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!

Remirroring Mark Pilgrim's Sites

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the yeoman's-effort dept.

Books 46

First time accepted submitter ServerCobra writes "Last week, Mark Pilgrim 'pulled down his popular 'Dive Into...' sites. I remirrored a couple of them, because they are far too helpful and important to lose. DiveIntoPython.net, DiveIntoPython3.net, and DiveIntoHTML5.net."

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

Troller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705102)

The guy asked for privacy and the Internet guys respond with NO.

Re:Troller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705170)

More like Stalker.

Re:Troller (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37706326)

He can have his privacy. It's the useful stuff that he released under a CC license that permits this very sort of mirroring that everybody wants.

By pulling everything down suddenly and serving 410s, Mark Pilgrim appears to have turned to a life of dickery. He's well within his right to stop supporting the things he's created just as much as it is his right to take down his blog and personal websites. It's this inexplicable move to deny distribution to the public the code and knowledge he has previously relinquished exclusive control over.

As far as I'm concerned, he can move up to Montana, live in a hunting lodge, and spend the rest of his life writing an anti-technology manifesto. His last act on the Internet, though, makes him look like a jackass.

Re:Troller (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about 3 years ago | (#37707822)

Just because you release something under a permissive license doesn't mean you have to host the content forever. If people wanted a copy of the content, it's their own responsibility to mirror it.

Re:Troller (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 3 years ago | (#37709054)

Just because you release something under a permissive license doesn't mean you have to host the content forever. If people wanted a copy of the content, it's their own responsibility to mirror it.

There is nothing illegal about what he did, he can do whatever he wants with his own website. But doing it without any notice is still a jackass move. Being a jackass isn't illegal, but it is what it is.

Re:Troller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37709072)

The nice move would be to have a grace period for the websites. Deleting from external sites that don't cost him anything, like github definitely puts it into dickery.

This last move was complete dickery, yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37721876)

Especially for a guy who routinely works at high-ranking companies like Google.

This last move was complete dickery. And he IS a jackass.

And he can keep his damn privacy because I'd prefer the internet didn't have to deal with his shade of character.

And... (2)

msauve (701917) | about 3 years ago | (#37705144)

was this done with his permission? He presumably holds the copyright, and took them down for reasons apparently only known to himself.

Re:And... (4, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#37705164)

The Work shall remain online under the CC-BY-3.0 License

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37709310)

Damn right it shall.

Re:And... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705176)

Oh tough shit. He made something useful, put it online, flounced (again!) from the internet and acts all butthurt if his stuff is shared in a community.

No different than fucking with any of the MAFIAA or however you kids call 'em today. Be thankful you contributed something to mankind at all.

If you're going to pick up your toys and go home, at least have the good taste to commit suicide and make it permanent.

Re:And... (1)

Lando (9348) | about 3 years ago | (#37707238)

Where does it say that he is acting "butthurt?" So he took down his website/information... Not a big deal since the information was licensed so that others could put up their own copies of that information. As far as I know he isn't threatening anyone and frankly having a website requires a certain amount of maintenance even if it's just a static website. I've had several of them over the years and have taken them down just because I don't want to continue to monitor them weekly or monthly to insure someone hasn't defaced them, uploaded a trojan, etc, etc.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume that he got upset and took his toys home with him, but even if that were the case, since he provided the information under an open license in the first place he still is a huge leap ahead of the MAFIAA in my mind.

Re:And... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about 3 years ago | (#37706714)

As evidenced by the licenses they were released under, yes.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37710078)

What were you, born in 1852? Copyright shmopyright. Tell me a copyrighted story about buggy whips, will ya...

Copyright? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 years ago | (#37705150)

I see a generic Copyright notice below, though other licenses are scattered throughout.

So how is this not food for the Copyright brigade?

Re:Copyright? (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | about 3 years ago | (#37705256)

From the book [diveintopython.net] :

Permission is granted to copy, distribute, and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in Appendix G, GNU Free Documentation License.

Offer a .torrent (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37705156)

It's the ultimate backup.

Re:Offer a .torrent (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#37705208)

A copyleft licence is better.

Re:Offer a .torrent (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 years ago | (#37705726)

A copyleft licence is better.

Are you retarded? Or just a freetard?

An actual file (or in this case a means of obtaining one) containing the data you seek is useful with or without the legal right to that data.
The right to that data is useless without the data itself.

Re:Offer a .torrent (1)

makapuf (412290) | about 3 years ago | (#37706648)

Well, let's say that if you offer a torrent, an open licence is somewhat implied, isn't it ? And given an open license, a well-seeded torrent will allow good availability.

Back in the real world... (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 3 years ago | (#37711990)

A torrent with no seeds is worthless.
Multiple web mirrors are more robust for this type of information, and since it's legal, more people are going to step forward to run them.

Re:Back in the real world... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 years ago | (#37742096)

Except you didn't specify web mirrors. You specified a copy left license.

Presuming web mirrors that are persistent and accessible to all is a much bigger leap than presuming a torrent with at least one seed that connects periodically.

And either way, the torrent itself certifies that someone has (or had) a copy of the original at one point in time.
A license does not ensure a copy ever existed.

So, any reason why he vanished yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705190)

I mean, yeah, you can get some privacy and still be an internet celebrity too.
Why is he wanting to kill his online identity? I find it a bit troubling, almost worrying, that he all of a sudden wanted to kill any mention of himself online. Those Dive Into series were absolutely well done.
Sounds like something dodgy might be happening in life...

Hellfire, did he ever get in touch with you?

Re:So, any reason why he vanished yet? (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 3 years ago | (#37709320)

Maybe I am crazy, but I am pretty sure he did this once before. He just vanished, and I believe the original Dive into Python went with him. Eventually he showed up again, but just his sites and occasional posts here and there, rather than as a fairly regular blogger. Then more activity and eventually DiP3 and DiH5, and now this.

Re:So, any reason why he vanished yet? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37712804)

I find it a bit troubling, almost worrying, that he all of a sudden wanted to kill any mention of himself online

And yet a lot of slashdotters love the idea of living off the grid, avoiding the evil government, not paying taxes and living like the central character in a paranoid conspiracy thriller story.

If he took the site down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705246)

they are not that important or popular obviously..

Someone else put up Dive into HTML 5 already.. (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 3 years ago | (#37705336)

http://diveintohtml5.info/table-of-contents.html [diveintohtml5.info]

Domain Name:DIVEINTOHTML5.INFO
Created On:05-Oct-2011 03:34:16 UTC

Domain: diveintohtml5.net
Registration Date: 2011-10-10

What's the problem? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#37705430)

The license those "Dive Into..." sites use explicitly allows exactly this sort of mirroring - so I can't see Mark Pilgrim raising a ruckus.

It sounds like he didn't just pull down those sites - he's removed pretty much every piece of his web-based presence. I can understand that - although he has given no explanation for his actions, I know from experience (albeit on a much smaller scale) when you put informational documents online for free the support demands made by the wider world can be pretty overwhelming. If he chose to throw up his hands and say "enough!", I can't blame him. But I am glad someone is taking action to keep these resources available while following the intent stated by the original author.

Bummer (1)

RancidPeanutOil (607744) | about 3 years ago | (#37705564)

I remember bookmarking his Python pages online, and I thought to myself, "Awesome, this is, like, the future, man. I'm not going to download it all and keep a hard copy, I can just access it anytime. The future is, like, now, dude." Wholly my own fault, but I feel strangely... weird. My cloud-faith is... shaken. Maybe I should start printing out all my emails like it's 1993...

Re:Bummer (1)

ZankerH (1401751) | about 3 years ago | (#37705642)

Relying on a "Cloud" service is like relying on clouds to provide shade in the Mediterranean summer.

Access globally... (1)

Fned (43219) | about 3 years ago | (#37705752)

...back up locally.

Wow. Sucks to not be Mark. (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about 3 years ago | (#37705692)

Good thing I wget'd -r -U'd all his stuff.

Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37706138)

He works at Google and now suddenly all of his work disappears from the internet.

Google is probably using his stuff to start their own Dive Into website.

Re:Google (2)

scurker (1381139) | about 3 years ago | (#37706202)

Google essentially already has their own "dive into" site. See HTML5 rocks [html5rocks.com] .

Dive Into Python critique (1)

lipi (142489) | about 3 years ago | (#37707800)

Don't know about the rest of the 'Dive Into...' sites, but the world may be actually better off without the Python site, if we are to believe this blog [oppugn.us] :

"Beginners see this and think that Python is complex and hard when it's actually one of the few languages designed to be easy to use. It's a damn shame they run into this book first.
(...)
This is for a first program? When beginners are told "go read Dive Into Python" they run into examples like this and get discouraged. I could see if Mr. Pilgrim had a giant disclaimer or something warning people that this isn't a beginner's book, but he doesn't. In fact, he has a whole damn chapter on installing Python 3 as if it's for a beginner.

This book is so full of bad initial examples and difficult to follow instructions that it actually hurts Python to have it exist. When beginners stumble onto it they end up getting discouraged and go on to another language. I personally have had too many friends who are eager to learn programming find this festering dung pile before I could warn them and get turned off from programming.

Re:Dive Into Python critique (3, Informative)

opposabledumbs (1434215) | about 3 years ago | (#37709224)

A blog post written by Zed Shaw, author of the web-book/e-book/html guide Learn Python the Hard Way , which you can have a look at here:

http://learnpythonthehardway.org/ [learnpytho...ardway.org]

Don't think this is a neutral point of view. Dive into Python tends to come up before Learn Python the Hard Way in most searches, and I think that could have something to do with that opinion.

I've used both, and in my opinion, both have a strong case for existence.

Re:Dive Into Python critique (1)

opposabledumbs (1434215) | about 3 years ago | (#37709282)

Having said that, I do think Zed's stuff is better for me as a beginner. But I can't claim to be the same as everyone else.

Re:Dive Into Python critique (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37710292)

Yes, Zed Shaw's stuff is better for a beginner. Particularly a very young one with a severe lack of maturity (but perhaps great bow staff skills.) Why that pipsqueak's juvenile rantings caused Mark Pilgrim such distress is beyond me though.

shows the value of copyleft licenses (3, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | about 3 years ago | (#37709860)

I run a site that catalogs books that have intentionally been made free by their authors (see my sig). By far the majority of such books are just free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech.

The half-life of the free-as-in-beer books seems to be something like 5 years. That's about how long it typically takes before the author takes them down off the web, and they are lost forever. (This is not just like a printed book going out of print. These books are typically not sitting around in libraries. That means they're as lost as a lost play by Aristophanes.)

Free-as-in-beer books are different. The beautiful thing about copyleft licensing is that once you provide the world with the gift of a piece of copylefted information, it's free forever. It basically doesn't matter at all that Mark Pilgrim has taken down his web site. Because his books are free-as-in-speech, his valuable contributions to the digital commons are still out there, making people's lives better.

We would all be a lot richer if more people could be convinced of what a good thing copyleft licenses are. When it comes to books, the problem seems to be that people underestimate how hard it is to do commercially successful writing. They have this illusion that they're going to make all kinds of money from their wonderful book, and they see copyleft licensing as being incompatible with that. The hard truth is that even a good, well-written book is seldom significantly profitable.

Re:shows the value of copyleft licenses (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37712862)

We would all be a lot richer if more people could be convinced of what a good thing copyleft licenses are. When it comes to books, the problem seems to be that people underestimate how hard it is to do commercially successful writing. They have this illusion that they're going to make all kinds of money from their wonderful book, and they see copyleft licensing as being incompatible with that. The hard truth is that even a good, well-written book is seldom significantly profitable.

Yes, but once you have no copyright restrictions at all, then no book is even slightly profitable (at least for the author)..

Re:shows the value of copyleft licenses (1)

Kidbro (80868) | about 3 years ago | (#37713080)

While GP used the word "Copyleft", I'm suspecting he actually meant to include licenses such as Creative Commons - under which successful (as in profitable for the author) commercial works have been released.

Re:shows the value of copyleft licenses (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about 3 years ago | (#37717354)

Yes, but once you have no copyright restrictions at all, then no book is even slightly profitable (at least for the author)..

Two misconceptions here: (1) Copyleft is not the same as having no copyright restrictions at all. Copyleft means using a license such as CC-BY-SA. (2) Copyleft is not incompatible with profit. My own physics textbooks, for example, are copylefted and profitable for me. (I make money from ads on my web site, but other authors of copylefted books have other ways of making a buck.)

Re:shows the value of copyleft licenses (1)

Spugglefink (1041680) | about 3 years ago | (#37733058)

...other authors of copylefted books have other ways of making a buck.)

Hot chicks read my book, and then I make a fortune selling my "genetic material injection service" to them. It pays a lot more than paltry royalties, and it's good fun when they opt for the "direct injection" service, which I offer at half the price of the standard in vitro service.

In all seriousness, if I had it all to do over again, I'd probably choose a copyleft license for my book. You can't make a lot of money with books like this, and once they get tied up in all these contracts and licensing agreements, it's difficult to ensure that your work lives beyond the end of its brief window of commercial viability.

which reminds me... (1)

NoGoodOnesLeft (241834) | about 3 years ago | (#37710836)

I'll go download Mendel Cooper's bash programming guide I've used countless times, just in case.
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/ [tldp.org]

Re:which reminds me... (1)

UnoriginalBoringNick (1562311) | about 3 years ago | (#37711118)

Thanks for the useful link. It looks very informative and nothing like as large a download as I feared

(Not yet had my third coffee of the day, I assumed tldp stood for "too long; didn't print")

Sell fashion and comfortable Women shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37746278)

www.bestwholesalereplica.com [slashdot.org] is an online wholesale footwear company. Wholesaler cheap Jewelry [bestwholesalereplica.com] We offer large selections of wholesale shoes, wholesale boots, wholesale sandals, wholesale flip flops, wholesale pumps, wholesale wedges, wholesale evening shoes and wholesale jewelries. We are dedicated to providing Wholesaler Cheap Women Shoes [bestwholesalereplica.com] top quality, trend setting, and latest styles in wholesale shoes and jewelries at competitive Wholesaler Cheap Women Clothing [bestwholesalereplica.com] discounted wholesale prices. We are most popularly known for providing top brand named products. Our goal is to provide fashionable products best wholesale replica [bestwholesalereplica.com] to meet our customer's satisfaction.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?