAUERO mean to me? Exactly: whatever I feel it means. There's quite a lot of people that have quite a strong feeling that using a derivative of their own work in order to build closed programs hurts the "freedom" they wanted both for their code and their code users, and certainly I can see their point. And they express their feeling on a license in accordance, name the GPL. You don't feel it that way? That's wonderful; then you distribute your code under i.e. the BSD and that's all. Not to stablish any direct comparation but just an analogy (on the terms *I* want it to apply it, not yours, since it's *my* analogy, not yours): some people felt that somehow "real freedom" was not only on making their own slaves free but in even fighting the freedom of other to own slaves; probably others would have said that can't be a freedom one that imposes one's own point of views upon others, much less by using the force. Who one is right? That would make for quite a dense debate without end, but even then it's obvious both parts have a sensible point.
"Copyleft* trolls are funny."
I understand and even align with the previous poster's opinion: yes I think GPL vs BSD can be seen as a position of "there's no freedom to deny freedom to others" just like I feel that there's somehow more "freedom" on copyleft than in "no limits once published" regardless if you "see" what I mean or not. Can you really say on stright face I'm being trollish about that?
"The point is that most people don't know that if you buy some closed-source PHP-based bulletin board software on MySQL, that you *also* have to buy a license from MySQL."
Sorry but no, you don't, please carefully reread the GPL.
The GPL grants you full usage rights. This only makes obvious you don't need to pay licenses to anyony because of just using GPL software. Of course you will need a different license if you want to *distribute* a GPLed software derivative under a non-GPL license. So it is the one that sells you that "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board software on MySQL" the one that will need to aquire a license from MySQL AB in order to be able to distribute the bundle under such non-GPL license. The vendor, not you. On the other hand, as has been done for ages, the "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board" vendor can sell you his product *without* MySQL code nor bindings (i.e.: in source format) and then direct you to download MySQL directly from MySQL AB (either sources or binaries) and then arrange the lot by yourself. Again, no distribution? no GPL violation.
"They use the GPL to extort money for license fees"
Upon people that want to extort in turn other people out of their own license fees. Quite a nice deal, if you ask me. So what? Your "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board" can ask for license fees and that's OK but then MySQL AB is "extorting" when they ask for their share on such a deal? Mind you, I don't like "dual licensed" projects, not because any "ethical problem" on the arrange, which seems perfect to me, and even "poethically just" (free, both as in beer and speech for those who "play by the rules" and ask for money from those who ask for money themselves) but because it makes the project more sensible to one single provider (double licensing is only viable when all coders resign on their copyrights in favor of a single "vendor", which in turn usually means almost no one but the single vendor will contribute code to the project).
"instead of using the LGPL for client libraries."
Of course, even if I find double licensing worse than "pure" GPL (meaning with this not only open source but open community development too) I find double licensing much better than LGPL wich directly promotes privative derivatives much like the BSD (not because the LGPL nor the BSD themselves but because the unavoidably greedy nature of corporations).
"and you might even preemptively swap half out on a time schedule, depending upon how crucial your data is"
Aaahh, the mights of conditional probability. What do you exactly expect to gain from swaping disks on schedule, apart from the chance of having a disk failing when you are swaping the other and then being *you* the direct cause for the lost array?
"If everyone went to the bank and asked to empty their account, the bank couldn't do it."
Yes. And this has a name: bussiness gambling. You are free to gamble your profits about your clients' pattern usage (usually within some legal boundaries: banks certainly can't affront to cash out all their deposits but they are legally bound to retain a minimum cash). If you win, you win, but if you mistake your provisions... you are doomed and out of the game; you just can't take your money when you win, and then whine when you loose.
"Customers will ultimately have to pay, whether it's by increased ISP fees, subscriptions to rich media sites, or by watching adverts."
Maybe. But as I already said in a different post, advertising selling Ferraries ten dollars each is still false advertising and a fraud; how is it that ISPs are allowed to do it?
"You (I assume) pay a flat monthly rate regardless of usage"
Sorry but no. I'm not paying "regardless of usage"; my contract is clear: I'm paying for a 24x7 connection to the Internet with (yadayadah) upstream bandwith, (yadayadah) downstream bandwith, (yadayadah) guaranteed service. They offered me that on paper, and I signed to what they offered me and I pay my monthly fee in accordance. Now its childish... worse, its fraudulent thay they cry because I take my part of the deal. After all were *they* the ones coming to me with an offer.
"we all know that many on this board will bail on their ISP if they were the first to go to usage-based pricing"
No; I would go with whatever I consider my best interest among whatever is offered. That's capitalism in action, remeber? You know "we" hate Soviet Union because they didn't allow for free market, remember? We all want free tension between offer and demand, rembember?
Or is it that we want a free market where only one side is "free" and the other is just "market"; where one side can offer whatever it seems to be sellable as long as no one will take it? If that's the case, I'd sell Ferraris ten dollars each... as long as you don't ask for yours once you paid for it, of course, then I'd cry and say that world is a very unjust place where people is unsensible to my way of doing bussiness!
Slashdot Mirror
"Well as someone who's looking to implement Unix servers and not to write things, I'm not sure I care how hard it is for a newbie to jump into kernel hacking."
You should. From your description, you are on sysadmining (or, even worse, managing sysadmins). Once you go onto the greatness of open source, you are *doomed* to hack something, someday, either bugfixing or to fit specs. But you are not there to write things, so you -again, are *doomed* to be a newbie at it when the turn comes. So much better if it's easy for newbies to jump into it because that's exactly what you will be.
Been there, bought the t-shirt.
"So... the point you are trying to make is that a 3 or 4 year old OS with a SP doesnt support as much as your fresh Ubuntu download?"
The point is that when you don't have hardware support from your vendor, you are out of luck, be it XP or Ubuntu.
On one hand, I think there's a "slight" difference between XP and Ubuntu that makes it apples-to-oranges comparation: You take two persons that installed 3 o 4 year ago XP and Ubuntu and see, the XP install becomes a 3 or 4 year old OS today, while the Ubuntu installation is still a current OS; quite an interesting difference (and if you are going to say "Ubuntu is not 3 or 4 years old, take Debian or any other: my computer is growing old but still has an up to date easy to upgrade system and so will be for the time being. XP users? Bad luck; if they want to stay current, they'll need a new license and a non-hassle-free upgrade to Vista -provided their hardware is able to move it). On the other, you have problems with XP because it is "a 3 or 4 year old OS", but then you have hardware and software support problems on Vista *too*, maybe because it is a "too current OS", what the f*?
"heh, no I just made it up"
And you got modded +5 insightful. I'd want Slashdot had the ability to metamoderate moderation +bazillion frightening!
"Most MS users are unsophisticated, which is one reason why MS products are so prone to bugs."
Uh!? Last I reviewed a reason for a software product to be prone to bugs were unsophisticated *developers* but... users?
"The Ubuntu names are branded and visible in the OS after release,"
I challenge your assertion. Please go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and tell where do you see the "feisty fauns and friends". All I can see is "Ubuntu Desktop Edition" and "Ubuntu Server Edition". The "Download Now!" button friendly explains me I'll go for "Ubuntu 7.04 The power of free software. On your laptop, desktop and server. Smart. Secure. Easy". They go further and explain me how long Ubuntu 7.04 and/or Ubuntu 6.06 LTS will be supported.
But then, they have a "search" box. If I explicitly intro "feisty" on it all references are about test releases or clearly indicate it as a nickname after the release number (just like you'll find Microsoft Windows XP "Whistler" or Microsoft Windows Vista "Longhorn").
On the other hand, I don't remember seing the codename neither on Ubuntu's installer nor on the default desktop.
"In contrast, the Microsoft OSes contain no official mention of their codenames after public release"
Just go to http://www.msdn.com/ and search for "longhorn".
The truth is that Ubuntu makes no more "official mention" to their distribution's codenames nor they are any more "intended to be used in any official capacity" than Microsoft's.
"For a server it hardly matters which distribution you use."
How can anyone say such a thing? On a desktop? Yeah, it really doesn't matter which distribution you use. All of them leave place enough to tweak it and get the result you wanted. And even if it's more work than expected/wanted, you just weep it out and start again, no problem.
But a server? Once you deploy a server you usually have to stand for it for three or more years; any minor unsuitability gets then multiplied; and it's no fun to redeploy a complex system a lot of people depends on, so you are in all practicality tied to it.
I do sysadmining for a living, and I know I usually don't care too much about my desktop distribution as long as it has the tools I usually manage (and I'd say almost anyone would fit that goal). But I know there are hugh differences regarding which OS (which Linux distribution, in this case) the servers run.
"He funds the project."
And he does so for a reason.
"As to the release names, he may or may not choose those. It would be interesting to really know."
Maybe it would be interesting for a f* retard. Anyone else already knows that Shuttleworth's answer if he thought that Ubuntu's naming conventions are hurting his bussiness plans wouldn't be "but, what can I do? after all, I only fund the project!"
"Names are IMPORTANT."
Man, you got me.
I'm going right now to start a model using my Rational Rose, which I'll feed with a lot of to-the-point data from Google, taking advantage of the synergies only my shiny Longhorn OS can give, so no valid idea is lost through the Windows.
Uh... And I somehow will use a mouse to tame all that power at my fingertips.
"But I'm not sure I follow your Scientology analogy. Don't they mostly sue for copyright infringement?"
Sure. But I bet that's because they sue mostly to fair play people. Think about it: I can say "Scientiology is crackpotery"; then they might sue me for defamation and I probably would earn it. But then I could say "Scientiology is crackpotery because [here citation that shows how crackpots they are]". That's what any sane one would do in that case: show the elements that sustain your opinion. But obviously, in this case the proveable facts must be citations of their written works/opinions and that would make (in their opinion) copyright infringement, so there they go.
"Bad example. Placing an item into the mouth of a person who is having a seizure is a potentially fatal mistake. They can swallow it or chip their teeth on a spoon"
And that's exactly why it is a *good* example. You did a harm, still you went legally untouched because you can argue both good intentions and ignorance.
There's no need for a law to protect you in case you are trying to do something (legally percieved as) good and indeed you achieve something (legally percieved as) good!
"I had my Gentoo computer set a CPU type slightly less than it actually was"
Like, what? x85?
"What happens in the large corporate is, devs end up keeping their "working copy" of the code on their local machine because"
Because they usually don't know the tool or the tool's potential.
"if they just checked their experimental/broken stuff in, other devs would complain"
I've been working both on Subversion and CVS (among others) and never experienced it. Why? Maybe because I knew about the use of the tool; about how to deploy "this_is_head" moving tags and how to properly use branches, so one developer's experiments doesn't break other's work and still they are "near enough" to main development lines to merge frecuently as needed (and no, abandoned branches were not a problem since they can be pruned out when needed no more).
"Same for creating branches in the central repository, if you are doing it for you own experiments you will get unpopular fast."
That's even more extraneous. Why other developers should have to give a damn about branches they don't use? Clearcase, for instance, is mostly based on the "developer branch" concept to great amount and while the product isn't the most popular among developers, it is not because the "developer branch" concept which is the one they tend to like the most.
"So what happens instead is, a dev makes changes to their checked out copy and does not check in for days or weeks at a time"
Because:
a) They ignore the tools possibilities
b) Their company ignore the advantages of founding proper SCM (people, tools and time) and the SCM tool manager only too often ends up being one of them, or someone without the knowledge and too overburden to do a proper work.
"then bits of this work get lost for one reason or another"
And then the proud git user's hard disk fried and his git repo is lost all the same. And then the devolper gets hit by the bus, or resigns and nobody understands what's the hell on his harddisk.
"Meanwhile, development on the trunk eventually orphans the experiment, merging is too much work"
That's just the natural outcome of a too long lived branch, no matter is you use a central or a distributed repo. It is the code the one that distances, not the tool that manages the code.
Subversion should have proper branching and merging. CVS should properly manage whole hirarchies. Both of them should properly handle deltas. But they are all limitations of the tools, not flaws on the paradigm. Surely distributed SCM has his place but centrally managed SCM has it too and it's much more important the former than the latter in corporate environments. Maybe in a future there will come a tool that will allow seemlessly for proper central or distributed SCM, and I can tell I'll be glad for it, but I can assure that the central paradigm will stay strong within corps, because that's what's needed.
"As somebody who does software for a living, i can tell you that the biggest factor in the success of a company is ... business processes."
...Except it is *not* insightful, but quite experienced and realistic. Of course you are right about success being in people and bussiness processes. But you seem to forget the tremendous empowering IT can give to those proper people and processes. Just like a formula one pilot success is in the pilot himself but it is the car the one that will make the pilot run 200mph, which is one order of magnitude beyond the pilot's physical abilities, proper IT-driven people and processes can "run" one order of magnitude faster than without them. We saw a similar case on the first days of the Industrial Revolution when the new steam-powered machines boosted productivity, and we saw it again on the first days of computing-aided processes. It came so inbred into our productivity fibers we are almost unaware about what IT is doing for us. Just think the enormous nightmare (even impossibility) it would mean just managing the paychecks of a 20.000 employees company.
I can tell I buy all your points and I see why it has been modded insightful.
Now we see a new (probably not as big as the previous two ones) revolution: pervasiveness of very strong individual computer power and peer-to-peer comunication channels (both computer-based and "classic" telco) offer a tremendous potential to companies. Think about the fast response and flexibility of a ten people company ported to a 20.000 one; that's current IT potential. The problem is that big companies and the management practices their "strategists" -CxO and the like, are accustomed were ironed out on "the old days" (piramidal management, red tape, plan for your average "greyish" employee that has the ability to know nothing nor manage the information but about his minimal part of the company) *because* that was what the old days tools allowed for. You are right it is people and processes the ones that need to change, but they need to change *because* the outstanding power new IT brings to the companies. It's needed a new generation of managers with the ability to understand and tame such power IT offers not only to them but to the whole members of their companies.
Let's see you try recruiting with:
"You will serve up to 15 months at a time in various warzones."
Instead of the sad truth: "You will serve up to 15 months per year in various warzones". Try *that*!
"However, although an atheist myself, we ought to realize that religion is pervasive in society and is not necessarily a bad thing. It provides the majority with a moral compass and drives them to lead productive and positive lives."
Like, oh well, burning witches, or taking hearts off their bodies, or turning down people that says Earth is not the center or the Universe?
*Ethics* is what gives people "the moral compass" that drives society. You, being a declared atheist should know better: it is not God the one that tells people not to kill other people, but *you*. At most, you, once decided not to kill other people because of their thoughts, call then God into your side as an authority argument. But it is not God the one that makes you not to kill people (as there is as many people killing others "in the name of God" than not); it's you.
"The few members of the different religions (and I suppose there are fundamentalist atheists as well) who gain the most notoriety for extreme acts are sadly considered representative of those religions and religion in general."
Well, most religions considered word-by-word as they are, expresly ask you for such extreme acts. It's only when religion is not religion anymore that you will find a "sensible" society: if God asks you for such an such, who are you to say "well, this I'll do, but that I won't"; it's God no less asking you going each Sunday to church than asking to lapidate to death in case of blasphemy; who are you to say "I'm a moderate theist, so I will believe Almighty God when He says I shall go church on Sunday, but I won't take Him seriously when He say I shall lapidate the blaspheme"? It's all or nothing, for God's shake! (pun intended).
But once you take that path, that God is not to be taken seriously on such and such "unimportant" details, why not follow it in its entirity and just not take God seriously *at all*? After all, you can't be wrong, not at least for a long time: if you are making God ungry disbelieving Him, He will bring upon you a flooding or a notable rain of sulphur and fire, so you can't misunderstand His mightyness, so why not try?
"Muslim people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Islam against Western targets, and have come right out and said there will be no peace until all the infidels are gone. It's not that Westerners feel threatened by Muslims, it's that we are threatened by Muslims. Muslims are threatening our lives, our society, our way of life. Is it a surprise that you don't feel welcome?"
Well, once upon a time there was Inquisition so Christian people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Christianity against Western targets, and have come right out and said there will be no peace until all the infidels are gone. It's not that Westerners feel threatened by Christians, it's that we are threatened by Christians (Inquisition has not gone away). Christians are threatening our lives, our society, our way of life. Is it a surprise that you don't feel welcome?
Maybe you forgot the meaning of the word "some"? Maybe it has more to do with the fact that they are terrorists than with the fact they are muslims? I for one know for certain some muslims that are far from terrorits and I can say I know (not personally) some Christians that *are* terrorists. The circumnstace that I'm worried about is not if they are Christians or Muslims, but if they are terrorists or not.
"Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, i'd say a lot of people believed them."
Not at all. Let's refactor it:
Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, I'd say a lot of people believed that a lot of people would believe it. Quite different, isn't it?
"Putting in process and regular refreshes of hardware is the surest way to prevent a multi-disk loss. (Yes, you'd want to do this offline)"
In order for this to be true, you should demonstrate that the expected probability of failure for the new disks is lower than for the removed ones plus the risks of any ground operation. Google demonstrates that this is not the case on his own very big data set: within three or four years (that is, more or less the expected operative live of the equiment as a whole, at least on "first line"), the rate failure is almost constant, so there's no real advantage on changing the disks except for the case when this means that the array is made up from different series and brands to avoid the defficient lot case (which you could have avoided from the very begining if that was the point). Of course you gain a false sense of security and that you did everything the right way so nobody can point their finger on you in case something go nuts. On the other hand you can directly cause the failure exchanging disks "live" if you have bad luck, you will reduce uptime if you go offline and you certainly increase the risk of human error. So while changing disks "feels" right, it is not; it's much better having some "hot spares" within the array and some already tested "cold spares" ready on the datacenter in order to reduce to a minimum the window where you operate a degraded array and then don't go anywhere near the premises unless really necesary (remember number one cause of problems is a sysadmin/field technician near the computer, even if he's only peeking around).
"I don't understand how you think a company can make money then."
_By_some_other_means_.
I don't think it's so hard to grasp. And no, I don't have to provide any insight about what those other means might be no more that I have to look for other means for a slaver to earn a life prior to tell slavery is unethical. All I can say is that since you don't see any other means, don't start a software company.
"If they can't...they can't pay coders to keep developing software."
I'll beat anyway. Have you ever seen an attorney peaking by the courts, seeing a trial on its way, then coming in and start speaking by one side and after that asking for the money? No: they don't move a finger *unless* there's a contract that states that the lawyer will do this and this and then he will recieve such and such compensation. You can change the attorney from the example with almost any other trade, and it usually works. Why not in software? Instead of advancing a lot of money and efforts "for free" in the expectance that you will recover them later by means of a legal distortion of free market in the form of copy rights and "intellectual property" on an operation that is totally unethical market-wise (fixed costs and unlimited benefits? no way) they could fix the contract terms and only *then* start coding, just like the attorney does. In fact, the vast majority of software produced in the world *already* uses this strategy, either directly (a software mill that produces software on-demand for a client) and indirectly (a software developer or division on a company that works to suit their own company needs), so it is well known it *works*. It won't produce the indecent benefit margins that closed-source-in-a-box can do, but it works.
"If I remember the incident correctly, this one did not slam into the ground, it exploded in mid air"
Well, unless you really think the stolen 3000 Kg rock managed to stay floating in mid air since 1908 it somehow *had* to hit the ground, hadn't it?
"If I license something under license x, then no one can revoke that license (but me, and yes, this includes code written under the GPL)."
Sorry to say, but you are wrong. You can't revoke the GPL on your own code. Point in case: you write your "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" and pass me a copy under the GPL; you can't come tomorrow telling me you were wrong and my copy of "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" is under the GPL no more. Yes, you can distribute further copies of "Mangnificent Hello World 1.0" under a different license (but then you aren't revoking anything, since those copies were never distributed under the GPL or any other license), but you certainly can't revoke the GPL on copies already distributed.
"The actions of a third party are IRRELEVANT when talking about the freedom of code that _I_ have released."
Unless, of course, you decide them NOT TO BE IRRELEVANT when talking about the freedom of code that _YOU_ have released. Which is exactly the position of those that decide to release their code under the GPL.
"making your definition ("does not grant the freedom to deny other people the same freedom") completely meaningless."
What does COAUERO mean to me? Exactly: whatever I feel it means. There's quite a lot of people that have quite a strong feeling that using a derivative of their own work in order to build closed programs hurts the "freedom" they wanted both for their code and their code users, and certainly I can see their point. And they express their feeling on a license in accordance, name the GPL. You don't feel it that way? That's wonderful; then you distribute your code under i.e. the BSD and that's all. Not to stablish any direct comparation but just an analogy (on the terms *I* want it to apply it, not yours, since it's *my* analogy, not yours): some people felt that somehow "real freedom" was not only on making their own slaves free but in even fighting the freedom of other to own slaves; probably others would have said that can't be a freedom one that imposes one's own point of views upon others, much less by using the force. Who one is right? That would make for quite a dense debate without end, but even then it's obvious both parts have a sensible point.
"Copyleft* trolls are funny."
I understand and even align with the previous poster's opinion: yes I think GPL vs BSD can be seen as a position of "there's no freedom to deny freedom to others" just like I feel that there's somehow more "freedom" on copyleft than in "no limits once published" regardless if you "see" what I mean or not. Can you really say on stright face I'm being trollish about that?
"The point is that most people don't know that if you buy some closed-source PHP-based bulletin board software on MySQL, that you *also* have to buy a license from MySQL."
Sorry but no, you don't, please carefully reread the GPL.
The GPL grants you full usage rights. This only makes obvious you don't need to pay licenses to anyony because of just using GPL software. Of course you will need a different license if you want to *distribute* a GPLed software derivative under a non-GPL license. So it is the one that sells you that "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board software on MySQL" the one that will need to aquire a license from MySQL AB in order to be able to distribute the bundle under such non-GPL license. The vendor, not you. On the other hand, as has been done for ages, the "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board" vendor can sell you his product *without* MySQL code nor bindings (i.e.: in source format) and then direct you to download MySQL directly from MySQL AB (either sources or binaries) and then arrange the lot by yourself. Again, no distribution? no GPL violation.
"They use the GPL to extort money for license fees"
Upon people that want to extort in turn other people out of their own license fees. Quite a nice deal, if you ask me. So what? Your "closed-source PHP-based bulletin board" can ask for license fees and that's OK but then MySQL AB is "extorting" when they ask for their share on such a deal? Mind you, I don't like "dual licensed" projects, not because any "ethical problem" on the arrange, which seems perfect to me, and even "poethically just" (free, both as in beer and speech for those who "play by the rules" and ask for money from those who ask for money themselves) but because it makes the project more sensible to one single provider (double licensing is only viable when all coders resign on their copyrights in favor of a single "vendor", which in turn usually means almost no one but the single vendor will contribute code to the project).
"instead of using the LGPL for client libraries."
Of course, even if I find double licensing worse than "pure" GPL (meaning with this not only open source but open community development too) I find double licensing much better than LGPL wich directly promotes privative derivatives much like the BSD (not because the LGPL nor the BSD themselves but because the unavoidably greedy nature of corporations).
"and you might even preemptively swap half out on a time schedule, depending upon how crucial your data is"
Aaahh, the mights of conditional probability. What do you exactly expect to gain from swaping disks on schedule, apart from the chance of having a disk failing when you are swaping the other and then being *you* the direct cause for the lost array?
"If everyone went to the bank and asked to empty their account, the bank couldn't do it."
Yes. And this has a name: bussiness gambling. You are free to gamble your profits about your clients' pattern usage (usually within some legal boundaries: banks certainly can't affront to cash out all their deposits but they are legally bound to retain a minimum cash). If you win, you win, but if you mistake your provisions... you are doomed and out of the game; you just can't take your money when you win, and then whine when you loose.
"Customers will ultimately have to pay, whether it's by increased ISP fees, subscriptions to rich media sites, or by watching adverts."
Maybe. But as I already said in a different post, advertising selling Ferraries ten dollars each is still false advertising and a fraud; how is it that ISPs are allowed to do it?
"You (I assume) pay a flat monthly rate regardless of usage"
Sorry but no. I'm not paying "regardless of usage"; my contract is clear: I'm paying for a 24x7 connection to the Internet with (yadayadah) upstream bandwith, (yadayadah) downstream bandwith, (yadayadah) guaranteed service. They offered me that on paper, and I signed to what they offered me and I pay my monthly fee in accordance. Now its childish... worse, its fraudulent thay they cry because I take my part of the deal. After all were *they* the ones coming to me with an offer.
"we all know that many on this board will bail on their ISP if they were the first to go to usage-based pricing"
No; I would go with whatever I consider my best interest among whatever is offered. That's capitalism in action, remeber? You know "we" hate Soviet Union because they didn't allow for free market, remember? We all want free tension between offer and demand, rembember?
Or is it that we want a free market where only one side is "free" and the other is just "market"; where one side can offer whatever it seems to be sellable as long as no one will take it? If that's the case, I'd sell Ferraris ten dollars each... as long as you don't ask for yours once you paid for it, of course, then I'd cry and say that world is a very unjust place where people is unsensible to my way of doing bussiness!