| |||||||||||||
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:52 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)In reply to: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) by JohnNilsson Parent article: GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN)
"""Why is it that contribution can only be measured in code?"""
Because code is what counts. The rest is fluff.
Talk is cheap. Code is hard. It's real work.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 9:43 UTC (Fri) by bug1 (subscriber, #7097) [Link] "Talk is cheap. Code is hard. It's real work."
You obviously dont understand teamwork.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:14 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """You obviously dont understand teamwork. """
Teamwork is foremost on my mind.
Problem is... the path to fame is shorter for an advocate than for a coder.
Sure, Linus achieved fame... without really seeming like he wanted it. (Though he does, a little, I suspect.) But look at the hard work involved. And all the uncertainty.
But then we have these self-proclaimed pop icons crop up like Eric, Bruce, and Pamela.
All three being first and foremost into their own fame and notoriety. (The lady doth protest too much, methinks.)
There is a reason that Plato decided that the philosopher kings would have to be put into their positions *despite* their own wishes.
I automatically rate someone producing code higher than someone expending the same level of effort promoting themselves as advocates.
This is not to say that advocates are bad. It is simply a position that is more easily (and frequently) abused.
I hope that clarifies my position, whether I'm agreed with or not. ;-)
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:34 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] It seems a tad peculiar for one `into [her] own fame' to start by...concealing her identity. In fact it seems like you've just contradicted yourself.
(It's also interesting that you consider Groklaw to involve no work.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 18:22 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Nix,
I didn't say it required no work. I said it was the shorter path to fame.
At any rate, to bicker would go against my own goals, and I think yours, too.
We might disagree upon this or that. We might trust and distrust different people.
I've expressed my suspicions. That's enough. I may be right. And I may be wrong. And I hope I'm wrong.
I'm in favor of solidarity. To argue my point further would not serve that purpose.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 20:47 UTC (Fri) by bug1 (subscriber, #7097) [Link] "Problem is... the path to fame is shorter for an advocate than for a coder."
There is a saying, "those who make the most noise get the most done", it is an old saying, its not specific to coders, it applies to everything.
Ive read a bit of plato's republic, i would imaging them talking about this topic like this...
Would you have those naturally gifted in the abilities of an advocate spending their time coding, and those naturally gifted as a coder spending their time being an advocate ?
Fame certainly would help an advocate get their message to a larger audience, so fame lends itself to the advocate. It would be a very unsuccessful advocate that was not well known.
So let us say the best advocates need to be famous.
2nd person) And what of the coder, what abilities should they be endowed with ?
Certainly not jealously for it does not benefit anyone, i would say they should need be gifted in logic and concentration. Indeed being famous may impede the coders concentration from the constant interruptions from fans and foes.
2nd person) But has not the great coder as much right to be famous as the great athlete or the great advocate ?
True, the coder has a right to be famous, im just saying it doesnt help them produce work.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Feb 1, 2007 9:28 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] I thougth it was: "Empty barrels make the most noise."
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 14:51 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I think you're wrong, but I think you've explained why the GPL works.
The best licence is one that developers don't have to think about when they're developing, but which they also don't have to worry about when they want to enforce it.
The GPL has made development and enforcement so safe and problem-free that if someone didn't think about it, they could easily think it wasn't there or that it was just fluff.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 16:27 UTC (Fri) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 are "code". Therefore, by your definition, theyare unimportant. Yet you're still trolling about them.
> Talk is cheap.
Paranoid ranting about people you've never met is apparently free.
I haven't met PJ in person, but I have spoken to her on the phone. This
I deeply disagree with PJ's advocacy of GPLv3. I think she's wrong. Then
Grow up.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 26, 2007 17:25 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Rob,
Thanks for expending the effort to maintain busybox. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Most of your users do not even know your name. Some of us do.
My ranting is not paranoid. At least, I hope it's not! ;-) I have no problem with our agreeing to disagree.
I'm worried about the motivations of some of our OSS luminaries. If that is paranoid then so be it.
Fourteen years ago, I was naive enough to think that the Internet was going to give us all the ability to communicate with each other and make the world a wonderful place for everyone.
I didn't even consider the possibility of spam, an Internet bubble, etc.
I'm a little more suspicious than I was back in those days.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 29, 2007 17:05 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Fourteen years ago, I was naive enough to think that the Internet was going to give us all the ability to communicate with each other and make the world a wonderful place for everyone.Lots of people wished that. In earlier times, people thought that the balloon, dynamite, the tank, nuclear weapons and even the telephone and radio would 'naturally end war' because everyone could communicate so of course they'd all agree. It seems to be easy for techies to forget that people have differing goals (since we're all such nice people, doncha know), and that some people have goals such as 'maximize my personal power base' that contradict everyone else's.
GPL 3: An Open-Source Earthquake? (CRN) Posted Jan 30, 2007 17:48 UTC (Tue) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link] Nix, well put. I can often sympathize with those who indulge in utopian thinking. I wish some of those utopias were practical. But naivete regarding human nature is troubling; worse, it can be dangerous.
|
|||||||||||||