| |||||||||||||
Support Freedon, only use Free SoftwareSupport Freedon, only use Free SoftwarePosted May 27, 2004 12:07 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Support Freedon, only use Free Software by ber Parent article: Movable type and "almost free" software
"So when will LWN switch to a Free Software alternative (like postfix or exim) and thus helping Free Software?" You know, our current configuration works; it also makes use of some qmail features that will complicate a transition. If I were starting now, I would install something else - but this is a mail system which has been running since 1997. I don't believe that our running qmail hurts free software, or that our switching would help free software in any notable way. But it would hurt LWN in the short term. We'll switch at some point, it's definitely on the list of things to do. But I expect there are still quite a few things on the list which will get done first.
(Log in to post comments)
Support Freedon, only use Free Software Posted May 27, 2004 13:43 UTC (Thu) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] We'll switch at some point, it's definitely on the list of things to do. But I expect there are still quite a few things on the list which will get done first. ...and might get done even faster once you unleash the hords of willing coders (at least half a hord anyway) by opening up the LWN.net code base as I've said over and over and over before. Sorry; just couldn't resist. :-) Oh, about the comment "The thing to remember is to use m4 to generate the configuration files, instead of trying to hand carve obscure instructions directly." Ah, right, like using m4 to hand carve obscure instructions indirectly is much better. I don't think so. Any config file where spaces vs. tabs makes a difference is broken, period. One so arcane that it requires an m4 front end to have any hope of getting it right is off-scale low. My $.02.
Releasing the code Posted May 27, 2004 13:55 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Releasing the LWN site code is certainly one of the things on the list that lies well above replacing the mail system. I've not forgotten it. But that release will require a significant block of time that I have not, yet, been able to find. Maybe this summer, if all goes well...
Releasing the code Posted May 27, 2004 16:34 UTC (Thu) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] I personally would accept to not have news for a week if it was to get the source code afterwards...(Note I am a paying subscriber) Make a poll and see how paying subscriber would accept to have such a deal.
Releasing the code Posted May 27, 2004 17:07 UTC (Thu) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] Make a poll and see how paying subscriber would accept to have such a deal. But, that would require implementing polls in the LWN code base, which would take time, but that could be alleviated by opening the source, but that would take time... Ack! I'm paralyzed by progress!
Releasing the code Posted May 28, 2004 12:37 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link] But, that would require implementing polls in the LWN code base,You can use an external service to implement the poll. That would break the loop.
Releasing the code Posted May 27, 2004 18:46 UTC (Thu) by Klavs (subscriber, #10563) [Link] I must say that I'm sorry you choose not to release the source of something that is GPL (AFAIK - and so is the changes you have done) - because it's not "pretty" enough (I believe that was your words on why you didn't just open it up).I (also a paying reader) would very much like it if you could just offer CVS access (through sourceforge - no hassle for you then) - so we could have a look at the code - and if you wrote feature-wishlist - perhaps some of us would like the features implemented and decided to do so. Using CVS it would not be too much work to clean up your code yourself (or us the readers just might) - and then merge the new features too. Hope you see the light - with the code in CVS - it can't hurt - and nobody should be so vain - that there code changes to a GPL project, can't stand the light of day IMHO ;)
Releasing the code Posted May 27, 2004 18:56 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] It's not a matter of "pretty enough." The LWN site code certainly has its grungy spots, but I feel reasonably good about it as a whole.The issues are things like doing a serious security audit (which, of course, I should do anyway), a minimum of documentation (the code has a lot of dependencies and is a bit tricky to bootstrap), and a determination of what parts of the code, if any, are to be withheld. I'm a little nervous about releasing the financial code, for example...I can probably get over that, but I have to look at it hard first. There is also the matter of supporting the code release: mailing lists, CVS repositories, dealing with patches, etc. Takes time. Even then, of course, what the community will have is code to make a site that looks like LWN. One should not expect a general-purpose news portal construction system. Anyway, it really is a priority to get the code out; it would be fun if others could use it and improve it, and I see it as simply the right thing to do. The problem is that there are a lot of priorities...
Releasing the code/priorities Posted May 27, 2004 19:32 UTC (Thu) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] As a sort of self appointed needler about opening the LWN code base (at least I think I've dredged it up more than any other subscriber), I feel I really must step in at this point and state up front that I totally agree with you. Releasing any body of code has an enormous up-front cost in time and energy. I'm incredibly impressed with the amount of work you manage to get done -- the content, coverage, keeping the site up, etc. It's a fair question, whether the benefits you would receive from the occasional code snippet from us (who are so lazy after all that we've resorted to paying for web content already) would ever justify the effort and time it would take you to open the code as a proper project. My guess is that it might. Eventually. But it probably wouldn't feel like it for a while. Anyway, I hope my occasional needling about opening your code base is taken in the spirit intended. Specifically, I appreciate your efforts and welcome the oppotunity to support them, whether financially in a small way, by word of mouth, or someday perhaps with some code. OTOH, lwn.net works as is, so perhaps contributed code is not really necessary for lwn's well-being right now. Continued production of quality content is, so that's a reasonable priority. Keep up the good work.
Releasing the code Posted Jun 1, 2004 1:14 UTC (Tue) by macfisherman (guest, #6018) [Link] I'd expect to pay more for LWN if the code is released. I think Corbet has the right priorities. I'm paying for the content, not the code.
Support Freedon, only use Free Software Posted May 27, 2004 23:05 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Oh, about the comment "The thing to remember is to use m4 to generate the configuration files, instead of trying to hand carve obscure instructions directly." Ah, right, like using m4 to hand carve obscure instructions indirectly is much better.Well, that's an excellent argument against, um, all compilers. After all, they're just tools that `hand carve obscure instructions indirectly'. Now it's true that they often also go from a portable to a nonportable representation: but consider javac...
Another Grumpy Editor's topic? Posted May 27, 2004 16:05 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] As with previous ones, this could be an interesting topic whenever you decide to do it. Your hands-on accounts are really useful and informative.
Another Grumpy Editor's topic? Posted May 27, 2004 16:07 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Trust me, I rarely miss an opportunity to recycle my work for multiple purposes...:)
|
|||||||||||||