...with these posters.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/?ID=SecurityPosters
It's cheaper than fixing the problem.
Regards, Rob.
[sticking his head out above the parapet]
It's cheaper than fixing the problem.
Possibly slightly harsh. Consider some points about this -
there are more virus' for Windows because its less secure. True - but when they sat down and designed the OS, ease of doing things as opposed to security level was on their minds.
There are more virus' for Windows because the Development tools for windows are easier to use (if potentially less efficient (although argue about the new .net elsewhere)) for brainless morons.
There are more virus' for Windows because more people use windows. In twenty thirty fourty years time will we be seeing GNU do similar posters for Hurd?
What does this tell us about Linux - that there isnt a good Rapid Prototyping language for it? That the so called "standards" are always so diverse that even if you knew what a target computer was running (irc servers, mail servers and so on). Yes this means we are "free" but it can mean other things - that there isnt a singlually good thing out there.
I know several ALUG members who keep sitting down and going "I defend Open Source because it means we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
J
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
I know several ALUG members who keep sitting down and going "I defend Open Source because it means we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
Variety is the spice of life, and with out the variety, there's not a whole lot of point in having anything, the 'different' programs often use different toolkits, had different origionating ideas, and have different goals. The developers may well have started on the code at the same time, some of the projects may be forks of other projects (usually due to political arguments between groups of people, see BSDs variants for an example). Next you'll do the "why doesn't everyone use just one Desktop Environment" and "Why don't we all use the same distribution", there's reasons for everything. Anyways - you already know this, you're just being obtuse again and looking for responses ;) (Oh, and you could think of it *this* way, if it was such a brilliant idea to throw all your eggs in one basket, how comes a lot of the more useful software out there for windows *isn't* written by microsoft? and why is it that microsofts new titles generally magically appear, after aquiring yet another smaller company? (fair enough, M$ then fuck it sideways afterwards, but hey, you can't have everything)). There are as many different projects out there as developers with different mind sets and goals, there's a lot of compromise put in to most designs, you can either be extremely secure, or extremely flexible, or extremely simple to use (but fucks up badly when you want it to do something complex), I don't think I've yet come across anything that covers all three, you can get some very nice balances in the middle, and that's why you have so many forks/projects that seem the same.
Anyways - I wasn't actually in the mood for a rant. I have bad head.
Brett.
Ahh Mr Parker... how ever did you realise I had you in mind when I typed it?
Variety is the spice of life, and with out the variety, there's not a whole lot of point in having anything, the 'different' programs often use different toolkits, had different origionating ideas, and have different goals. The developers may well have started on the code at the same time, some of the projects may be forks of other projects (usually due to political arguments between groups of people, see BSDs variants for an example).
That gives it all its flavour. But Variety for Varietys sake? Im not saying the programs shouldnt have the ability to produce completly different output or performance results. Im suggesting that one program should be adaptable [through the use of options] to produce that variety.
Next you'll do the "why doesn't everyone use just one Desktop Environment" and "Why don't we all use the same distribution", there's reasons for everything.
Desktop envrioment was something I had in mind - whilst I understand that different people want to have different look and feel to their desktop enviroments, and indeed have completly different demands to them, which is possibly a more important issue for some, the basic usage of a desktop envrioment is the same. With X, the system was designed to allow the use of different window mangers and so on inside of the same system, so the potential of cross-compatable code would (and is) high.
Anyways - you already know this, you're just being obtuse again and looking for responses ;)
Yup. I'm very interested in what other people think.
(Oh, and you could think of it *this* way, if it was such a brilliant idea to throw all your eggs in one basket, how comes a lot of the more useful software out there for windows *isn't* written by microsoft?
Erm, Linus dosnt sit down and write X does he? or fix patches on Gaim? Whats your point about who writes it? My point about Windows was that the Operating system provider (Microsoft) also provide a development kit that allows a range of languages and a range of efficiencies for the development of applications for their operating system. Whilst some distributions do similar things, I dont get the same sort of feel for their compatable systems (by this I mean debian have a package which lets you make debian packages dont they? and similar tools are availible, but none of these tools seem to be like the Microsoft equivilant (which whilst dont allow you to be... adaptable ie everyone has the same toolsets, they do interface with each other on a very basic level).
There are as many different projects out there as developers with different mind sets and goals, there's a lot of compromise put in to most designs, you can either be extremely secure, or extremely flexible, or extremely simple to use (but fucks up badly when you want it to do something complex), I don't think I've yet come across anything that covers all three, you can get some very nice balances in the middle, and that's why you have so many forks/projects that seem the same.
But wouldnt it be better to create one program which did take all those mindsets and goals, all that experience and made a brillant adaptable progam? Sure there are *some* open source programs which do allow that level of genericiy (usually through the use of some core system and a bunch of plug-in modules such as Apache and Gaim.
<addin>
The original link was to posters for Microsoft's security concerns. The actual posters are to promote users ideas about security and suggest that you visit http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ which I presume will try to make sure that your computer has both recent patch updates and suggests using Anti-Virus software.
The final thing I would like to ask is do people using Linux take note of Linux virus's OR the potential that their servers might be transfering Windows virus's to other computers? If you have Windows users who are uploading files, might you have virus infected files on your webservers or email servers?
J
<personal note>
Anyways - I wasn't actually in the mood for a rant. I have bad head.
Get better. Got the cold eveyones got? Im currently hiding from foul mood headchy kaz whilst passing her tea & rugs on the end of a long stick.
J
On Sunday 01 Feb 2004 1:47 pm, J wrote:
major snippage.
But wouldnt it be better to create one program which did take all those mindsets and goals, all that experience and made a brillant adaptable progam? Sure there are *some* open source programs which do allow that level of genericiy (usually through the use of some core system and a bunch of plug-in modules such as Apache and Gaim.
Of course not, same way as it does not make sense to have only one type of car on the road. Sure we all want to get from a to b, but some of us want to get there fast, some want extreme comfort, some want economy etc, etc etc which is why one size fits all is NOT what is wanted.
Ian
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Erm, Linus dosnt sit down and write X does he? or fix patches on Gaim?
Coo, you're getting good at this, you do actually know something... *applauds the J*.
Whats your point about who writes it? My point about Windows was that the Operating system provider (Microsoft) also provide a development kit that allows a range of languages and a range of efficiencies for the development of applications for their operating system.
They do?! You mean that commercial get in your face, Pile Of Wank, get in the way IDE called Visual Studio? I wasn't aware that this was Free Software? or even available/accessable to the hundreds and thousands of programmers out there? I wasn't aware that the range of languages MS supports was actually very vast, or, even, very nice. And, above all, the Windows API is evil.
Whilst some distributions do similar things, I dont get the same sort of feel for their compatable systems (by this I mean debian have a package which lets you make debian packages dont they?
Hang on, now you've switched to package management?! Now, lets think about this, Windows is one distribution of one god damned awful operating system, *VERY* easy to get people to use a very very similar install mechanism, because everyone has to use the same set of libraries, and the same mechanisms to display windows. InstallShield ended up being one of the most popular installers for windows software, because it was easy... You'll notice the growing trend on linux to be apt-get, weird that, seens as it works. There are only really 2 schools now, the apt-get crew, and the ports crew (in effect), and both have their respective advantages and disadvantages, and mostly, they both work damned well. Now, if you have windows, where's the choice? it's going to be an executable, it's going to be run to install, wow. You know that there's going to be a GUI, because windows won't let you not have a GUI, so, there's one less concern. Now, take linux, doesn't matter what distro, someone, somewhere, is running it in the most minimal state possible while someone else has KDE/GNOME/FreeDesktop/all the graphical funkyness in the world... *YET* both of those systems should be able to upgrade cleanly, and with out requiring any more software.
and similar tools are availible, but none of these tools seem to be like the Microsoft equivilant (which whilst dont allow you to be... adaptable ie everyone has the same toolsets, they do interface with each other on a very basic level).
Just *WHAT* do you mean by this, you appear to be jumping between controlling interfaces, installers, IDEs, and, well, all the tools that for a good development environment you have to find some that suit you. It's a personal thing. Personally, I'd rather hack on code in vim, by hand, and write a quick makefile to generate the binaries, I don't like IDEs though, they tend to reduce my productivity by generally having backwards design ideas and trying to tell me what I mean when it's not at all what I mean. ISTR Mr Ray likes wily, because it sits well with how he develops, now, if you're saying that Visual Studio fits with how you develop, and you're very happy with the APIs of Microsoft Windows, then why waste your time telling us how great it all is, when we're not particularly interested, and go out and work for them?
But wouldnt it be better to create one program which did take all those mindsets and goals, all that experience and made a brillant adaptable progam? Sure there are *some* open source programs which do allow that level of genericiy (usually through the use of some core system and a bunch of plug-in modules such as Apache and Gaim.
Not everyone *NEEDS* the power of apache, many people run thttpd and other small webservers, some run apache2, some run not a lot more than a listener on the http port. THE CHOICE IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT. A *lot* of the systems would end up being slow, and unfit for purpose if you gave them all a "core system", a lot of them don't *need* plugins, don't want plugins, and would rather shoot you dead than use plugins. Think about what you're asking, you're asking a bunch of geeks, with differing goals, to colloborate on a messy mix of the projects. So, you end up compromising on speed, or security, or both. You end up with one project, that after a while is going to fork due to politics, or die with a lot of other projects out there. Stay with the variety, the more developers with ideas, the more projects, the more projects, the more competition, the more competetion, the more development, ergo - s'all good. Fair enough, you get 7 billion packages providing you with a webserver, but every single one of them has different goals.
The original link was to posters for Microsoft's security concerns. The actual posters are to promote users ideas about security and suggest that you visit http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ which I presume will try to make sure that your computer has both recent patch updates and suggests using Anti-Virus software.
The final thing I would like to ask is do people using Linux take note of Linux virus's OR the potential that their servers might be transfering Windows virus's to other computers? If you have Windows users who are uploading files, might you have virus infected files on your webservers or email servers?
*YAWN* I know my work mailserver is passing on windows viruses to our customers, but that's because there's no virus scanner in the chain, and I tend to prefer *NOT* fucking with customers e-mail midstream, TYVM. As for Linux virii, weirdly, you get these 'ere security alerts etc etc, most of us do keep an eye on what's going on.
Get better. Got the cold eveyones got? Im currently hiding from foul mood headchy kaz whilst passing her tea & rugs on the end of a long stick.
Hrm, well, woke up this morning, coughed guts up for half hour, head still fuzzy, sneezing is not nice, and generally feeling quite lethargic, about covers it. Now off to put the kettle on and have some tea while watching some snooker.
Brett.
Brett Parker wrote:
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Erm, Linus dosnt sit down and write X does he? or fix patches on Gaim?
Coo, you're getting good at this, you do actually know something... *applauds the J*.
Why thank you
Whats your point about who writes it? My point about Windows was that the Operating system provider (Microsoft) also provide a development kit that allows a range of languages and a range of efficiencies for the development of applications for their operating system.
They do?! You mean that commercial get in your face, Pile Of Wank, get in the way IDE called Visual Studio? I wasn't aware that this was Free Software? or even available/accessable to the hundreds and thousands of programmers out there? I wasn't aware that the range of languages MS supports was actually very vast, or, even, very nice. And, above all, the Windows API is evil.
Yes. Acutally I do mean that "Pile of Wank" Visual studio. Something which provides a range of languages from increadbly easiy to pickup (although in-efficient) VB through to more complex Cpp varients.
You can not sit and define the Windows API as "evil" AND sit and say that versitility is the spice of life. The Windows API is just different, and for some aspects, potentially better. For aspects of sound and video in Windows is actually something that I think is better supported then in the posix enviroment.
Hang on, now you've switched to package management?!
No. the use of the debian package manger is something that
Now, lets think about this, Windows is one distribution of one god damned awful operating system, *VERY* easy to get people to use a very very similar install mechanism, because everyone has to use the same set of libraries, and the same mechanisms to display windows. InstallShield ended up being one of the most popular installers for windows software, because it was easy... You'll notice the growing trend on linux to be apt-get, weird that, seens as it works. There are only really 2 schools now, the apt-get crew, and the ports crew (in effect), and both have their respective advantages and disadvantages, and mostly, they both work damned well. Now, if you have windows, where's the choice? it's going to be an executable, it's going to be run to install, wow. You know that there's going to be a GUI, because windows won't let you not have a GUI, so, there's one less concern. Now, take linux, doesn't matter what distro, someone, somewhere, is running it in the most minimal state possible while someone else has KDE/GNOME/FreeDesktop/all the graphical funkyness in the world... *YET* both of those systems should be able to upgrade cleanly, and with out requiring any more software.
No. I didnt switch to package managment. I mean the production of an executable file for another person.
Just *WHAT* do you mean by this, you appear to be jumping between controlling interfaces, installers, IDEs, and, well, all the tools that for a good development environment you have to find some that suit you. It's a personal thing. Personally, I'd rather hack on code in vim, by hand, and write a quick makefile to generate the binaries, I don't like IDEs though, they tend to reduce my productivity by generally having backwards design ideas and trying to tell me what I mean when it's not at all what I mean. ISTR Mr Ray likes wily, because it sits well with how he develops, now, if you're saying that Visual Studio fits with how you develop, and you're very happy with the APIs of Microsoft Windows, then why waste your time telling us how great it all is, when we're not particularly interested, and go out and work for them?
Im meaning that this is a potential "style" of system engineering, that it can be applied to **any** system used in computers, that you can apply it to the way that your systems are transmitted to the other computers, that you can apply it to the system you are making, so that your systems that you make are generic and workable .
Im not even saying that the use of your devopment kit has to be the one that is recommended by whoever made your OS - if you want to write in something else, sure, go ahead, there are command line options for those compilers as well you know.
But at the same time, dosnt it make sense to use the development kit that is built to interface with the operating system that you are writing for? Surely even for RAP systems, they will be even the slighest bit more effcient then having written without one.
Yes, I am asking alot. Its great being alturistic isnt it? Or wasnt that the point of the email?
And as for not being particually interested with how great Microsoft is - I never said they where great. Im saying they use this alternate style of engineering that you all seem to be misunderstanding, and that someone else started this trhead with Microsft are crap, so when asked if you're interested, well obviously at least one other person on this list is.
I tend to prefer *NOT* fucking with customers e-mail midstream, TYVM. As for Linux virii, weirdly, you get these 'ere security alerts etc etc, most of us do keep an eye on what's going on.
Fair point. But what about your customers who might be running mail servers for internal people on a Linux system - For example, whilst we do not want our ISP rejecting emails for us, we do reject emails for our users - indeed we even take those emails to a specific email address and have an admin deal with it in a "safe" manner. This is something we do in case there is potential that the content of the eamil might get passed here in another manner - for instance an email from home to work that has a virus in, we will inform the user that their comptuer at home has a virus, we will clean that email of the virus and then send the email to them. That way we get the work done.
Hrm, well, woke up this morning, coughed guts up for half hour, head still fuzzy, sneezing is not nice, and generally feeling quite lethargic, about covers it. Now off to put the kettle on and have some tea while watching some snooker.
Nurgle fangle :( Tea is always good. J
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote: They do?! You mean that commercial get in your face, Pile Of Wank, get in the way IDE called Visual Studio? I wasn't aware that this was Free Software? or even available/accessable to the hundreds and thousands of programmers out there? I wasn't aware that the range of languages MS supports was actually very vast, or, even, very nice. And, above all, the Windows API is evil.
Yes. Acutally I do mean that "Pile of Wank" Visual studio. Something which provides a range of languages from increadbly easiy to pickup (although in-efficient) VB through to more complex Cpp varients.
So, VB, J# and C#, then, that's about it, is it not? As for VB being incredibably easy to pick up, there's a lot of things that are when it's just drag an' drop components, writing VB by hand, on the other point, if not nice, and if you're going to do that, you really should learn C.
You can not sit and define the Windows API as "evil" AND sit and say that versitility is the spice of life. The Windows API is just different, and for some aspects, potentially better. For aspects of sound and video in Windows is actually something that I think is better supported then in the posix enviroment.
Erm, ITYWF I said variety, not versatility, but hey. The windows MFC is very evil, in my opinion, I have several APIs for linux that I don't like, GTK+ is relatively nasty, but you get round it by using one of the hundreds of wrappers that make life nicer. You have less choice as to what you can do in Windows. As for sound and video... depends on what you're wanting, and, you're also forgetting that MS have the manufacturers wrapped round their little fingers. Give it a few years, Open Source drivers will become common place. As for talking to video and soundcards, erm, you played with sound via dsp? it's simple, you feed it raw PCM, which is easy to generate. Video, well, if it's 3d, you write it in GL, coo, look, cross platform code, and, with Mesa installed, it *JUST DAMNED WORKS* in linux (works better if you have 3d support on your graphics card, of course, but hey).
Hang on, now you've switched to package management?!
No. the use of the debian package manger is something that
*boggle* want to finish this sentence sometime?
No. I didnt switch to package managment. I mean the production of an executable file for another person.
Erm - because it's *so* difficult to produce binaries that will run on other peoples linux boxes...
That's. what. building. static. binaries. is. all. about.
Or, as debian works it, you have a package that contains the binaries for your platform, with dependencies pulled down too. And it's not even as if it's difficult to create a .deb file, there's a guide on the debian site.
Im meaning that this is a potential "style" of system engineering, that it can be applied to **any** system used in computers, that you can apply it to the way that your systems are transmitted to the other computers, that you can apply it to the system you are making, so that your systems that you make are generic and workable .
Im not even saying that the use of your devopment kit has to be the one that is recommended by whoever made your OS - if you want to write in something else, sure, go ahead, there are command line options for those compilers as well you know.
But at the same time, dosnt it make sense to use the development kit that is built to interface with the operating system that you are writing for? Surely even for RAP systems, they will be even the slighest bit more effcient then having written without one.
Yes, I am asking alot. Its great being alturistic isnt it? Or wasnt that the point of the email?
*boggle* now entirely lost track of what the hell your point was, and it seemed to dwindle further after here, so, erm. Yes, J. Whatever.
Brett.
So, VB, J# and C#, then, that's about it, is it not? As for VB being incredibably easy to pick up, there's a lot of things that are when it's just drag an' drop components, writing VB by hand, on the other point, if not nice, and if you're going to do that, you really should learn C.
Yeah sure, its a lovely drag and drop components which I dont see happening in many other languages. VB is afterall, ine-efficient, even if you are a microsoft trained monkey with a phd in monkeying, you'll struggle to make it efficient - but because its fast and easy to do, then it is perfect for RAD.
At the same time, using .net or even just older Visual Studio parts, you can switch between languages easily - the objects, once completed are cross language, and whilst you wouldnt really want to go from VB -> C#, it is possible, so for elements which arnt efficient by nature (GUI front ends etc) can be written in one style, and then processor intesive stuff (image manipulation etc) can be written in tohers.
Erm, ITYWF I said variety, not versatility, but hey. The windows MFC is very evil, in my opinion, I have several APIs for linux that I don't like, GTK+ is relatively nasty, but you get round it by using one of the hundreds of wrappers that make life nicer. You have less choice as to what you can do in Windows. As for sound and video... depends on what you're wanting, and, you're also forgetting that MS have the manufacturers wrapped round their little fingers. Give it a few years, Open Source drivers will become common place. As for talking to video and soundcards, erm, you played with sound via dsp? it's simple, you feed it raw PCM, which is easy to generate. Video, well, if it's 3d, you write it in GL, coo, look, cross platform code, and, with Mesa installed, it *JUST DAMNED WORKS* in linux (works better if you have 3d support on your graphics card, of course, but hey).
No didnt actually mean output video, which I admit is completly screwed in windows hence their need for DirectX which is just a good old hack to break the fact that anything not NT was just written very wrong, and anything that is NT (XP and so on) whilst about infinitly better, is still pritty wierdly done. but GL only presumes that we are talking generated images such as GUI or Games, what about non-generated images or video streams?
What I actually meant by video was Video for Windows (which is very similar to the Video for Linux which it pre-dates) for getting video from a camera into the device in nice generic manner (isnt this Open Specicfication?) that allows people to write nice modular drivers for their video capture devices (camera, tv etc) and then other people to write nice interfaces for viewers recorders etc.
Hang on, now you've switched to package management?!
No. the use of the debian package manger is something that
*boggle* want to finish this sentence sometime?
errr sure. Got lost somewhere along the line - sentence meant to have read.
No, **my** use of the debian package manager is something that could descirbe the transmission of the binary, in this case, debian provide tools to help you move your binarys (and indeed source) between computer systems. Brilliant, nice, effective, something that is written (essentially) by the OS writers (ok so its not linux it self, but I think we can classify the distributer's as OS providers, where OS means a collection of Kernel and basic IO tools and complilers to allow use of Computer Hardware). Why arnt there more tools like this lying around?
No. I didnt switch to package managment. I mean the production of an executable file for another person.
ERm.. yeah that line and the one i didnt finished all together.
*boggle* now entirely lost track of what the hell your point was, and it seemed to dwindle further after here, so, erm. Yes, J. Whatever.
This was precisly the message I was trying to get across. Whilst MS is a fucked up operating system, buggy, slow, in-efficient, and sure, it might only be used because they happen to employ a bunch of, for lack of better words, managment and sales guru's who could sell a car to a Amish man, but they also ship a development kit which allows complete muppets, and i mean complete muppet in the way that complete muppet is defined by a moron who spent the last four years of his life in a coma, woke up and then got slapped in the head by a breezeblock can program in it.
When somenoe with a brain applies themselves to it, they can produce programs with astounding capability, purely because the systems "nicley" tie themselves into the Operating System.
oh sure, I know you're going to reply here with a bunch of "oh well if you go look at these libray files and these library files" but we're not nessicarrilly talking specifically about you progamming here.
J
On 2004-02-01 12:50:09 +0000 J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
[Free Software because] we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
I think you know the answer to this, really. Why are there so many people who are different but can do similar jobs, instead of all the people who do one of those jobs having the same "good", "efficient" DNA?
MJ Ray mjr@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
On 2004-02-01 12:50:09 +0000 J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
[Free Software because] we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
I think you know the answer to this, really. Why are there so many people who are different but can do similar jobs, instead of all the people who do one of those jobs having the same "good", "efficient" DNA?
Coo, now we get to go on the evolutionary tract? Funky :)
Brett.
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-02-01 12:50:09 +0000 J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
[Free Software because] we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
I think you know the answer to this, really. Why are there so many people who are different but can do similar jobs, instead of all the people who do one of those jobs having the same "good", "efficient" DNA?
All thos epeople doing similar jobs? I think this is mainly due to either the throughput demand of the jobs - for instacne box packing, you need two guys to pack boxes becasue that way you get through it twice as fast. And hell yeah, if I get the worlds best box packer, why the hell not clone him (lets presuming cloning is some kind of instantainous cloning that produces an identical in every respect (phsychological and physical))? Sure I have to pay two people now (unless I can think of some scam about them being the same person and :. only having one persons wage... mmmm a capatilists dream, an army of workers and only paying one! mmmmm)
But in terms of research? I know for my third year I've been told to do my best to do something that nobody else is doing, and am expceted to do it in a different way to anyone at UEA. My project is to allow veristality in one system. When it comes to companies doing this, again, it makes sence for any one company to not have two people duplicating work, unless the work is just "getting through the work load". And finally, if its down to multiple companies reasearching the same thing, then yes, wouldnt it make sense for them to work togehter? For each of the researchers to research little bits and produce a better product? Isnt **THAT** the real point of Open Source, not versitality? Isnt it all about Academics not wanting to do stuff over and over?
so no, I dont think I know the answer to this - the only answer I can see is because the current program "dosnt do what it should". Hence possibly the thing I am aiming at - Is this method of project creation that is currently used in Open Source a good method? Are the benifits that people keep going on about in Open Source becomming apparant for the majority of Open Source projects? Use of word Open Source as opposed to publicly availible programs?
J
On 2004-02-01 20:28:31 +0000 J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
yeah, if I get the worlds best box packer, why the hell not clone him (lets presuming cloning is some kind of instantainous cloning that produces an identical in every respect (phsychological and physical))?
OK, say you do that. Now what happens to your workforce when it catches some disease lethal to them because of a genetic defect?
One of the motivations for multiple implementations is insurance against that type of flaw. Another is competition to produce better value designs, that you might see with single source compared with multiple source electronic components (admittedly less recently).
[...] Is this method of project creation that is currently used in Open Source a good method?
There are multiple methods in use for free software.
Are the benifits that people keep going on about in Open Source becomming apparant for the majority of Open Source projects?
I don't know of good research into this at the moment, although I just started looking today. Do you?
Use of word Open Source as opposed to publicly availible programs?
Pardon?
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 12:50:09PM +0000, J wrote:
[sticking his head out above the parapet]
It's cheaper than fixing the problem.
Possibly slightly harsh. Consider some points about this -
there are more virus' for Windows because its less secure. True - but when they sat down and designed the OS, ease of doing things as opposed to security level was on their minds.
I dispute this very heavily, from what I can make out the only thing that was on their minds while "designing" was making the most money for the least effort.
Adam
adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
It's cheaper than fixing the problem.
Possibly slightly harsh. Consider some points about this -
there are more virus' for Windows because its less secure. True - but when they sat down and designed the OS, ease of doing things as opposed to security level was on their minds.
I dispute this very heavily, from what I can make out the only thing that was on their minds while "designing" was making the most money for the least effort.
I disagree. I think there are (a few) very dedicated very intelligent operating system designers in Microsoft. Sure they might be outnumbered by $uit$ but parts of the system are very well designed. With something that complex, if it where not, it just wouldnt work. - even if it is just a couple of "graphic designers" in the basement of some outhouse, someone does actually go into work in the morning and says "hey, lets actually make this user friendly".
After all, with a coorperation made mostly of non-techi's, they're going to need something relaitivly simple....
J
On 1 Feb 2004, at 12:50, J wrote:
I know several ALUG members who keep sitting down and going "I defend Open Source because it means we dont have to keep re-writing the wheel everytime we want to use one". If this is so, why are there so many programs which do the same thing as other programs, instead of all of the people who work on these con-current programs working together on one "good", "efficient" one?
Because your question, by definition, is subjective. Who defines 'good' or 'efficient'?
--
Ashley
-
adam＠thebowery.co.uk -
Ashley -
Brett Parker -
IanBell -
J -
MJ Ray -
Robert Tillyard