Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Define the rules clearly... (Score 3, Insightful) 255

by pieterh (#49230445) Attached to: On Firing Open Source Community Members

The C4.1 contribution protocol I eventually wrote for ZeroMQ solved this problem. You have to develop rules that catch bad actors (yet not learners) and then educate project managers on how to fire people when needed.

Our rules for instance ask that you solve one problem with one patch, that you never break existing stable APIs, that you respect style guidelines, and so on. When people break these rules we give them several chances to improve their behavior. If they persist in doing it wrong, we remove them.

Turns out, when the rules are very explicit and teach people how to make good patches, then it's very rare we have to fire people.

The rules are at

Comment: Re:1860 (Score 1) 240

by pieterh (#47653307) Attached to: Patents That Kill

The Economist was, ironically, founded as a "free market" newspaper, in a period when that meant specifically, the fight against the patent system. I.e. that was its first purpose, to argue against the re-establishment of the patent system in Britain.

Comment: Tizen was just a strategic threat (Score 3, Interesting) 112

by pieterh (#47553815) Attached to: Samsung Delays Tizen Phone Launch

Samsung never intended to release a Tizen phone. They were the ones who leaked the design and photos. The whole point of Tizen was to get a stick against Google, after they bought Motorola. Samsung are/were paranoid that Google would give Motorola preferential treatment, and that Android was becoming a toxic platform for them. Tizen was their insurance. Google got the message and Samsung killed most of their Tizen team and went back to focusing on Android.

Comment: Re:Well, it worked for so many others (Score 1) 397

by pieterh (#45783743) Attached to: Netflix: Non-'A' Players Unworthy of Jobs

Incidentally, it's trivial to know which players to keep. You hire freely, openly. You allow people to self-organize around problems. You reduce the latency of all communications from business through the whole company to development and back. And then you rank people simply by their ability to solve relevant problems, to gain users internally. In a software business, you allow anyone to start a project and you rank people on their value in the supply chain.

I've written loads about this. would be an example. Build asynchronous lock-free self-organizing structures, and you can add and remove people trivially.

Comment: Well, it worked for so many others (Score 5, Insightful) 397

by pieterh (#45781183) Attached to: Netflix: Non-'A' Players Unworthy of Jobs

Netflix isn't the first business to put all the weight on the players while ignoring the game. It doesn't matter how many A players you hire if your organization has deep structural problems. Microsoft would be a prime example.

In contrast, you can build extremely effective organizations out of ordinary people, if you allow them to organize freely around problems, compete honestly, delegate at will, and so on.

Comment: Re:Anonymos IS the Government (Score 1) 156

by pieterh (#45443393) Attached to: FBI Reports US Agencies Hacked By Anonymous

No way, it's impossible that sociopathic power-hungry politicians, bankers, military men, and intelligence officers who treat human lives as disposable would stoop to such things. That would be unAmerican. And beside, CNN and MSBNC would tell us if it happened, right? "Controlled opposition"... laughable! Next you're going to tell me the FBI infiltrated Anonymous chat channels and encouraged young guys to hack into their own systems!

Comment: Re:Huh, that's surprising (Score 3, Insightful) 156

by pieterh (#45443073) Attached to: FBI Reports US Agencies Hacked By Anonymous

There's a dark irony in so-called skeptics pushing their own conspiracy theories (mysterious gangs hate our way of life) to muffle out the obvious truth that it's (always) all about the money.

It's not only probable, it's by far the simplest explanation, that the military-security complex needs to create threats to justify its existence, so a handsome slice of its budget consistently goes back into black operations against the very people it's meant to be protecting. If you argue that only crooks would do this, then my question is, what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

As for being pessimistic, it's a normal feeling but not useful. Read my book (free, see below) for a background into how this state of affairs came to be, and how to fix things.

Comment: Re:Huh, that's surprising (Score 5, Insightful) 156

by pieterh (#45442891) Attached to: FBI Reports US Agencies Hacked By Anonymous

The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event. The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious. We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

Comment: Arming up on the Internet (Score 1) 18

by pieterh (#45410353) Attached to: The Operations of a Cyber Arms Dealer

IMO it's part of an undeclared war on the Internet, funded by the intelligence-security complex, who need to reign in and control the Internet. The usual structure is official organizations (NSA, GCQ) funding subcontractors (like Stratfor) who fund off-the-books teams to build up armed capacity, attack targets to create a climate of fear, and to blackmail third parties into cooperation. Your tax dollars hard at work, keeping the Children Safe from cyberterrorists, hackers, and criminals, aka an independent Internet.

+ - Building a new spy-proof Internet - the Edge Net->

Submitted by pieterh
pieterh (196118) writes "The Edge Net lives safely at the edge of the Internet, on our smart phones. It uses mobile WiFi hotspots to create "cells" for exchanging news and content. Cells talk to cells, asynchronously, covering neighborhoods, and cities. The Edge Net doesn't exist yet. This project is about building it. The fundraiser project raised $1,700 in its first day."
Link to Original Source

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?