Beta
×

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!

Stack Exchange Website Profiler Now Open Source

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the go-forth-and-profile dept.

Software 56

ScuttleMonkey writes "Joel Spolsky sent out smoke signals this morning about the recent release of the Stack Exchange Website Profiler as open source. Sam Saffron expounds on why this profiler is perhaps 'best and most comprehensive production web page profiler out there for any web platform.' The project is available via Google Code or NuGet."

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

.NET production profiler (4, Informative)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36391858)

To be a little bit more informative is a low profile monitoring tool for production environments running .NET mvc.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36391986)

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:.NET production profiler (1, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392116)

Awesome, open source code that requires you to use a closed source system to run it. That always makes me laugh.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392188)

Do you laugh out loud, or just quietly to yourself?

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392218)

Aren't we inquisitive? Not a real laugh, I just find the concept quite funny. It seems mighty absurd.

Re:.NET production profiler (1, Funny)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392418)

I was hoping that you'd say that you always laugh openly and invite others to fork off their own version of laughter.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36396932)

I always keep my laughing closed, so that I can maximize the profitability of it.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393820)

I bet your open source software runs on a "closed source" CPU.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392232)

You know what makes me laugh? People who spout the benefits of open source, but then laugh when people try to improve a closed system by making parts of it open source.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392340)

You know what makes me laugh? People who spout the benefits of open source, but then laugh when people try to improve a closed system by making parts of it open source.

Purists make the worst evangelists.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392694)

A system closed in some key parts is closed, no matter how many layers of FOSS depend on it. Wanna build up on a closed system? It's a bet, pray that open alternatives come indirectly to your rescue by simply being there.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393080)

I wonder, when RMS was writing the GNU tools, how did he do it without open source tools...

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

cyberstealth1024 (860459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393360)

with butterflies [xkcd.com] ...duh!

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393676)

He used proprietary software to get the GNU project up and running. First thing he wrote was an editor, then a compiler using that editor, then tools using that compiler and editor, then more tools using the existing tools, compiler, editor, etc.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36398886)

With a proprietary compiler, likely. The difference between building a toolchain and in perspective an OS for an eventually self hosted environment vs. building stuff using the .net framework, especially when targeting windows, should have been obvious to a low ID slashdotter.
Open hardware would be better, ditto for open firmware, and free compilers are here already. But as long as their specification are correct / no backdoors, showstopping bugs, and as long as I am the owner of the product they issue (which is not true h264 video, for example), I say "close enough".

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403326)

"The difference between building a toolchain and in perspective an OS for an eventually self hosted environment vs. building stuff using the .net framework, especially when targeting windows, should have been obvious to a low ID slashdotter."

That is obvious to me. The point I was making is that open source software didn't come out of nowhere. It had to be jump started by something.

Re:.NET production profiler (4, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392246)

Awesome, open source code that requires you to use a closed source system to run it. That always makes me laugh.

Are you running on pure open hardware? is all the microcode on all your firmware devices open source?

You have a piece of software that can be integrated in a .NET web app to gain more visibility into how the app functions. Having that available is a good thing if you write .NET code. Having the source code available is a potentially better thing for you (I say potentially because I'm speaking of immediate and direct utility). The fact that .NET itself is not open source, and that windows itself is not open source does not nullify the utility of access to the source code for this profiler.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392478)

Umm... all of you guys know .net is open source right?!

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/16/net-framework-library-source-code-now-available.aspx

See Mono... h4rr4r might as well mean ignorant grumpy old man afraid of the best IDE and language (C#) that ever was.

Re:.NET production profiler (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392650)

You (and the blog you linked to) seem to have a different definition of open source then most of us...

From your link:

Reference License

The .NET Framework source is being released under a read-only reference license.

*emphasis mine

And as for Mono, my understanding is that they specifically avoided touching the reference code so the that Mono is considered a reversed engineered product and that no developers were tainted by being given access to the MS code.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392866)

Yeah, right. Except that the bits that aren't - like the point release which anyone who installs updates is running - aren't even available read-only.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394230)

The .NET Framework source is being released under a read-only reference license....If the software you are developing is for Windows platforms, you can look at the code, even if that software has "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the .NET Framework.

It's open source but not FOSS, and not granting any freedom from software patents, a safety which cannot be granted anyway, until obvious stuff can be patented.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392588)

Right...... closed source... sure maybe IIS, but .NET is not: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/16/net-framework-library-source-code-now-available.aspx See Mono.... Take your hate and ignorance elsewhere troll

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392746)

You keep referring to that link. I don't think is says what you think it says.

(with apologies to Inigo Montoya)

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392918)

That does not say what you claim it says. .NET is pantent encumbered and the way anyone uses it in the real world includes lots of closed source stuff.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392620)

Yeah, it's similar very similar to Linux. Running an open source system on closed source hardware. That always makes me laugh.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392742)

ASP.NET MVC is open source, and so is Mono.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392960)

Real only license, patent encumbered and in the real world people include lots of closed source stuff when using it.

It is open only in the loosest sense. Mono is aptly named after a disease.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393348)

I think

Mono is aptly named after a disease.

was a joke. This being Slashdot, I can't be sure, though. Just in case, for the record it's called "Mono" because "mono" means "monkey" in Spanish, and Miguel de Icaza thinks monkeys are neat.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393352)

Everything is patent encumbered these days, hell, even linked lists are patented and you can include closed source stuff with any language anyway.

Re:.NET production profiler (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36395098)

Real only license,

I'm not sure what a "Real only license" is, so I assume you meant to write "read-only".

Even then it doesn't make any sense to me, because Mono is GPL and LGPL, and ASP.NET MVC is under Ms-PL; the latter is considered a "free software license" by FSF (it's effectively BSDL + patent clause). Neither are "read-only" in any meaningful sense.

in the real world people include lots of closed source stuff when using it.

In real world, most people who use Linux also use proprietary closed-source NVidia graphics drivers. That's because, in real world, most people are pragmatists and not fanatics.

Re:.NET production profiler (1)

robmclarty (2211220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392346)

Yeah, I got all excited about this and followed the link only to find out it's for .NET. Boo.

Re:.NET production profiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36409310)

To be a little bit more informative is a low profile monitoring tool for production environments running .NET mvc.

When noone understands what it is, it clearly has to do with MS/Windows. I've observed that those who use mainly MS/Windows products, tend to believe that's the only platform out there and take it for granted that anyone knows what it's about.

How do you call a person like this?

more content (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392026)

less vague bullcrap. thanks

Lots of work to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392424)

Sadly Joel Sprotsky the ex-Microsoftie still has a lot of work to do: choosing .NET and Windows server (!) was probably far from the smartest idea. All the biggest websites (eBay, Amazon, GMail, Google, Wikipedia, etc.) do NOT run on Windows servers for a reason.

The uptime of SO is pathetically bad and I cannot stand that lolcat of theirs when their Windows servers go down.

Kudos for SO, it's a great success (altough the quality of both the questions and the answers has been going more than fastly downhill lately). But the realization does s*ck big time.

If you want to handle millions of views per day and not have the pathetic uptime of SO, look at how the really big guys do it.

Re:Lots of work to do... (3, Informative)

Rigbyd (1190441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392624)

Sadly Joel Sprotsky the ex-Microsoftie still has a lot of work to do: choosing .NET and Windows server (!) was probably far from the smartest idea. All the biggest websites (eBay, Amazon, GMail, Google, Wikipedia, etc.) do NOT run on Windows servers for a reason.

Perhaps you should start by looking at how StackOverflow actually does it since a majority of their servers *aren't* Windows based. http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/3/3/stack-overflow-architecture-update-now-at-95-million-page-vi.html [highscalability.com]

Re:Lots of work to do... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36395266)

It seems they use Linux to cover it up when Windows dies with HAProxy.

Everything still boils down to IIS, .NET and MS SQL.

any web platform? (4, Informative)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392754)

'best and most comprehensive production web page profiler out there for any web platform.'

That's a little bit misleading. This project is basically instrumentation that you add to an asp.net 4.0 webapp. It does not seem to be usable by any other kind of webapp. It doesn't even look like it would be easy to port to the other major platforms.

Re:any web platform? (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394480)

Is your sig a quote from something or original? I kinda like it.

Re:any web platform? (1)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36395190)

Is your sig a quote from something or original? I kinda like it.

It's a line from Raising Arizona.

Re:any web platform? (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36396742)

I also have to take issue with the blog author's responses to comments related to this profiler. About seven comments down he writes:

Code is easy. Ideas are hard.

That's probably one of the most ludicrous things I've seen. Ideas are not hard. They're easy. Want some examples?

I have an idea: Let's go to the moon.

I have an idea: Let's go to Mars.

I have an idea: Let's come up with clean, plentiful energy.

I realize I'm nitpicking, but the way he should have written it is:

Code is easy. Ideas are easy. Implementation is hard.

Because, frankly, an idea is less than 1% of the total work in a project. Anyone can have an idea. Code and implementation (more so the latter, but they're so heavily intertwined that the boundaries are greatly blurred) are the remaining 99%. Granted, that is probably what he meant by an idea, but for the sake of clarity it's important to emphasize.

Re:any web platform? (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404212)

Architecture is hard. Or more correctly, choosing the "correct" architecture is hard. If you pick the architecture well, implementation may be time consuming but hopefully isn't "hard."

Re:any web platform? (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404380)

Also a good point.

I suppose one of the problems with nitpicking is that it is exceedingly easy to blur the lines between one facet of the development process and another. From an extremely high level view, I would probably argue that ideas live on one end of the spectrum and coding, implementation, and--as you suggested--architecture live on the other.

But, since you replied, I would assume that you understood the gist of my point which was that ideas are not the hard part by any stretch of the imagination. After all, we're splitting hairs over the implementation of the idea, not the generation of the idea itself!

Re:any web platform? (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404462)

Yeah for sure. I should have said that you made good points up front. I was just trying to contribute, but there is so much stupid sniping on /. that it doesn't go without saying!

Re:any web platform? (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415480)

Yeah for sure. I should have said that you made good points up front. I was just trying to contribute, but there is so much stupid sniping on /. that it doesn't go without saying!

Yeah, definitely. I appreciate your additions (and deserved corrections) to my complaints about the article's author and his comments. I owe you an apology for my somewhat defensive reply for reasons you undoubtedly understand. In fact, you pointed it out! There's really no excuse for my defensive behavior.

Along those lines, I appreciate your response and clarifications. I don't always post on /., and when I do it's often very regular for a period of 2 days, and then I disappear again for the exact reason that I grow gravely frustrated over the general atmosphere (particularly in the political posts).

Go figure. I wish we were isolated from those other sites that shall remain unnamed, but I'm afraid that the basic mentality common elsewhere is slowly bleeding through here, ruining otherwise good conversations. It's pathetic.

FLOSS StackOverflow alternatives (2)

Hobart (32767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36392776)

It is nice that these utilities are part of a growing amount of open source .NET code (like Apache's efforts helped grow F/LOSS software for Java). That said, those who want to support a Q&A community running on Free code can look at:

Re:FLOSS StackOverflow alternatives (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393392)

Wow, Shapado looks exactly StackExchange. I'm assuming that's legal and all (didn't check the licenses), but it sure is in poor taste.

Poor taste when GNU/Linux copied UNIX? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394000)

Wow, Shapado looks exactly StackExchange. I'm assuming that's legal and all (didn't check the licenses), but it sure is in poor taste.

Wow, GNU/Linux looks exactly like UNIX. I'm assuming that's legal and all (didn't check the licenses), but it sure is in poor taste.

Wow, Quattro Pro looks exactly like 1-2-3. I'm sure this one is legal (even checked the US Supreme Court decision [wikipedia.org] ), but it sure is in poor taste.

Re:Poor taste when GNU/Linux copied UNIX? (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394356)

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

Legality of course has nothing to do with taste. Is the fact that Linux and its associates are copies of UNIX in poor taste? Yes, initially; I'd say so. Programmers are rarely known for their taste (nor, I think, should they be expected to be; that's not what we—read: society at large—expects from them. Still, nothing fluffs your bona fides like success, so is Linux in poor taste now? Doubtful.

As for spreadsheets, I'm glad Lotus and Borland got that settled before Excel beat the summed column off them.

Re:Poor taste when GNU/Linux copied UNIX? (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394708)

tepples may have a history of sarcastic responses, and there are times when I often disagree with what he has to post, but he gets his point across.

In this case, I tend to agree with his sarcasm. The fact that you aren't appreciative of it is awful telling--never mind that you feel GNU/Linux being a copy of UNIX to be (initially) in poor taste.

Yes, 1-to-1 knockoffs are generally bad, generally in poor taste, and generally the result of a) lack of skill and/or creativity, 2) familiarity, or 3) so great an influence by the product being copied that no one has a choice. SO's knock offs like OSQA probably fall into #2 with the exception of some of the icons (but it's F/OSS, so if you don't like that, you can fix it). But what about Bing? What about most modern search engines? Is putting a branding image plus a simple text field a knock off of Google in poor taste? No, it's #3. Google has been so influential that a large number of search-centric sites (well, those who want to be successful, anyway, with the exception of Yahoo and MSN) copy them. And Linux? I'd place it always in #2. Familiarity is often far more important than any other criteria.

Either way, I suppose it's important to point out something that most of us are bound to overlook: One individual's idea of poor taste is another's idea of creativity, success, or familiarity. Cultural differences are an important backdrop to how we each view something, perhaps to the extent of serving as our primary or exclusive social filters.

Note: I'm not condoning 1-to-1 copies of someone else's labor. My personal opinion is that it is generally in poor taste, but since very few here play devil's advocate...

Re:Poor taste when GNU/Linux copied UNIX? (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394878)

If tepples has such a history, I wasn't aware of it; I was only responding to his post. Nor was I unappreciative—quite the opposite: I took his point, though obviously I don't entirely agree with it. I am the better for examining points in opposition to my own.

That said, I don't disagree with what you wrote otherwise, and I'll certainly grant that familiarity is often—usually—an overriding concern. I don't think that nullifies whether or not something is in poor taste or not, however.

Re:Poor taste when GNU/Linux copied UNIX? (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36395110)

I have him friended because I find his posts pretty entertaining (I use the friend system on /. as a glorified "hey, I like this person's posts" filter), and perhaps I would have been better off classifying his comment history as "snarky" more than sarcastic. Either way, I get a great deal of enjoyment out of it even if I completely disagree with the point he's making, but I think that's largely because a lot of people are unnecessarily touchy. :)

That said, I don't disagree with what you wrote otherwise, and I'll certainly grant that familiarity is oftenâ"usuallyâ"an overriding concern. I don't think that nullifies whether or not something is in poor taste or not, however.

This is also true.

I admit I was put off a bit by OSQA's Stack-like UI, including down to the not-quite-perfectly-circular rep icons. Although I'm also somewhat torn: Competition is good, there are few decent QA frameworks out there, and it's written in Python. What a dilemma!

I did miss one other thing in my post: Intent. I think the general taste of something (whether good or bad) also depends on intent in addition to the other requisites. If the intent is to create a familiar system that others could use for their own benefit, then it was conducted in a net positive (e.g. "good") taste.

Conversely, if it was copied directly because the intent was largely that of laziness and to create a knockoff without any social value, then the system was designed in a manner with a net negative (e.g. "bad") taste.

But I think you get the idea. I apologies for the overly verbose examples, but it isn't you I'm worried about--there are others who will likely read through this thread and throw a tantrum and nitpick on points that either one of us may have glossed over, even though we're both largely in agreement.

Re:FLOSS StackOverflow alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393664)

I didn't know they existed. A missing useful information is in what language/framework are they using:
    * Shapado use rails
    * OSQA use django

oh god, somebody please tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36392950)

when is joel spolsky going to either die or stop getting press!?!?

Thank you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393718)

This is awesome!

I'm in love! (1)

ses4j (307318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36396228)

Many of the commenters seem pretty cranky, but I am very excited by this tool, it's exactly what I need and very nicely put together. I'll certainly be weaving it into my project. It shows the same dense but tight information presentation, use of AJAX techniques, and clean, modern web coding techniques that makes Stack Overflow so popular in the first place.

Stock Exchange? (1)

nickruiz (1185947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36399540)

Too bad I read the title as "Stock Exchange Website Profiler" and thought that someone had open sourced years of mining and forecasting stock information for the public to collaborate on.

Back on topic, this is quite interesting as well.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>