| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN)USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN)Posted Jul 10, 2009 14:32 UTC (Fri) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668)In reply to: USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) by Zack Parent article: USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN)
> With all the publishing frameworks available today I doubt if distributing > LWN's code would amount to anything more than a feel-good token release.
Yeah, there are a lot of good off-the-shelf CMS packages avaliable. Also building a CMS from scratch (er, in Django) with the appearent complexity of LWN.net would generally cost my customers a few thousand dollars.
The value in LWN.net's custom codebase is that it presumably is customized meet the needs Jon's workflow. It's really unlikely that it would have the same value for anyone else. If you don't need a customized solution, then use an off-the-shelf CMS. If you need one, pony up for something that fits *your* needs, not somebody elses.
(Log in to post comments)
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 15:59 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
All of this is absolutely true. However, it also means that complacent LWN members shouldn't go around calling on other people to release THEIR source code!
If you intend to open the code, then open it (LWN's promise, now an intention, is starting to close on being a decade old). If you intend to leave it closed, then explain why you advocate open source in the kernel but not for your site. But claiming you intend to release it and never making any progress toward that goal? That's a fairly poor example to set for other companies.
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 18:33 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I don't remember LWN editors calling for website code to be released (some individual subscribers are very insistent on it, especially related to Canonical ;-) so I don't see the hypocrisy that you do.
personally, I don't have a problem with websites not releasing their server-side code. I am happy when they do, but I do not get upset when they don't, especially in cases where they developed the code from scratch (as I believe LWN has)
there is a case to be made for people who want to release a webserver framework and want to get updates back, but there is a license available for those people to use (the Affero varient of the GPL).
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 19:54 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Oh, I don't intend to call LWN hypocritical! I'm probably even more backed up in my projects than they are in theirs.
Maybe LWN should put a brief description in its FAQ of how server-side source code is different from kernel code? Open graphics drivers are far more valuable than yet another CMS, no question. I just think that to claim to want to open LWN's source for 8+ years without ever finding the weekend to do it, well, that's not a very good example to set.
It could be as simple as just rewording 2 sentences in the FAQ.
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 19:59 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The FAQ will be reworded because we get tired of this discussion.Releasing the source is still something we want to do. There is far more than "a weekend" involved in doing that, though. Isn't that one of Dilbert's laws? That any project you don't understand is automatically easy? BTW, 8+ years ago the source in question did not exist. We were still running with flat files and nasty PHP scripts then. I'm sorry it has taken so long. I would have never dreamed that, after all these years, I would still be so focused on just enabling LWN to continue to exist. I still believe that's more important than putting out the source to yet another CMS, and one aimed at very specific needs at that.
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 20:31 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
You bring up an interesting point. Assuming you dropped everything you were doing and did the absolute minimum necessary to open the codebase..would it be worth doing? Would it be likely that a community would grow up around it?
Could you take the time and use spot's scoring system and tell us where the LWN opening effort would fall on the failure scale?
http://spot.livejournal.com/308370.html
While spot's list is both humorous and angry (and more humorous because of the angst) he makes a very valid point. Throwing code over the wall doesn't make the code instantly valuable as a piece of the open source ecosystem that can be nurtured and sustained. It does take effort to prepared for success in terms of building a community development model.
For me the question isn't why isn't the existing LWN codebase not open. I accept that the code you are dealing with is high maintenance, custom crap that you aren't particularly proud of nor want to show off but gets the job done. I am myself a master of such..artful..plumbing work. Both in software and in real life. Everyone is happier if they never watch how I sweat a copper pipe or write php code. And not just because I tend to do both in just my underwear.
The question is, why aren't you using an AGPL open solution that will in the long term lower your own maintenance burden by allowing you to share that burden with a community of users/developers who share pieces of a larger solution?
-jef
LWN site code Posted Jul 10, 2009 20:47 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Could you take the time and use spot's scoring system and tell us where the LWN opening effort would fall on the failure scale? It would be up there, but probably unfairly so. We don't have things like "releases" or build documentation because there's only one deployed site. For similar reasons we have no mailing list, no web site, etc. It's actually not all that bad of a code base, considering; I'm not ashamed of it. But, naturally enough, neither is it particularly polished or ready for more general use.
The question is, why aren't you using an AGPL open solution that will in the long term lower your own maintenance burden by allowing you to share that burden with a community of users/developers who share pieces of a larger solution? If we were starting now we'd probably do that; there's a lot of good stuff out there. When I did start, back in 2002, I based the first version on what seemed to be the best option available at that time: Zope/CMF. But then I got distracted for three months, came back, and realized that I had absolutely no clue of what my code was doing. That was a shock - Python isn't normally like that. So I decided I was better off doing something new, and I've not regretted that. Now there's so many good options that it would make little sense to start from the beginning. We've talked occasionally about switching to something more mainstream, but that would be a world of pain too.
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 10, 2009 20:56 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
exactly what AGPL codebase do you suggest? while it will implement lots of things that LWN doesn't currently have, does it implement everything that LWN _does_ currently have? (including the subscriber pass-along links?)
how much work would it be to migrate all the content from the current system to the new system?
how big a problem is it that all the persistant links to the current content would no longer work with the new system? (remember that some of these links are in kernel commit messages, you can't change them, even if you could somehow track them all down)
frankly, I like the way LWN works a lot better than just about any other site I deal with.
it's simple, clean, and to the point.
all of the 'popular' systems that I have seen are written by people who would instead use terms like 'pathetic', 'obsolete', possibly 'boring' if they were being kind.
I would like to have the code for the LWN site available, but not at the cost of taking enough of Jon's time that LWN suffers as a result.
USPS goes open-source with tracking system (GCN) Posted Jul 11, 2009 17:43 UTC (Sat) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
FWIW, I think you could maintain working inlinks without too much trouble; Jon appears to have made good decisions WRT URL structure upfront...
|
|
||||||||||||