×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Foundation Makes Open Source Boring

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the just-add-more-monkeys dept.

Businesses 87

superapecommando noted an essay by Glyn Moody where he writes "In the early days of free software, the struggle was just to get companies to try this new and rather unconventional approach, without worrying too much about how that happened. That typically meant programs entering by the back door, surreptitiously installed by in-house engineers who understood the virtues of the stuff — and that it was easier to ask for forgiveness after the event than for permission before. [The Linux Foundation tries] to take all the fun out of free software. They are about removing the quirkiness and the riskiness that has characterized free software in business for the last decade and a half, and seek to replace it with nice, safe systems that senior management will instantly fall in love with. In a word, they seek to make open source boring for the enterprise. That's not only good news for companies, it's a really important step for the Linux Foundation."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

87 comments

So? (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215818)

What's the story?

Re:So? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215840)

Agreed. The summary is "not news" and the blog entry itself is a rhetorical argument in favor of the "Open Compliance Programme"; slightly spammish, but mostly boring. News flash: Managers are conservative and want something proven to work, rather than the latest and greatest.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215868)

I think the news part is that the Linux Foundation is apparently releasing tools for dependency mapping and license inspection so that you can actually tell at a glance what licensing requirements you're going to face. Apparently it inspects dynamic and static symbol tables to see what you're linking against and in what way to find out if you're technically a 'derivative work' or not, among other issues.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215902)

Thanks. I skimmed the article and missed the actual functional details near the bottom. Kinda wish they'd started with "What's new" then explained why it mattered, rather than explaining why "something" mattered before specifying what "something" is.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216260)

Yes. The summary makes this article look like a complete case of "Not News for Nerds, Stuff That Doesn't Matter". (Most of the article is, but there appears to be some geek goodness toward the end. And some of the über nerds here will sniff that dependency and library management isn't an issue if you'd just compile it all from source every time.)

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33217254)

The summary makes this article look like a complete case of "Not News for Nerds, Stuff That Doesn't Matter".

"News For Turds, Stuff That Splatters" seems more fitting lately...

And some of the über nerds here will sniff that dependency and library management isn't an issue if you'd just compile it all from source every time.

That has worked for me for decades now. With FreeBSD that is. I've yet to see the source-based Linux distro that isn't horribly broken -- and yes, I *have* lived with Gentoo for several months. Got sick of so many things breaking every time I updated.

Re:So? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33222212)

Which pool do you want to be in? There are realities of participating in any of them.

True distributed development, where heirarchy exists only by transient preference, is messy by nature. When healthy it is also redundant as all get out, every contributor with an ideology or preference is a potential disrupter, and the sum of the parts cannot be determined to be equal the actual value for any particular case. In many cases the actual value is defined by the limitations of the implementor and Linux is moving at a pace that does not leave the middle curve folk behind.

Pretty much the only way to gauge the progress of a Linux distribution - not BSD because the correct method is not necessarily the proper intermediate step for all the vested parties - is to measure the acceptability of the achieved effect from multiple vantages.

Distributed development dictates that slums exist populated with the dying experiments that represented intermediate states of development in the community and in individuals.

Every distro only exists when voluntary acts of development are being actively integrated. The rest of the time you are observing an effect of prior effort that is in all ways static and dead at whatever point contributions were last vetted and merged, combined with the bias formed from past experience of the observer.

So you downloaded something and didn't feel the effect was commensurate with the expectation established in a very different development ecosystem. Deal with it. Goodbye.

Re:So? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216110)

Since there are multiple views on linking with regard to the application of the GPL, don't these tools thus require assumptions based on opinion rather than absolutes?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33219862)

No; linking policy is defined by the user. You tell the tool what linkages you're concerned about, and the tool will tell you where those linkages exist.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215876)

Not just that, managers want something even a monkey can configure and maintain. Ease of use, or as TFA puts it 'boring' is good in my opinion. It's not coincidence that Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro, it's easy to use and lot of times, it just works.

Re:So? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216004)

Not just that, managers want something even a monkey can configure and maintain. Ease of use, or as TFA puts it 'boring' is good in my opinion. It's not coincidence that Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro, it's easy to use and lot of times, it just works.

shockingly enough the easy-to-use newb distro is also the only one to get hit with a screensaver malware. that just worked too, just like on windows. you jackass.

Re:So? (0, Redundant)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216048)

shockingly enough the most popular distro is also the only one to get hit with a screensaver malware

FTFY.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216068)

Eat my goatse hole you dummy.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216070)

That malware was a .deb package from Gnome-look, not Ubuntu specific any any way. You jackass.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33217020)

That malware was a .deb package from Gnome-look, not Ubuntu specific any any way. You jackass.

You miss the point. The point was that it hit the noob-friendly distro DESPITE not being specific to that distro.

Re:So? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215906)

Yeah, I read the blog article after I commented and I'm still left wondering what the news is.

Is it that the Linux Foundation has found a way to make FOSS less risky? Important, but not front page news. I'd put that on page 2 or 3 of the business section if I were running a news paper.

I would suggest something more important as news, but I'm biased so I won't. As this comment states [slashdot.org] , the biggest "news" part of the article are the compliance tools.

Meh, move along, nothing here to see.

Re:So? (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 3 years ago | (#33219692)

... Managers are conservative and want something proven to work, rather than the latest and greatest.

Except when Sun says that Java is 'enterprise ready' and 'proven technology' (I heard this gem when Java was oh.. six years old and had libraries to do, well, practically nothing) - because then anything goes. Nothing against Java, mind you - just saying that a big name and lots of marketing go a long way in turning that notion upside down.

Re:So? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215866)

Eventually Windows will be seen as "risky", so we will have to sneak it in the back door and install it on computers. And the wheel goes round.

Ok, maybe not. Like you, I'm wondering wtf is the story. Linux has been the adolescent struggling to sit at the big people table since the early 90s. Eventually it gets old enough to as some of the old farts die off.

Re:So? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33219652)

Eventually Windows will be seen as "risky",

Eventually? Eventually? Oh, you mean by the PHBs. Yeah, that might require a little more perceptiveness than they actually have. :)

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216032)

The story is that a lot of well known, widely used, free software projects have become very large and complex. This means less room for cowboy coders staying up late, spending time in IRC, and ordering pizza at weird times. If this person wants to do "fun" then get together with someone on some small project where the people have high hopes for rapid growth and wide impact. Oh, and get ready for indigestion when you and your buds write all over each other's submits. In the meantime do not complain when the folks at mySQL get their panties in a twist and act all "professional" on you.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216622)

Morning Glory ;-)

Re:So? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33217604)

Try RTFA, maybe it's in there?

Come on, seriously, it's a link to an opinion piece about Linux software, and you can't see how this applies to a news for nerds aggregate?

I mean, wow.

What are you doing here?

Re:So? (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 3 years ago | (#33219070)

Exactly !
Someone bitching about a linux desktop being stable, as being boring?
There are several cutting edge distribution that are not very stable such as Debian Sid.
If a thrill is what you're after, try running your business on one of those.

If Zero down time is boring... (5, Insightful)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215834)

then I'm all for boring.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (5, Funny)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215950)

Sitting all alone, in the corner of the server room... waiting for something - nay, anything to happen. The only thing you have left to hope for is the odd hardware failure... Each failed drive is like a joy ride, each blown out power supply is like a day at the fair.

Soon, you find yourself wishing, hoping for these things to happen. Then one day you can't resist anymore. You plug way too many things into the same power source, causing an outage. Finally something to get out of your seat! It feels so good to actually have something to do.

This happens a few more times. Never the same thing twice; you don't want people to catch on, right? But even then it begins to lose its interest. Where are the software crashes, the mystery failures that used to happen with the old systems? Sometimes they took days to figure out. There's no mystery anymore.

Then one day it happens. You finally break down and sneak a Microsoft product onto one of your servers...

Is open source software the gateway drug to Microsoft?

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216040)

some firemen like playing cards at the station house

others like dashing through a burning warehouse with steel toe boots and a pickaxe

to each his own

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216152)

All firemen like dashing through a burning warehouse. That is why they become firemen, at least all the ones I know. They want to "do good" and/or be a hero, and/or get that extreme adrenalin rush that only real world danger gives you. The cards are just something to do between buzzes. Only a few are pyros looking for a constructive outlet.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33220234)

Yes, but there aren't too many firemen who are also arsonists.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216142)

Clippy goes live: It looks like you are getting bored. Do you want some advice? You should use more Microsoft. You can get more overtime that way.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33220000)

Careful..... You are violating my patent there !!

"A computer system that has, as a means of customer-alert, a live clippy that advertises software from a certain vendor."

See, it was so complex && non-obvious that i had to get a patent on it :-)

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216350)

There is a saying a bored systems administrator is a good one. However a really good one is busy improving their systems to make them run faster/better and more efficient as well implementing new features to help the company grow, and not wasting their time fixing problems that really don't need to happen.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (4, Insightful)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216880)

However a really good one is busy improving their systems to make them run faster/better and more efficient as well implementing new features to help the company grow, and not wasting their time fixing problems that really don't need to happen.

Working as an admin myself, I can tell this is just a manager's dream. The way IT runs, we are plumbers... nobody expects you mucking around in their production sinks unless something is leaking. Matter of fact, we are staffed in ratios such that you never have much time to improve efficiency. If you have any time at all, management will either promote you to train others AND do admin stuff, or they will stick more of their own projects under your belt.

When you give your all as a great admin, you're shunned for unduly raising standards for lazy admins. Managers and coworkers remind you to "keep problems buried to stay employed re-fixing them," and even clients say that "IT at this company is useless and already too slow, so why do you need to waste 3 hours countering the next meltdown when you said one lesser fix can have our system patched up to run in 1?"

So we all, or most, want to do good and clean things up, like any "great" doctor would. But there are doctors that love it when they can avoid operating and instead enslave you under certain medicines you for life, as approved by them while their bills get paid.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33218232)

And, if you've really got time on your hands, you could create and release some FLOSS system administration tools.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33224824)

Most of us can't do that without the approval of change control boards, do you really want us to hurt you?

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216850)

You know, there's another solution to this perennial boredom problem: Reading other people's email.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216200)

Reminds me of the old joke:

"There's an ancient BSD curse - 'May your computer run an interesting operating system.'"

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

neanderslob (1207704) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216360)

Dude, seriously. The "quirkiness" comes from whatever's cutting edge. Want quirkiness? Create something new! You can't just hang around debugging quirky software and expect it NOT to get better, unless you're a terrible programmer. I don't understand complaints like this. Linux is a solid operating system! What did they want for their work? If they want to work on something more edgy, they should build something more edgy.

Re:If Zero down time is boring... (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33217666)

Mmm... quirky = unreliable/unpredictable, cutting edge or no. Cutting edge is more likely to be unreliable or unpredictable until it matures, by which time it is generally no longer cutting edge.

Quirkiness is fine for homebrew stuff or experimental settings, but it is very, very bad in an enterprise setting in which reliability is important.

Now it is dangerous (-1, Troll)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215836)

Don't get me wrong, it is still fun to play with the Open Software, but nowadays, the management realize that Open Software is in fact pretty much Close Software (GPL anyone?). Except if you are GOOGLE or some other big CLOUD COMPUTING company, the Open Software is a poison, that once you accept, you have to keep take, otherwise you will die.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215864)

Are you trolling? Because "Open Software is in fact pretty much Close Software (GPL anyone?)" is a patently ridiculous statement. Yes, you can argue that the viral nature of the GPL is not a good thing for certain business models, but arguing that open source is closed is flat out Orwellian.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216054)

Tell me man, can i take BusyBox and include it in my little embedded $30 device, without paying some license fee to the main developer of the Open Software Busybox program??? In my book, there is nothing open, or free in fact, if at the end you end up paying some fee. Free as a Beer anyone?

Re:Now it is dangerous (2, Informative)

xororand (860319) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216454)

Why would you have to pay any fees for distributing GPL licensed software? All you have to do is provide the source code of your derivation. If you haven't modified the software, even an acknowledging link to http://www.busybox.net/ [busybox.net] is more than enough.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216494)

To my knowledge, as long as you release the source code changes you made when releasing your device, you're okay. And if you're doing this for personal use and not selling it, then you don't owe a penny. Everyone sued by BusyBox had used BusyBox source, not acknowledged it, and sold products with it without releasing the source.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216926)

And it's not like they're likely to have even modified BusyBox, and so they really were just lazy - not protecting company secrets that should have been open-sourced.

Re:Now it is dangerous (0, Troll)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216986)

To my knowledge, you are simply unaware of all the implications of using open source code. Once you use even 1kb of GPL'd binary, you MUST open the source code of this binary, and everything else. So, if i have 1TB project that is using 1KB GPL, my whole 1TB project source code should be released too. There is good reason in this, but nevertheless, there is a good reason in poison too.

Re:Now it is dangerous (2, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33218614)

That's not true, only the code directly utilizing the GPL'd library needs to be open-sourced.

So as long as your 1TB project keeps the portions that need the GPL'd code sanctioned off (in another binary, or a compiled library similar to Windows DLLs) from the rest of your code, you don't need to open source the whole shebang.

Now, if you include code that includes GPL code, you're absolutely right. But you'd have to be an idiot not to be able to find a way around that, and if the GPL code is so critical that it must be included, and you cannot re-write it yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be complaining about GPL'ing the whole thing, given the amount if time/effort the GPL library is obviously saving you.

GPL only acts as a virus if you're stupid. If it's a 1kb GPL library, you should be able to include it in a way that does not violate the GPL nor force you to GPL the rest of your code. If you can't, then re-write the damn library on your own. If you can't, I can't imagine how you ever managed to get 1TB of code in the first place.

Re:Now it is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33218992)

To my knowledge, you are simply unaware of all the implications of using open source code. Once you use even 1kb of GPL'd binary, you MUST open the source code of this binary, and everything else. So, if i have 1TB project that is using 1KB GPL, my whole 1TB project source code should be released too. There is good reason in this, but nevertheless, there is a good reason in poison too.

If you had a 1TB application, why would you be needing busybox to begin with...?

Apart from that, take a more realistic scenario: You have a small embedded device. You make some changes to the Linux kernel to adapt it to your hardware. Then you use busybox to provide the functionality of init, sh and the like, but you make no changes to busybox itself because it's fine as it stands.

Next you develop, from scratch, some app started by init that blinks your lights or does whatever. It links with LGPLd libraries (probably libc).

The result? You have to provide the changes you made to Linux. That is all. You made no changes to busybox, so simply telling people where to find the source code is enough. Your super-duper app stays private because it was written from scratch, and linking with LGPLd libraries is okay.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33218510)

Tell me man, can i take BusyBox and include it in my little embedded $30 device, without paying some license fee to the main developer of the Open Software Busybox program???

Yes.

Since the rest of your post is based on a false assumption, it can safely be ignored.

Re:Now it is dangerous (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216248)

If you only use the software and don't redistribute alterations, then how is the GPL different from the BSD license?

Re:Now it is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33217582)

if you use GPL Affero even your in-house changes must be made public. Worse, this gives others an implied right of audit of your servers. So stay away from Affero!

In a decade of working in the software industry (3, Informative)

whuddafugger (942622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215844)

I'd say my experience has been similar in that we often usezZZZZZzzzzz *snort* zZZZZZzzz......*snore*...zzzZZZZzzzzzz.........

Bad headline and summary (4, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215854)

So, basically, this is the same story that everyone else is running about the Linux Foundation releasing a set of tools to help companies check GPL compliance, but with a confrontational headline and summary?

Re:Bad headline and summary (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33217796)

I thought it was confrontational as well (I kept thinking "Enterprise stuff is supposed to be boring"), but then I read the last line of the summary:

That's not only good news for companies, it's a really important step for the Linux Foundation.

So, yeah, it sounds like he's pissing all over the Linux Foundation, but he's not. He's praising them. Just not very well.

Open source is boring (1, Informative)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215900)

But that's a good thing in my book. Takes a little longer to get things set up and configured, but once you do, it stays working. No Wednesday am WTF?! No panic when the virus of the day rolls around.

It took Microsoft until Windows 7 to produce an OS almost as boring.

I didn't know there was a struggle (5, Interesting)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215940)

Was there a struggle to get open source into businesses? I thought "In the early days of free software", the whole point was that the developers sought to provide free software in terms of libre, and as gratis as a side effect. Stallman wasn't trying to get businesses to use his software, he was trying to make the software he needed available for free because he saw that the software business was not distributing code or providing the freedoms to tinker and improve software enjoyed under the MIT heydays.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216172)

They mean the early days of open source, not free software. Open source is like free software with less neck beard and socialist revolutionary rhetoric. They looked specifically to get into the enterprise by changing the way they dressed the same products in different packaging.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (3, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216250)

Was there a struggle to get open source into businesses? I thought "In the early days of free software", the whole point was that the developers sought to provide free software in terms of libre, and as gratis as a side effect. Stallman wasn't trying to get businesses to use his software, he was trying to make the software he needed available for free because he saw that the software business was not distributing code or providing the freedoms to tinker and improve software enjoyed under the MIT heydays.

Then the libertarian contingent jumped in; they loved coding, but like the majority of libertarians, they were obsessed with money. They had to reconcile free software with someone, somewhere (not even necessarily themselves) making money, because that is the greatest societal good.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33221162)

They had to reconcile free software with someone, somewhere (not even necessarily themselves) making money, because that is the greatest societal good.

Even Stallman never had a problem with people making money on software, as long as the source was distributed, modifiable, and redistributable in modified form. The problem, from a libertarian point of view, is being required to distribute source code.

That said, I highly doubt that the original open source founders were driven by libertarian views, but rather by pragmatism and not being outright hostile to those who wanted to follow the closed source model.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33221380)

The original GNU guys weren't I think, I'm talking about the latecomers, the late 90's OSI types who insisted that it was important that companies jump on the free software/open source bandwagon.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33221594)

I'm talking about the latecomers, the late 90's OSI types

That's who I'm talking about as well. You say libertarian, I say pragmatist.

Re:I didn't know there was a struggle (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216340)

I think the writer is referring to the early days of the "FOSS as political statement" movement, which came some time after Stallman's "FOSS as philosophical statement" movement.

Pr0n? (1)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33215982)

Include pr0n. That ought to make it interesting.

Re:Pr0n? (3, Funny)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216014)

I believe the above suggestion, however immature and redundant it may seem, could actually lead to the "Year of Linux on the Desktop" finally happening.

Re:Pr0n? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216428)

Yeah, because that'd so improve Linux' image as the OS for basement dweller nerds who can't get laid. And even for those of us who don't mind porn, playing on sex to sell something is so overdone, cheap and lame. It's got nothing to do with the product but let's throw a half-naked lady in our ad, go buy. I'm not sure there's actually that much good porn which is legally distributable, it's just that copyright seems to mean even less for porn than everything else.

What OSS lack is killer apps, and I don't mean Firefox or OpenOffice or GIMP. They're decent contenders but they're not huge hits. I don't care how many times KDE reinvents the semantic desktop and new ways to give me notifications, it's the applications that count. The other part is not being so militantly hostile to closed source, it's choice. Nothing will force you to buy Photoshop for Linux if GIMP makes you happy. For example right now I wish there was a decent video editor for Linux, of any kind. I've tried what's allegedly the best and well.. I'd be willing to pay money for something better.

"Code Janitor Tool" (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216308)

Interesting. I guess we can look forward to less obscenity in the comments of released FOSS source code. As well as the stated goal of making "sure developers did not leave comments in the source code about future products, product code names, mention of competitors, etc."

Well, ok, that last bit about competitors may be a reference to swearing.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33216522)

I read the title as "Linux Foundation Makes Open Source Bong"

Less new buggy features, more bug fixes (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33216962)

That is what FOS needs. It is fun working on state-of-the-art stuff. But it isn't fun being end user of FOS apps that are buggy because developers make new bugs before fixing iportant old ones.

This is the problem with open source, since there is more freedom what to do. Often new releases are more fun to do than to fix old broken stuff. Just take a look at KDE and Linux distro releases, they come so often.

Invasion! ...of boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33217036)

Plinkett, is that you?

Interesting Title!!! (1)

teknikqa (1029616) | more than 3 years ago | (#33218822)

But it does make a point. Linux was for the uber geeks. Not for the corporate suits. Its good that we have reached a point where a discussion of the license is as important as the features of the software. .... AH!!!! Then I go read the article and realize its just a promotion for 3 tools being released. Upper management doesn't care for these tools. Maintainers maybe. What a waste of time.

OP "linux geeks" type give OSS a bad name (3, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33220078)

People like you - the idiots who like pushing shit through the back door and apparently like "quirkiness and the riskiness" of immature, poorly maintained, undocumented projects. Seriously: fuck you.

You are the reason that Open Source has taken such a long time to adapt. I know of several IT contracting firms which will not touch Linux or Open Source in general because they have seen entirely too many instances of people like you and their work: technologically headstrong geek installs an Open Source product/project in an esoteric, convoluted fashion and didn't document the process (potentially only so he could fix it). He does his best to put as much customization and inter-dependence into the system(s) as possible. Then he moves on to do something else, and the customer is left holding the bag.

I suspect you and my predecessor would get along just fine. He enjoyed fucking people over, too.

Guess what? Most people would much rather be "bored" at work than have to fuck with something that broke because it was poorly conceived, and face the wrath of managers and users. THat's what the Linux Foundation (and those PFYs that fall in love with their recommendations/solid products) does for us: lets us sleep at night.

There is a time and a place for "tinkering" and non-turnkey solutions - and it's called a lab. If you don't have one, you need one. It will save you time and money in the long run - it's the first step towards standardization and reduction of costs. It is very unprofessional (and foolish) to roll an untested product out to production without thorough initial testing - anyone who calls themselves an IT administrator or engineer and does otherwise is a fool.

Any administrator worth his salt hates sketchy nonsense. This is why we don't run early release software and other such nonsense.

It's different if you're in an "IT company" making something new, but yeah, as a general rule, sketch is bad.

Re:OP "linux geeks" type give OSS a bad name (1)

KnightBlade (1074408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33222208)

Although you sound like someone pissed in your lunch, you have a point. Along with documentation I believe it's also the User Interface that matters. And I don't mean a pretty interface with transparency and stuff. I mean usability wise. Error messages have got to make more sense. User has to be notified in some way that the application is performing some operating in the background. For instance what the fuck is a layman supposed to understand by "Wrong architecture i386"? And seriously can't we have a LoL (Linux on Linux) to enable 32 bit packages to run on a 64bit OS like windows does (WoW)? Now hardware vendors make drivers for linux (well, a lot of them do), now the issue is that they're 32 bit and you have to hack around to get them to work on your 64bit OS. :|

Boring is good (most of the time) (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#33220744)

I don't know if you have actually given a look at that "fun" code of the "golden age of free software".

I have. I'm pretty sure that the programmer that did it had a great time and felt very smart when he wrote it.

Undecipherable variable names. Functions with 200+ LOC and no comments. C macros gone grazy. I hope you get the idea.

It sucked.

I get it. Making maintainable, structured, easy to understand code is boring. Or not as fun as showing the word how mad your "regexp skillz" are. Well, it also sucks.

I personally enjoy making code as easy to understand and "obvious" as possible. It is difficult. It makes you work more slowly. You don't get the instant gratification that you might get with this or that clever hack. But you get long-term satisfaction, when someone sends you an email saying "Hey, I needed to make a change in your code and it was so easy because it is well written. Thanks a lot"

Software Is Not Playtime for Developers (1)

reallocate (142797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33222278)

No one wants quirky and risky software anymore than they want quirky and risky airplanes. Software is not playtime for developers.

I'll believe it when Microsoft goes down (1)

Eclipse-now (987359) | more than 3 years ago | (#33224846)

I don't like Microsoft. I love the idea of open source. I just don't think the group-think is dead yet. People use microsoft because people use microsoft. People use word becauseeveryone else uses it and sends stuff around in it. Blaargh! Just imagine the world we could have.

If I ran the world, (being the Nazi control freak that I am) I'd rule that we'd all shift to Mac, which would become open source. We'd keep the Mac creative guys in charge of brainstorming various projects, but also with input from the grassroots hacker community. These hacker ideas would filter up from the bottom. We'd arrange some means of having the best of both worlds dialogue online, vote on it, and move to the next big thing. And this would save on human capital, as mac users getting a job in PC land wouldn't have to relearn how to suck eggs every time, and vice versa. I mean, does the world really need 30 different word processors, and the end-user confusion when switching from one to another? New ways of doing stuff in this GLOBAL software would become 30 second snippets in the nightly news. Everyone would have an idea of how to navigate the basics, and what changes might be coming.

Then it would be boring, and reliable, and universal: yet still shiny all at the same time.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...