tentonova

5 ms·

1.
by tentonova 17y ago
You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is. Enterprise services. The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't r
2.
by tentonova 17y ago
I think you and I are wasting time. You care about making things easier for software users. Software users don't make more software; software authors do. Actually, I think "users" should pay for software as that's all they're able to cont
3.
by tentonova 17y ago
I'm not sure what your point is, or how it counters the author's original point, which is that what's good for the goose is very much not good for the gander.
4.
by tentonova 17y ago
Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL l
5.
by tentonova 17y ago
I agree that the GPL is primarily useful as a vehicle for making money off software that is also released as open source. Since open source commercial software is strictly better than closed source commercial software, I don't have a hard
6.
by tentonova 17y ago
You're arguing that users don't believe the current situation is a fair trade, and would rather enter into a GPL quodque pro quo agreement if they were not restricted by the purchasing department? Well -- I for one am happy with the licensi
7.
by tentonova 17y ago
As I said below, I'm surprised by the emotional arguments engendered in your word choices -- "fairness", "benevolence", etc. This is simply business, not ideology. In terms of ideology, I think there's a simply check for whether Sourcefire
8.
by tentonova 17y ago
I agree -- and I think Monty has no business taking umbrage with the bed he's made -- but it's worth exploring why this is the case.
9.
by tentonova 17y ago
I'm surprised at the appeals to emotion engendered in your word choices -- "fairness" and "benevolence". I don't think either applies. The GPL is primarily useful as a means to maintain a very specific business model that relies on selling
10.
by tentonova 17y ago
The only freedom GPL denies a developer is to close up software that was once free. You can't "close up" software that was free. The software remains free. The only freedom the allegedly "more open" licenses give developers is to deny fr
11.
by tentonova 17y ago
Yes, the BSD license sure is better for software users. It's also better for software contributors who want to leverage the code in their own products, and use the resulting revenue to contribute back their changes (but not their entire p
12.
by tentonova 17y ago
I'm not sure how I understand how a commercial license is "strictly more restrictive" than the AGPL, which requires that you also release your code under the AGPL. Whether or not it's "strictly more restrictive" rather depends on whether yo
13.
by tentonova 17y ago
I'm firmly disagree with Monty's duplicity, but I'll try to shed some light on it. The "big deal" is that only two things provide a revenue stream around MySQL sufficient to support the heavy R&D costs associated with building a databas
14.
by tentonova 17y ago
In contrast, as a company looking to use and contribute to open-source software, BSD licensed code is an easier sell because you aren't locked to purchasing a commercial non-OSS license from the copyright holders (see: Oracle/Sun/Monty rega
15.
by tentonova 17y ago
Merging. Subversion 1.5, released in June of 2008, supports merge tracking. If you're using the limitations of your VCS to manage team communication then you have bigger problems. A simple but sufficiently powerful solution leads to sim
16.
by tentonova 17y ago
My reading was that he was presenting the GPL as an inherently flawed dream unable to survive in the reality of the economic marketplace. In succeeding in market adoption, the proliferation of the GPL actually leads to its own failure due t
17.
by tentonova 17y ago
The GPL was invented to leverage network effects to win in the market place, ensuring an exceptionally high entry barrier to non-GPL market entrants (a natural monopoly) should the GPL be successful in this goal. It hasn't won in the market
18.
by tentonova 17y ago
Tarsnap does block-based differentials, in addition to its fancy crypto footwork. You can't set that up with bash, truecrypt, and S3.
19.
by tentonova 17y ago
You should consider partnering with (or contracting out) to someone already well familiar with OS X and interested in writing a GUI. Tarsnap has one of the technically best back-end implementations available, but the barrier to entry for an
20.
by tentonova 17y ago
In subversion, yes, you don't go through the hassle of creating a branch for all these reasons. svn cp ^/trunk ^/branches/tentonova-bugfix-x svn co ^/branches/tentonova ~/branch I wouldn't call this a technical "hassle", and I'm not sure
21.
by tentonova 17y ago
This still feels like the sort of statement that comes from having not worked with a (D)VCS that does branching well. I've worked with both git and hg. There is no "inherent organizational complexity" in me having a private branch that I
22.
by tentonova 17y ago
... if you forget to specify a version number for one of the dependencies, doesn't maven just default to the latest version at build time, thus becoming nondeterministic? No. ... if you want your build to be deterministic, and of course
23.
by tentonova 17y ago
What type of work do you do that you never have urgent bug fixes and/or never have features that take more than a day to complete? I've always worked to constrain non-linear development to the absolute minimum required because the technic
24.
by tentonova 17y ago
As well as use it as a library API, and integrate it with their other libraries/services/etc.
25.
by tentonova 17y ago
And since it's Steve Yegge, it must be right? His "over-commented" example is clearly extreme hyperbole. His under-commented counter-example is extremely poorly commented code which fails to explain the "why", ensuring that nobody can make
26.
by tentonova 17y ago
However, if someone is over-commenting (which is possible in my opinion), chances are that it's because they believe that what they are doing is correct. I've yet to work with anyone outside of an undergraduate class that over-commented t
27.
by tentonova 17y ago
The java build world is perverse. Maven and Ant are imperative, highly limited, domain specific languages using XML for syntax. Maven is declarative, not imperative. Ant is broken in many respects, but your provided example is not true .
28.
by tentonova 17y ago
Having just spent the past two days reverse engineering an API that used protocol buffers, I can tell you I would have much rather done it against XML. Why didn't you have the descriptor files? Optimizing for ease of external reverse engi
29.
by tentonova 17y ago
You don't need to toss out maven, you need to spend the effort learning a system with which you're unfamiliar to actually understand why your build is misconfigured and failing.
30.
by tentonova 17y ago
This. You need to be able to check in your build tools, and use them as they were to precisely repeat any build you've ever done, or you're risking bit rot. It's not non-deterministic if your dependencies include an explicit version. You

More ›