Something I'd also like to ask. In many cases trust and openness are touted as some values of open source. But is there really a reason that proprietary software cannot be trusted, just because every line of source cannot be inspected?
To use a pizza analogy, I trust my local pizza place to not put cyanide in my pizza, despite the fact that the pizza is made in proprietary manner without disclosing the exact recipe and documenting the full cooking process. Is there some reason software companies cannot be trusted in a similar way?
It's about the freedoms you have while using the software and the benefits of a diverse range of people contributing to production.
There is many kinds of freedom. I might find a good proprietary software which gives me more features and better quality than an OSS alternative. In this case the proprietary choice would give me more options to actually implement my ideas and complete my project successfully with a professional workflow. Even if this software is closed source, I have more freedom to utilize the power of my computer. In the end of the day, I value this kind of freedom more than some RMS ideals.
Most open source projects are
999 header files
355 directories
2345 code files
3 intermixed build systems
A python script or so just because
Indeed. I have found out that it takes ages to become familiar with the codebase even to make a simple change. There can be hundreds of thousands of lines of code and complex build systems. Guys, try running cloc against some codebase, it gives you nice and easy report.
Anyone can try this: imagine a change or bugfix you would want to happen in an OSS project. Now, actually try to properly find where and how the fix should be implemented. Just try this little experiment. Then we will talk how easy it is to contribute into these projects.
Why aren't companies paying more people to work on Open Source projects.
Because then you lose your exclusive rights to that software. OSS might be sleek, but let's not forget some facts: for most companies, publishing the full source code would mean directly giving the knife to the competitor's hand.
though I was trying to find the code that triggered state change for the enemies to fight each other when one hit another, I couldn't figure out where exactly that happened...
What do you mean? This is open source, which means that anyone should be able to easily make modifications.;)
Have you ever compared enterprise class software (I also count Windows 7 Enterprise) with OSS Software? Windows does not even reliably support STR and resume. Using multiple monitors is a PITA.
Suspend and multiple monitors have always worked great in Windows for me. Under Linux, they have also worked fine in some machines, but I have also occasionally experienced serious problems with those areas. During recent times I have found out that even laptop screen brightness adjustment cannot be expected to work reliably out of the box under Linux.
Ubuntu keeps updating the 3.13 kernel with a patch queue (their own kernel version is currently 3.13.0-40.69), so if one of those patches contain the bug, there's an unlikely but theoretically possible chance that Ubuntu kernel might have become faulty too.
Actually we can't be completely sure. How this thing works in Ubuntu, is that they chose the 3.13 kernel for 14.04, but they still selectively apply newer patches from upstream on top of that. See the most recent changelog. Of course they include only conservative bugfixes and no cutting edge stuff, which makes it unlikely that the lockup bug has slipped in there.
In my experience, closed source software comes with much less bugs to begin with. With OSS, even some essential features can be glitchy or partially implemented.
I thought open source software was supposed to be better because everyone could see the code and spot problems.
Too often when I find a bug (even investigate the actual reason as well as I can) and talk about it in a mailing list or bug tracker, it's just crickets chirping. No one stands up and properly takes responsibility of the issue. I very well understand that this might be due to lacking developer resources, but it still results in bad software.
I have started wondering if modern software is simply too complex to be developed in high quality with the resources (manpower and funding) that open source gets.
You have to start somewhere. For 12-13 year olds, crunching through real programming languages and rendering pipelines would be too daunting.
I see the problem though. If they later want to become real game devs, they have learn the proper attention span and grit to excel in the complex programming projects which games are these days.
Linux is trash on the desktop. Even the brightness keys on laptops do not work properly. Fujitsu E751 laptop. The brightness keys adjust the brightness in multiple steps under Ubuntu. Then I switch to Fedora just to find that I can decrease brightness only to 50%, and that the brightness keys stopped working completely after a suspend cycle. Also in Chrome, the items in right-click popup menu did not get highlighted properly with a blue background when hovered over, but their text disappeared instead. Linux distros are filled with these kind of weird glitches. I can almost feel the bugs crawling on my skin. I won't go back to Linux until the quality assurance improves significantly.
Microsoft has finally caved in and acknowledged that Linux exists.
Have they really? They still seem to very much talk in language which pretends that something called Linux has never existed. Linux is only discreetly mentioned in places where absolutely necessary, such as in the silly "Get the Facts" comparisons or in their Hyper-V stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Something I'd also like to ask. In many cases trust and openness are touted as some values of open source. But is there really a reason that proprietary software cannot be trusted, just because every line of source cannot be inspected?
To use a pizza analogy, I trust my local pizza place to not put cyanide in my pizza, despite the fact that the pizza is made in proprietary manner without disclosing the exact recipe and documenting the full cooking process. Is there some reason software companies cannot be trusted in a similar way?
It's about the freedoms you have while using the software and the benefits of a diverse range of people contributing to production.
There is many kinds of freedom. I might find a good proprietary software which gives me more features and better quality than an OSS alternative. In this case the proprietary choice would give me more options to actually implement my ideas and complete my project successfully with a professional workflow. Even if this software is closed source, I have more freedom to utilize the power of my computer. In the end of the day, I value this kind of freedom more than some RMS ideals.
Most open source projects are
999 header files
355 directories
2345 code files
3 intermixed build systems
A python script or so just because
Indeed. I have found out that it takes ages to become familiar with the codebase even to make a simple change. There can be hundreds of thousands of lines of code and complex build systems. Guys, try running cloc against some codebase, it gives you nice and easy report.
Anyone can try this: imagine a change or bugfix you would want to happen in an OSS project. Now, actually try to properly find where and how the fix should be implemented. Just try this little experiment. Then we will talk how easy it is to contribute into these projects.
The real question should be:
Why aren't companies paying more people to work on Open Source projects.
Because then you lose your exclusive rights to that software. OSS might be sleek, but let's not forget some facts: for most companies, publishing the full source code would mean directly giving the knife to the competitor's hand.
though I was trying to find the code that triggered state change for the enemies to fight each other when one hit another, I couldn't figure out where exactly that happened...
What do you mean? This is open source, which means that anyone should be able to easily make modifications. ;)
Here's the soundtrack in YouTube.
I guess that's how we should interpret it. I don't see her talking about asking for a permission, though.
I did not mean those.
The definition of gaming as a hobby is not, "Gaming where ever, whenever you like, however you like."
Instead, it is "Gaming evolved. The way that it's meant to be played."
This bug is a soft lockup detected by the watchdog.
No back of the napkin calculations, either: Finland is also dropping the handwritten long division algorithm in 2016.
It's still nice that even in casual gaming a parity has been reached.
Have you ever compared enterprise class software (I also count Windows 7 Enterprise) with OSS Software? Windows does not even reliably support STR and resume. Using multiple monitors is a PITA.
Suspend and multiple monitors have always worked great in Windows for me. Under Linux, they have also worked fine in some machines, but I have also occasionally experienced serious problems with those areas. During recent times I have found out that even laptop screen brightness adjustment cannot be expected to work reliably out of the box under Linux.
Ubuntu keeps updating the 3.13 kernel with a patch queue (their own kernel version is currently 3.13.0-40.69), so if one of those patches contain the bug, there's an unlikely but theoretically possible chance that Ubuntu kernel might have become faulty too.
Actually we can't be completely sure. How this thing works in Ubuntu, is that they chose the 3.13 kernel for 14.04, but they still selectively apply newer patches from upstream on top of that. See the most recent changelog. Of course they include only conservative bugfixes and no cutting edge stuff, which makes it unlikely that the lockup bug has slipped in there.
In my experience, closed source software comes with much less bugs to begin with. With OSS, even some essential features can be glitchy or partially implemented.
I thought open source software was supposed to be better because everyone could see the code and spot problems.
Too often when I find a bug (even investigate the actual reason as well as I can) and talk about it in a mailing list or bug tracker, it's just crickets chirping. No one stands up and properly takes responsibility of the issue. I very well understand that this might be due to lacking developer resources, but it still results in bad software.
I have started wondering if modern software is simply too complex to be developed in high quality with the resources (manpower and funding) that open source gets.
It is way too cumbersome to do that, so in practice it is not possible.
You have to start somewhere. For 12-13 year olds, crunching through real programming languages and rendering pipelines would be too daunting.
I see the problem though. If they later want to become real game devs, they have learn the proper attention span and grit to excel in the complex programming projects which games are these days.
Which is why girls dominate game making... Oh wait.
Well, gaming is now 50:50, I'm sure game development will follow.
Linux is trash on the desktop. Even the brightness keys on laptops do not work properly. Fujitsu E751 laptop. The brightness keys adjust the brightness in multiple steps under Ubuntu. Then I switch to Fedora just to find that I can decrease brightness only to 50%, and that the brightness keys stopped working completely after a suspend cycle. Also in Chrome, the items in right-click popup menu did not get highlighted properly with a blue background when hovered over, but their text disappeared instead. Linux distros are filled with these kind of weird glitches. I can almost feel the bugs crawling on my skin. I won't go back to Linux until the quality assurance improves significantly.
They seem to be just skimping on Quality Assurance.
Microsoft has finally caved in and acknowledged that Linux exists.
Have they really? They still seem to very much talk in language which pretends that something called Linux has never existed. Linux is only discreetly mentioned in places where absolutely necessary, such as in the silly "Get the Facts" comparisons or in their Hyper-V stuff.
In this case the actual red flag for government agencies would be that you have some reason to hide simple pizza transactions behind 7 proxies.
I think the general reason people feel that Bitcoin is anonymous is that there are never real names attached to the transactions.