7 ms·
Producing Open Source Software (2017)
- wilsonrocks 6y ago> Producing Open Source Software > How to Run a Successful Free Software Project I feel like mixing these terms up might put off RMS, amongst others?
- kstenerud 6y agoFortunately, almost nobody really cares.
- pjmlp 6y agoI bet those that will never get some critical performance optimizations on their clang compiler, or are hoping for a BSD desktop revolution will care.
- kstenerud 6y agoIf nomenclature is the reason for withholding features and development, you've got other problems.
- pjmlp 6y agoNomenclature sometimes means a complete different license model.
- saagarjha 6y agoI mean, macOS is a thing and it’s just one of the many things built using Clang…
- pjmlp 6y agoPity that LLVM doesn't get those bitcode improvements used in watchOS and macOS clang is different enough to warrant its own column on cppreference. Lets see how much Apple Silicon specific optimizations will be upstreamed.
- saagarjha 6y agoApple’s strange ABI is upstreamed: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/search?q=arm64_32&unscoped_q=arm64_32 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/search?q=arm64_32&unsco.... Not sure what “column” you’re talking about, but it’s fairly clear that macOS’s clang is based on a fairly recent LLVM that they branched off of (you can even grab the underlying version number if you know where to look). And profiles for Apple silicon chips are readily available: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/954db63cd149df031d9b660bf68f0fe1de1defb9/llvm/include/llvm/Support/AArch64TargetParser.def#L145 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/954db63cd149df031d.... LLVM is probably one of the projects from Apple that sees the most things get upstreamed.
- pjmlp 6y agoMentioned bitcode, not ABI. Easy to find out which column I mean, https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support I did not say that they wouldn't upstream Apple Silicon support, rather that they won't upstream everything, just as most OEMs make with their LLVM forks.
- exciteabletom 6y agoIt is probably easier to list the things that _won't_ put off RMS. God forbid you use the DOM[1] in your JS! [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
- Ygg2 6y agoYeah, I used to make fun of RMS too, then things he warned us about, happened. That said, you are quoting out of context, altering DOM makes JS nontrivial. A nontrivial JS should have its source code plainly visible. That was the gist of the article.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoI don't see your point. That article isn't against the use of JavaScript, it's against non-Free software. Stallman's position is that the principles of Free Software apply to non-trivial JavaScript code. That seems reasonable enough. His definition of non-trivial JavaScript is such that any JavaScript that modifies the DOM, is necessarily considered non-trivial. Again, seems reasonable enough. If we want an example of RMS being unreasonable, we need only look as far as the Q&A after one of his talks, where he can generally be relied on to bitterly snap at an audience member for some inexact use of terminology, rather than gently clarifying before answering.
- knocte 6y agoWhile I applaud Free Software more than OpenSource, the latter has a better name that doesn't have the `free as in beer` ambiguity.
- diffeomorphism 6y agoTo be fair "free speech" has the same ambiguity and people don't seem to mind.
- badsectoracula 6y agoIt does have the ambiguity about source being available though. E.g, many people consider Unreal Engine 4 to be open source because you can see and even modify the source code.
- amelius 6y agoWell, he's the one who should have used libre instead of free.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoI agree the ambiguity is unfortunate. Libre isn't very natural in English, though. Personally I think software freedom would have been a good name for the movement. Perhaps freed software for the adjective form.
- fsflover 6y ago"Software freedom" sounds like we fight for the freedom of software, not people. "Freed software" sounds like it was nonfree at some point, which is usually not true... Even though "libre" is not natural in English, it could get better with time, like with many other words.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> "Software freedom" sounds like we fight for the freedom of software, not people Academic freedom and religious freedom are accepted terms. > Freed software" sounds like it was nonfree at some point, which is usually not true... Under copyright law, it is true. Software defaults to being non-Free. Software is not Free Software unless someone has taken the deliberately step of making it so. I agree though that it's not ideal. > Even though "libre" is not natural in English, it could get better with time, like with many other words. I hope you're right, but that's an uphill battle, and so far it's a losing one. We're stuck with Free Software, and clarifying with footnotes. There are also FOSS and FLOSS, but I wouldn't use them outside Hacker News where I can assume the terms will be recognised.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoCount me among them. It comes across as pretty clumsy. The book addresses the distinction between the two, at first briefly with The terms "open source software" and "free software" are essentially synonymous in this context, and later in some depth. [0] It's not as if the author is ignorant. Perhaps they felt Producing Free and Open Source Software was just too long. [0] https://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-source https://producingoss.com/en/introduction.html#free-vs-open-s...
- smichel17 6y agoI prefer FLO, for free/libre/open, in those contexts (here: "FLO software"). https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/about/free-libre-open But, I also acknowledge that "open source" is much more widely understood, so I might also choose to put it in the title of a blog post, depending on the target audience.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago"open source" and "source available" are conflated by many companies trying to benefit from the marketing. The source code is available but the software license prohibits certain commercial use. Hard to say whether "open source" is not understood or whether it's intentional deception
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> "open source" and "source available" are conflated by many companies trying to benefit from the marketing In my experience this is relatively rare. Whenever it happens on HackerNews the response is pretty unforgiving, as it should be, but it's not a common occurrence.
- KajMagnus 6y agoIf you find something that can be improved — you can contact the author, Karl Fogel, there's a "Make a suggestion or comment on the book" link a bit down (not so easy to find). I'm going to send him a message — the book recommends dead-link Q&A forum software, whilst I've built something new & up-to-date.
- kfogel 6y agoYeah, I've got some cleanups to that section pending. Looking forward to your suggestion, KajMagnus! Best regards, -Karl Fogel
- clankyclanker 6y agoIf one was interested in buying a print copy, will those be generally available (lulu?) after the campaign ends?
- KajMagnus 6y agoOk :- ) I sent an email (last Friday Aug 14 UTC)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]