|
Firefox, Linux, Inc., and Media History |
|
Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 07:57 PM EST
|
The old media can't tell any story without looking for an angle. They like controversy, of course. I had one journalist ask me once for an interview to try to stir up some controversy with another journalist, and when I refused, he said that was the only story he was interested in. And there is an article today about Firefox with the headline, "Teen is co-creator of Firefox browser." I couldn't tell if they meant that as a compliment or a dig, but it's a cute angle, when you consider that Firefox is spreading like, well, I have to say it, like wild fire and continues to cut into IE's share of the browser market. Far more interesting to me is Blake Ross's blog, the guy in question, where he talks about his vision for what he wanted Firefox to be and what he thinks is the reason for its success: You’d be hard pressed to believe it with the ongoing media circus, but Firefox has humble origins in a product that—if everything went as planned—was designed to be invisible to the person using it. I remember sitting on IRC with Dave, Ben and Asa painstakingly debating feature after feature, button after button, pixel after pixel, always trying to answer the same basic question: does this help mom use the web? If the answer was no, the next question was: does this help mom’s teenage son use the web? If the answer was still no, the feature was either excised entirely or (occasionally) relegated to config file access only. Otherwise, it was often moved into an isolated realm that was outside of mom’s reach but not her son’s, like the preferences window.
This policy emerged from our basic belief that, for the 99% of the world who don’t shop at Bang & Olufsen, a technology should be nothing more than a means to an end. Software is no different. In this case, people had plenty of obstacles to the web already—popup ads, spyware, and that . . . monkey who gets punched and keeps coming back for more—before Netscape decided that the only way to surf was with the aid of twelve managers, fourteen not-so-subtle links back to AOL web properties and other inane gadgetry. This is why, even though plenty of people made fun of us for it, Ben’s original “Why Firefox?” document celebrated that “Firefox offers 2% more space to web pages than Mozilla, 4% more than Internet Explorer, and a whopping 10% more than Opera.” Giving people unadulterated access to the web became something of a religion, and every wasted pixel, button or dialog that impeded it was a demon that nagged at us. Every time someone was “pulled out of the dream", every time they had to stop and realize that they were using a browser called Firefox and not just the amorphous “Web,” was a personal failure. I guess the media thinks unless they jazz it up and simplify it, we won't be interested. But personally, I don't care much how old Ross is, although it's fine to know as a side point. It's not, however, the interesting part. What is interesting to me is his concept of what a browser should be like and how he went about implementing his idea.
Sometimes I think about how history will be written in the future. How will they know then what was true now, when it is all told in a skewed, hyped way? That is particularly true about Linux and FOSS. It is so hard for the media to understand the open process and that there are no stars, in the sense they think of, just the result, and some people who have more or better skills to contribute and are willing to work harder. It's almost the same thing as a star, I guess, if you squint.
So when readers started to send me a BusinessWeek article about Linux, Inc., I wasn't at first going to mention it, because there are some facts in it that are just not so, like the part about GPL code having to be free as in beer, and some of the details give me that old Rashomon feeling, like reading that Larry McVoy was the "peacemaker" who saved the day at a critical point in Linux history. Then there is a gratuitous and cruel dig at rms, who is frankly a genius and belongs in a separate category from the rest of us. Lots of folks thought Einstein was personally peculiar, you know. With a genius, it's totally irrelevant. So I felt a bit suspicious. But then, so many of you sent this article to me, telling me it was the best nontech article ever on Linux, I decided I must be wrong.
So I wrote to some folks who help me decide such things and I asked them their opinions, and I also wrote back to one reader, Chuck Tryon, who had sent a particularly good summary of the article when he sent me the link. Here is what he had sent:
It gets pretty much all the basic facts straight, but even
more surprising, it seems to understand the balance that Linux
is beginning to strike between "free" and "corporate". It
proclaims (in somewhat gushing terms) that Linux has taken on
a lot of the characteristics of a successful business (greater
organization, cooperation with big business, less dependence
on a single individual at the top, etc.), without abandoning
the free ranging style of Linus' open development model, and
his uncanny ability to direct people without necessarily
telling them what to do. It seems to grok the nature of
RedHat and IBM's motivations, as well as how they make money
off of a "free" product. The author takes a few pot-shots at
RMS's personality and style, while still recognizing him as
one of the people who really got this FREE software idea
started, but then, even RMS's greatest supporters have to
admit he can be a little off-the-wall when it comes to
personal style.
Example:
Cost isn't the only reason that companies are switching to
Linux. The data processor Axciom Corp. recently shifted some
servers to the operating system, after using Unix in the past.
Alex Dietz, the company's chief information officer, says he's
thinking about replacing the Windows operating system with
Linux on the company's desktop computers. One important
reason: Axciom doesn't want to be too dependent on Microsoft.
"[Linux] has an innate guarantee that you won't be held
hostage," says Dietz.
Not often you find that kind of observation in a Business
magazine.
I wrote back and asked him to please elaborate. Charles sent me an answer that convinced me I was indeed wrong and had missed the most important message from the article. So here is the link again, and I'll share, with his permission, the email that got me out of my fog. But also, for the sake of historians, here are some links:
LKML summary of November 1999 A discussion about bottlenecks. At the end, Linus: "..because Linux is _NOT_ a 'one entity does everything' proposition, it is NOT the case that I go out on the net and find everything I want to have in the full package. I very much depend on people like David Miller, Alan Cox, Ingo Molnar, and a hundred other people who not only maintain their own subsystems, but also help me in maintaining those subsystems as part of the larger whole." -- So
Linus was delegating long before the McVoy incident.
LKML archives for January 2000These are "kernel traffic"
newletters which summarise the significant activity on the LKML.
Bitkeeper flame war -- "The battle was joined when Larry McVoy started pushing his commercial BitKeeper project. An ugly flamewar quickly ensewed."[sic]
LKML summary for September 1999, probably the start of the "mutiny" about the development process. But I think you will see that it isn't really accurate to portray it as power being wrested from Linus' unwilling hands. He was glad to find a better way. The only issue was, what was that better way. Unfortunately the links from the older kernel traffics don't work, but you can use the subject lines and date ranges to find the posts in Google. For example:
From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: New BK License Problem?
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 05:50:50 +0000 (UTC) If you search for that, you'll find Alan Cox and Linus discussing Bitkeeper and why Linus liked using it, basically because it freed him from the drudgery of being a human CMVC, and it was to him the best tool then available for the task, despite all the controversy over it being a proprietary product.
Here's Charles' answer to my question: what did he think was the theme of the article and BusinessWeek's motivation in publishing it?
****************************************
Leave it to you to ask hard questions... You mean you want
me to THINK??? ;-)
I spent some time thinking about the article, and in
particular Business Week's possible motivations. It is, after
all, a Business focused publication. I think their interest
is in the way the "Business" of Linux, or as they say, 'Linux
Inc.", is run. It's a new and interesting business model,
which has implications beyond the software industry.
What the article says is that, in spite of some bumps along
the way, the Open Source business model has continued to
mature. From what I've heard, there really was a time when
Linus was finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with
the kernel, and a lot of people were frustrated that
contributions were getting missed or ignored The whole
even/odd release number scheme was implemented to address the
problem of implementing major architectural changes -- changes
that would cause major interruptions if they were cut into the
current "released" kernel. As Larry McVoy said, big problems
were brewing. However, the article states that the Linux
process has shown that it really is scalable, and with some
key changes, Linux has continued to grow.
Again, approaching the topic from a business perspective,
the key question is, is Linux stable enough to stake your
business on? Businesses like to see big names like IBM and
Novell and HP behind Linux, because it gives them confidence
that Linux is going to be there for the long run. However the
article goes on to point out that, even though some big
powerful companies are throwing their weight behind Linux,
they aren't taking it over. In fact, they can't really take
it over because of the way the license works. In other words,
it doesn't look like Linux will ever become just another IBM
product, even if IBM is pushing a huge amount of money at
Linux, and 90% of the contributions to the kernel are from
corporate sponsors.
Even more important, one-time enemies are finding that they
are better off by sharing their contributions.
Otherwise fierce competitors -- think IBM and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)
-- are demonstrating that they can benefit from
embracing the open-source philosophy of sharing work. By
collaborating on the operating system, they all get a stable
foundation on which to build tech projects and save millions
in programming costs.
As I mentioned before, the article also focuses on the fact
that Linux is less dependent on a single individual. Again,
this gives businesses more confidence that, if
something happens to that one individual, the whole
organization isn't going to come crashing down. Also, as the
bottleneck of a single individual who has to hand check every
contribution has been eliminated, "Linux Inc." has continued
to grow in its ability to support growing complexity, and
still keep up the quality of the code.
While it's not strictly business-related, I think that, in
this world of CEO salaries in the mega-millions, and the
constant scandals of corporations ripping off their customers,
investors and employees, Linux is a refreshing break.
Begun as a meritocracy, Linux continues to operate that way.
In a world where everybody can look at every bit of code that
is submitted, only the A+ stuff gets in and only the best
programmers rise to become Torvalds' top aides. "The
lieutenants get picked -- but not by me," explains Torvalds.
"Somebody who gets things done, and shows good taste -- people
just start sending them suggestions and patches. I didn't
design it this way. It happens because this is the way people
work naturally."
Here you have a piece of fundamental computer
infrastructure, with billions of dollars in market share, and
growing in leaps and bounds, and at the top you have Real
People:
Red Hat's Pennington doesn't covet expensive wheels, proudly
pointing to his 2001 Toyota Corolla in the parking lot, which
he jokes is "fully loaded."
For his part, Torvalds has been amply rewarded for his role,
but he's no Bill Gates billionaire. OSDL pays him a salary of
nearly $200,000. In addition, he sold initial public offering
shares that he got as gifts from a couple of Linux companies,
including VA Linux Systems. That helped him afford his house
and put money away for his daughters' educations.
I have always said that, if you REALLY want to know what an
author is thinking, look at the last paragraph. That's the
lasting thought that he or she is trying to leave you with.
Indeed, Linux Inc. has emerged as a model for collaborating in
a new way on software development, which could have
reverberations throughout the business world. Its essence is
captured in one of the mottoes of the open-source world: Give
a little, take a lot. In a business environment where
efficiency rules, that's a potent formula -- maybe even strong
enough to knock mighty Microsoft down a peg.
They don't call it "Free Software" or even "Open Source",
mostly because it is a model that may begin to catch on in
other businesses beyond just software. There are powerful
concepts, ones that can even take on the brutal tactics of the
one corporation that has come to symbolize the ability to
succeed through nasty and sometimes marginally legal tactics.
There are still a lot of people out there who look on
Microsoft as the Hero, the little company that overcame the
giant IBM, through determination and spunk. However,
Microsoft simply replaced one tyrant with another, more
powerful one, a tyrant known for its tendency of ripping apart
its competition through any means available to them. Linux
Inc., for the first time in recent memory, presents a way to
make corporations a little more human, and to even stand
against the bullies. Maybe, just maybe, corporations can
begin to make money by providing real products to real people,
instead of just ripping them off.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 08:33 PM EST |
Bravo [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 08:35 PM EST |
<A HREF="http://www.example.com">Clickable link</A> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 08:36 PM EST |
Where and what... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 09:07 PM EST |
I would say corporate america is adopting the homeless child linux. Ah but it
seems the homeless child linux has a mind of its own and all they can do is
follow and help out and hope the child linux will grace them with the riches it
creates. strange bedfellows Greed Power Altruism Cooperation[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 09:15 PM EST |
This article introduces a worthy new community to the business community.
It
does this by the technique of purposeful story telling, recounting heroic
feats, acts of good moral character, challenges that would have defeated a
lessor person, successes that ensure a more prosperous future. The
story
telling introduces the main characters and explains their roles.
The
business people now can dialog better with the FOSS people. It is only
natural
that commerce will ensue and new ventures undertaken.
Maybe the business
community expects a certain rite of passage before
allowing standing by younger
and less experienced outsiders. Then again, we
all like a good story that bears
retelling. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kjb on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 09:28 PM EST |
Great job.
Thanks
---
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kb8rln on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 09:50 PM EST |
I would love PJ when you find article that are in inaccurate
to please point buy point show where the problem are.. Maybe that will get
GrokLaw in better on the big map..
You are doing a great job..
Enjoy,
Richard
---
Director Of Infrastructure Technology (DOIT)
Really this is my Title so I not a Lawyer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 09:54 PM EST |
We should start a section, dumbest news headlines ever (see title...can be found
on lxer.com)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 10:44 PM EST |
How many Firefox users are there? Based on recent estimates of total web users
that I have seen, 5% of the web might be about 40 million people. Web site
designers use IE only features are creating sites that 40 to 80 million people
cannot properly access.
Five percent may sound small, but 40 million sure sounds large.
To cast aside access for this many people, and perhaps some of the brightest and
early adopter folks at that, seems unwise.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST |
What has ever been "the truth".
Groklaw will never supply an accurate
version of history.
But, if PJ maintains her standards, it could become a
valuable historical reference.
What is the "true history" of the founding of
the USA?
All you really have to go on is modern interpretations of many known
historical references and even the most accurate will be subject to distortion
and personal bias.
Just 200 years will produce culture changes which mean you
will never truely appreciate the "truth" as it was then.
However, "cold hard
facts" about an event tend to be available from authorititive first hand
accounts.
You know the date you declared independence.
You know who made the
announcement, you know the text of his speech and the time of day he made it and
whether it was sunny or raining.
Groklaw would never be regarded by
historians as a reference for the dispute you are discussing. They will look for
first hand accounts and attempt to eliminate any personal bias.
In my opinion
for all its minor historical innacuracies that article is one of the finest
opinion pieces I have seen in a business publication. He "gets it" and
his analysis is excellent.
In my view that article should get the widest
distribution possible and if you're worried you can always mention that the
arguement with Linus wasn't really quite like that but it's interpretation of
the new market is pretty well spot on. Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 10:47 PM EST |
""Teen is co-creator of Firefox browser." I couldn't tell if they
meant that as a compliment or a dig"
The Open Source community has an honored place for the likes of the co-founder
of Firefox, though he be a teenager. In contrast, talented individuals like him
might never make it past most corporations' human resources departments. IBM's
alliance with the Open Source community gives IBM the advantage of being able to
leverage the talents of individuals who, frankly, might either never make it
past IBM's personnel department or might for whatever personal reasons look
askance at the idea of working for IBM as employees. I wouldn't be surprised if
the continual interaction of IBM's software development teams with the Open
Source community has led to a qualitative strenghtening of software engineering
at IBM: hang out with smart people and you become smart. Hang out with dummies
and ... - well, you get the picture.
Balmer's scornful and snotty remark that "with Open Source, you don't know
who you are getting the code from" is telling: it's those that you don't
know that could kill you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Teens - Authored by: johan on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:35 AM EST
- Teens - Authored by: odysseus on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:55 AM EST
- Teens - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:56 AM EST
- Firefox, Linux, Inc., and Media History - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 04:05 AM EST
- Firefox, Linux, Inc., and Media History - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 11:01 AM EST
|
Authored by: cmc on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:03 PM EST |
I'll probably get a lot of flak for asking this, but I'll ask it anyways,
because I really don't understand the underlying notion. People say that one
reason to switch from Windows to Linux is to be free of the dependence on
Microsoft. How are Windows users dependent on Microsoft? I see four points
where the 'dependence on Microsoft' come into play from the operating system
standpoint.
The first thing is the obvious - the continual upgrade cycle in order to use the
newest software. However, the same is true for Linux. Just as it's difficult
to find software to work with Windows 3.1, it's difficult to find software to
work with kernel 2.2.x. Therefore, you still need to continually upgrade in
order to use the newest software; it's just that with Linux, the costs are much
less (which makes this a decision about cost, not dependence).
The second is for conspiracy theorists; that we never really know what Microsoft
does in Windows Update (or in the entirety of Windows, really). We don't know
if any "personally-identifiable information" is sent to them; they say
it isn't, but they've proven that they can't be trusted. Also, how do we know
that they won't someday use Windows Update to disable our Windows?
The third thing is the file system most commonly used for Windows now - NTFS.
All OEMs that I know of format hard drives using NTFS (I still use FAT32 on all
workstations, simply because it's easier to diagnose and fix when Windows fails
to start). This pretty much denies us access to our data because we can't
access that data reliably without Windows.
However, the fourth thing seems to be what most people are talking about:
applications. Specifically, MS-Office. However, simply switching to OpenOffice
would resolve this. Or even continuing to use MS-Office apps and saving in
generic formats (such as RTF or text file in MS-Word).
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating keeping Windows (on the contrary, I'm
looking for ways to get my customers off of Windows and onto Linux), I'm just
trying to understand the 'remove our dependence from Microsoft' thought process.
Can anyone shed any more light which I may be missing?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:21 PM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:26 PM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: tredman on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:55 PM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:17 AM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:14 AM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - security & update, upgrade - Authored by: jacks4u on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:21 AM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST
- $10Million rea$on$ besides the reasons already in your post - Authored by: groklawdranem on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 11:48 AM EST
- Dependence on Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:15 PM EST
- Short answer... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 02:54 PM EST
|
Authored by: k12linux on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:17 PM EST |
Since this article's target audiance is business people and managers, I'm not
surprised RMS is portrayed the way he is. I'm sure RMS himself will (happily)
admit that his ideas freak out this era's typical business manager/CEO.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong... just understandable considering the
audience that this author is writing to.
BTW - I immediately forwarded the article to our business manager, Director of
Technology and some friends. I have to agree that the BusinessWeek artile is
the best explanation for business people about Linux that I have seen so far.
Honestly, most CEOs want to know *this* stuff about Linux not the technical
details of it. (That's assuming they are involved at all with the company's
tech.)
---
- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bingotailspin on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:27 PM EST |
Then there is a gratuitous and cruel dig at rms, who is frankly a genius and
belongs in a separate category from the rest of us.
Thanks, PJ, for
standing up for rms. He is a true genious and is un-apologetic in his stand for
freedom. None of this would have happened without out him. He still works
toward the simple goals that he repeats again and again.
In a recent interview, he created quite a stir
with this exchange.
JA: What if your job requires you to use
non-free software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job. Would you
participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you to? What if
the job involves hitting people on the head in the street and taking their
wallets? What if it involves spreading the word that Democrats should vote on
Wednesday instead of Tuesday? Some people seriously claim that you can't
criticize what someone does if it is part of their job. From my point of view,
the fact that somebody is being paid to do something wrong is not an
excuse.
He is talking about himself, the leader of the free
software movement. It's a valid point, but most people didn't get it. I don't
think he really cares, however. He may even be secretly amused that this large
mass people continue to read his words and get frustrated by the ideas they
present.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ssavitzky on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST |
I found the article rambling and a bit repetitive, but then I'm a long-time
Linux-using hacker; it's probably dead-on for the intended audience.
And I think the article is dead-on, too, in saying that the importance of the
open-source development model goes far beyond software. Groklaw is proof of
that.
---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:05 AM EST |
Personally, as a Linux user since '95, I have to say that the article is about
50% accurate.
The author takes what seems to be a great deal of creative and artistic license
with some of the Linux history and collaborators. As a subscriber to the LKML,
my jaw just about hit the floor when I read the comments about how much of a
savior Larry McVoy was. I'm sure that Linus doesn't hate him any more than he
hates somebody like Andrew Tannenbaum, but that doesn't make 'em "best
buds", either.
I also think that the description of RMS is pretty accurate, but consider at the
same time that he's being described from a middle-of-the-road businessperson's
perspective, the main demographic for the article. Yes, I do think RMS is off
kilter. I think he's a genius in terms of the software and hardware that he's
worked on and researched on, but I wouldn't consider the GPL a stroke of genius.
The GPL was a well thought out, common sense approach to software development
and ownership. He wasn't saying anything that any of us didn't think. He was
just able to articulate it into something tangible and have the passion to stand
behind it.
When faced with the almost insurmountable odds that he was, most of us wouldn't
have been up to the task. Not genius, just stubborn. However, history is
filled with stubborn people who ended up bringing down empires.
Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mr.mighty on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:09 AM EST |
True, copies of GPL software don't have to be provided for free. The GPL grants
you the right to make as many copies as you want, however, so in a business
environment the cost of the purchase could be amortized over many copies. $1000
for all the beer I may wish to consume over my lifetime is effectively free
beer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dhonn on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:16 AM EST |
Many of you guys probably know Wolfenstien 3d, DOOM, Quake 1,2,3, and
derivitives (Halflife, Counterstrike and many others based on the Quake
engines), right?
They were all written by John Carmack of ID Software. At age 19 he just finished
Quake 1. Doom at age 15 and Wolfenstin 3d at 13. All games being a huge
success! Wolf3d even being the first realtime 3d pc video game.
Not only this but his games performed better and looked better than most. And
at the same time he was also pushing the limits of 3d graphics hardware which
card companies competed on performance on.
(By the way, Gates purchased his performance expert Michael Abrash)
I remember way back, when I was in my teens as well as John, when Bully Gates
was pushing Direct 3D on the Industry and particularily young John Carmack. But
Carmack just wouldn't budge. Gates was very anti-competitive. He sent emails to
Carmack saying that OpenGL wouldnt be supported by 3d card vendors in the
future. And it did happen... but not for very long. It was business as usual
and agressive companies wanted Carmacks hottest games to run on their latest and
fastest hardware.
Today, OpenGL, the open standard, is still around. Even to this day Carmack
still uses OpenGL and probably the only few development companies (and Apple)
that use the standard.
Anyways back on track. Teens and kids should never be underestimated. Teens
have lots of time on their hands to develop software for free under their
parents homes. I was one of them. I was a few years younger than Carmack and I
was following his every move, because I wanted to be just like him, a star. By
age 18, I've written a few 3d graphics engines, almost up to par with the Quake
2 engine, but I didn't get any further because once you're an adult real life
kicks you in the arse.
"Teens and kids should never be underestimated."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jig on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 02:23 AM EST |
i think i would prefer:
give any amount, from small to everything you have, and you will still be
provided with more than your contribution.
so, more explicitly in math:
give x, where 0<=x<=inf; get y, where x<y.
the reason why i say this isn't because i expect more than only a few to provide
anywhere near what they get, but lets consider Linux himself. he's given tons,
and continues to do so. i don't know enough to say he's given the most, but so
far i haven't seen anyone say someone else has given more, but still, even he
considers his contributions small in comparison to the whole.
the quote "give a little, get a lot" just seems a little selfish and
tightfisted, like a suggestion to only give the bare minimum to get the full
monty in return. it works, but isn't in the best interest of the contributor,
because y isn't a hard limit. although few of us will ever need to care, it is
somewhat dependant on x.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eloj on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 03:32 AM EST |
>" and a whopping 10% more than Opera."
This of course is a whopping lie, and one I've seen come up time and time again.
It's nowhere near true, unless you're talking about comparing defaults, but if
you're using a powerful and configurable browser like Opera, why would you? What
is the relevance of whatever configuration it ships in?
I've actually counted pixels, and in _my_ default browsing configuration (ie,
the one I use every day), Opera provides more screen-estate to the webpage than
either IE or Firefox (This is especially true when taking into account the
monster-big tabs used in Firefox.). However, that's not really important at the
high resolutions most people who know what they're doing is running at. It's
there if you want it, but I gladly sacrifice a little width for the email pane,
for instance. If you want maximum screenestate, "Full Screen" it's
just a F12 away in any browser, yes?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:46 AM EST |
By chance yesterday, after reading this article, I heard the old Eagles song
"Dirty Laundry" on the radio. That's the song about "the boys
in the newsroom have a running bet," and the "bubble-headed bleach
blonde comes on at 5 and tells about the plane crash with a gleam in her
eye."
I had forgotten what an impact that song had on my news listening/watching
habits.
It is relevant to your article, in a way, PJ.
---
Keeping an eye on the bouncing ball.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quibble - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:47 AM EST |
You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when
you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away. --
Antoine de Saint-Exupery[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 09:29 AM EST |
"...the one corporation that has come to symbolize the ability to succeed
through nasty and sometimes marginally legal tactics."
PJ, with your committment to veracity, you should be ashamed of this quote: they
were CONVICTED of illegal activity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:11 PM EST |
Can you imagine what would happen if someone open-sourced a pharmacutical
company?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yeah - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:52 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:01 AM EST |
Having slightly participated in the 2002 BitKeeper flamewar
(and aftermaths), It is true that had no sort of revision
system been adopted, Linus would have literately
exploded :)
Although I wish he had used a FLOSS code repository system,
nothing could (or can still) function like bitkeeper in the
way its being used now. Look at kernel.org and look at the
-bk snapshots that randomly appear :)
Back to the article, 'Linux Inc.' really explains how the
Linux development cycle works in laymans terms. I couldn't
believe how much they 'got it right' when they wrote this.
Keep in mind, some kernel people were interviewed while
this was being written (I know of one who told me)
So, yes. This is well written PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ShawnX on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 01:05 AM EST |
Having slightly participated in the 2002 BitKeeper flamewar
(and aftermaths), It is true that had no sort of revision
system been adopted, Linus would have literately
exploded :)
Although I wish he had used a FLOSS code repository system,
nothing could (or can still) function like bitkeeper in the
way its being used now. Look at kernel.org and look at the
-bk snapshots that randomly appear :)
Back to the article, 'Linux Inc.' really explains how the
Linux development cycle works in laymans terms. I couldn't
believe how much they 'got a lot of it right' when they wrote this. Keep in
mind, some kernel people were interviewed while this was being written (I know
of one who told me).
So, yes. This is pretty well written PJ.
-ShawnX (logged in via Firefox) :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|