jimjag

16 ms·

121.
by jimjag 10y ago
" In fact in the past years, after the fork, LibreOffice developers regularly tracked OpenOffice source code repository and merged all the useful changes they could find, by either picking the original code or re-implementing it their
122.
by jimjag 10y ago
I didn't say "merge". Being a library or framework which can be consumed, either in whole or in part, by another entity is in no way a "merge".
123.
by jimjag 10y ago
"One possible solution would be for the OpenOffice folks to copy the Linux kernel and become an "upstream project" that others use to create a range of office-suite distributions like LibreOffice." ... which were exactl
124.
by jimjag 10y ago
"End users play no role any more? Good luck with that." In what parallel universe do you get that conclusion from that thread?
125.
by jimjag 10y ago
Follow the actual (open and public) discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6d3bb86f8abc1ae88f3aa3a...
126.
by jimjag 10y ago
If Apache had not accepted it, Oracle was NOT going to donate it to TDF. Instead, Oracle would simply have shuttered it, or sold it to IBM. There was no workable plan ever that would have resulted in the OO code going to TDF. Even if AOO ha
127.
by jimjag 10y ago
It was the systemd of its day... Declare it "broken"; "fix" it; Make it super complex and ignore some of the basic tenets behind the success of Unix-like system ('everything is a file', 'avoid monolithic c
128.
by jimjag 10y ago
It's as much to blame by not, within the actual code, refusing to clear PROXY... Apache httpd isn't "vulnerable" either but it still created a code patch that ensures things don't sneak thru as WELL as proving a run
129.
by jimjag 10y ago
NGINX should have really applied for a CVE instead of pretending that they are immune.
130.
Apache HTTPD httpoxy advisory and mitigation(apache.org)
2 points by jimjag 10y ago|0 comments
131.
The press will believe anything about Open Source(infoworld.com)
2 points by jimjag 10y ago|0 comments
132.
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.23 Released(apache.org)
4 points by jimjag 10y ago|0 comments
133.
by jimjag 10y ago
I really don't get this... it seems like simply a way to create an environment where you need to prepend 'mac' to every command.
134.
by jimjag 10y ago
Yep. And the fact that the CI system is donated by JetBrains is also known and allowed. No "standards" were bent nor broken. The poster simply does not know what they are talking about, making their sample size not 1 but actually
135.
by jimjag 10y ago
So much incorrect in the above I don't know where to start... what "aforementioned company" are you talking about? You imply it's a company that "own(s) the OpenOffice code, and the name", but it's the ASF
136.
by jimjag 10y ago
Their were real solid reasons behind accepting the donation... even though most did not pan out, just the relicensing ALONE was a major Good Thing for the OpenOffice ecosystem. This allowed for key and provable IP provenance, something that
137.
by jimjag 10y ago
I would not call GPL2/3 as a BSD variant in any way... BSD is permissive; GPL2/3 are strong copyleft. Unless you have a VERY lax definition of "variant" grin EDIT: Thx for the clarification!
138.
by jimjag 10y ago
Your point was that discussion was suppressed. The links show clearly that it was not, and when the CVE was published (and therefore public), there was open discussion and a suggested work-around. You may not agree w/ the method used t
139.
by jimjag 10y ago
To be clear, the ALv2 is characterized as a "BSD variant"... It is also extremely popular and well known and understood.
140.
by jimjag 10y ago
Please read the thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.openoffice.devel/2...
141.
by jimjag 10y ago
The below link as well as the (public) dev@ list clearly show you to be mistaken: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/OpenOffice.html
142.
by jimjag 10y ago
The success, or failure, of OpenOffice itself says little-to-nothing about the success of the ASF itself. Why OpenOffice was not as successful as hoped is a long and drawn out story, and Apache suffered from the ill-will that the OpenOffice
143.
The rise of the Apache Foundation(infoworld.com)
78 points by jimjag 10y ago|58 comments
144.
by jimjag 10y ago
It's called "Battling FUD" :-)
145.
by jimjag 10y ago
As a reverse proxy though, it is hardly the best, either in performance or compliance. As far as in creating an (unjustified) reputation for itself, it is superior. www.slideshare.net/bryan_call/choosing-a-proxy-server-apachecon-2
146.
by jimjag 11y ago
This is the reason to, if possible, avoid single-sourced open source projects, and instead focus on projects that enjoy a large, healthy and diverse developer community. Volunteer efforts ebb and flow, and it is by growing a community aroun
147.
by jimjag 11y ago
Plus, it is obvious that some fanboys will promote it no matter what...
148.
by jimjag 11y ago
A pretty good overview of reverse proxies can be found in [1]... spoiler: nginx is NOT one of the best-of-breed. Compliance was/is indeed an issue. 1. http://www.slideshare.net/bryan_call/choosing-a-proxy-server...
149.
by jimjag 11y ago
"Yes. Incorrectly implementing the HTTP spec is widespread though" Huh??? First of all, that's a pretty serious statement to be making with no evidence to support it. Plus, that is no excuse for any server that is NOT complia
150.
by jimjag 11y ago
This almost seems non-compliant w/ the action HTTP spec.

More ›