Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Documentation (Score 1) 332

Many open source programs have horrendous documentation. If you can read and write in English (or any other language) and are even remotely capable of reading source code then document it. Parts that you don't understand you can ask the developer to explain it to you. Pick a project you like, e-mail the maintainer and ask if you can contribute documentation.

Most engineers hate doing documentation. It takes up a ton of time that we'd rather spend writing code. If they're smart, they'll love you for it.

Comment Engineering (Score 1) 736

My company has conveniently solved this. We're engineers (like Scotty).

IT is the guy that fixes your desktop.
We are Software Engineers or Network Engineers.

Take the job and don't say anything about it except maybe in passing. Then always refer to yourself as Engineering. Get your subordinates to call it Engineering. Get other departments to call it Engineering. Put it in your email signature. Answer the phone "Engineering, <name>". Call the people that print business cards and tell them your department should read <something> Engineering.

Once the mindshare is won everything else will follow.

Comment Re:Unauthoriazed Copy (Score 4, Informative) 865

This goes back to the 80's, or possibly even 70's and deals with how computers work on a fundamental level. As you know, copyright means that the rights holder is the only one allowed to authorize copies. When a program runs, it is copied from the storage medium (i.e., disk, but back then it was tape) and into RAM. That's a copy. Copyright law was modified to explicitly permit these types of copies (I believe they are termed "transient copies") for license holders.

Apple's argument goes back to this statute. Apple's license says that you can only run Mac OS X on Apple hardware. Thus, the copy from disk to RAM on non-Apple hardware is an unauthorized copy.

It makes sense, from a letter-of-the-law point of view, and I find it very interesting because by and large nobody thinks about software copying in that sense anymore, but back in the day it was a very hot issue. I'm not saying I endorse this argument, but IIRC, this is how the law is written. Also, IANAL, so if you want to know more about this, go look it up yourself.

Comment Re:Yes, and there's nothing new with that (Score 3, Insightful) 729

For what it's worth, though, nothing would be different if your software were closed source, except that your user base would probably be smaller and, depending on how necessary your software is, open source competitors would be even more eager to push you out.

Which explains all of those open sourced calendaring solutions that beat the pants off of Exchange. Oops, there aren't any that even come close. Oh well, so much for that idea.

Data Storage

Ext4 Advances As Interim Step To Btrfs 510

Heise.de's Kernel Log has a look at the ext4 filesystem as Linus Torvalds has integrated a large collection of patches for it into the kernel main branch. "This signals that with the next kernel version 2.6.28, the successor to ext3 will finally leave behind its 'hot' development phase." The article notes that ext4 developer Theodore Ts'o (tytso) is in favor of ultimately moving Linux to a modern, "next-generation" file system. His preferred choice is btrfs, and Heise notes an email Ts'o sent to the Linux Kernel Mailing List a week back positioning ext4 as a bridge to btrfs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...