New Document: "How to Start Contributing to or Using Open Source Software"
Shlomi Fish
I recently finished working on a new document titled "How to Start
Contributing to or Using Open Source Software" intended to get more people
involved in the world of free and open source software (FOSS). You can find it
here:
http://teachingopensource.org/index.php/How_to_start_contributing_to_or_using_Open_Source_Software
Short link: http://bit.ly/gkeXn5
I mention Perl there as well in the "How to learn how to program" section.
Any comments, corrections or suggestions would be welcome.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
List of Portability Libraries - http://shlom.in/port-libs
Chuck Norris can make the statement "This statement is false" a true one.
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Jugurtha Hadjar
I visited the page, and bookmarked it. It's funny, it's like you're
describing almost the exact process I'm going through..
About the programming part, I'm in Control/Feedback Systems, but I think
that every person has something to benefit from learning to program..
I used to be very into it, and then abandonned it for many years ... And
now I'm back at it..
I recently switched to Ubuntu, coming from Windows/Dos [I'm 23, and been
using it for about 19 years]..
Contrary to what most people fear when switching OS and the "I'll be
lost" and the "I'll have to learn it all over again".. Well, it's not
my experience at all. Sure I'll have to learn, a lot .. But I kind of
like it, and I personnally like the Scortched Earth approach, where you
jump in both feet, no previous contact with different OS or something..
It's a matter of character.
What amazes me, is that, it's like it "assumes" you want to write code
and develop stuff .. It's like it's the default thing, you just write
"python" or "perl" in the Terminal, and it says it's not installed and
"proposes" to download it.. It was just waiting for you.. Like it was
meant to be. I love it !
Thank you,
~Jugurtha,
Katie T
> Hi all,
>
> I recently finished working on a new document titled "How to Start
> Contributing to or Using Open Source Software" intended to get more people
> involved in the world of free and open source software (FOSS). You can find it
> here:
>
> http://teachingopensource.org/index.php/How_to_start_contributing_to_or_using_Open_Source_Software
Not really Perl specific, but I think you're trying to cover way too
much in a single article. The sort of person who doesn't know what
software is isn't the sort of person who'll be able to understand your
explanation of build systems. You'd be better off breaking the article
into a series of posts tackling the different issues.
Katie
--
CoderStack
http://www.coderstack.co.uk/perl-jobs
The Software Developer Job Board
Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez
I think it is not fair to pointing the reader out directly to Linux.
There are other systems out there more Open Source than Linux like OpenBSD
(for example). I think a briedfly review of these other OS would be good
for the article and, after that, let the reader to choose between Linux -
OpenBSD - FreeBSD - NetBSD, etc...
Just my 2 cents.
Kind Regards,
Alvaro
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:56:21
> From: Shlomi Fish <shl...@iglu.org.il>
> To: begi...@perl.org
> Subject: New Document:
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-...@perl.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: beginne...@perl.org
> http://learn.perl.org/
>
>
--------------------------------------
Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez
http://alvaromantilla.com/
email: alv...@alvaromantilla.com
--------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish
> Hi,
>
> I think it is not fair to pointing the reader out directly to Linux.
> There are other systems out there more Open Source than Linux like OpenBSD
> (for example). I think a briedfly review of these other OS would be good
> for the article and, after that, let the reader to choose between Linux -
> OpenBSD - FreeBSD - NetBSD, etc...
First of all, while the licence of most of the BSDs is a permissive one
whereas the licence of most of Linux is the GPL, which is more restrictive,
the GPL is still open-source. You can argue that the BSD licence and the X11
licence are more "open" or more "free" than the GPL or LGPL but that doesn't
make them more "open source".
Secondly, the reason I didn't point the user to the BSDs was the same as the
reason I didn't refer them to Gentoo Linux or Archlinux: they are not ready or
even not intended for newcomers, who are the target audience of the article.
For example:
1. I tried installing PC-BSD on a VirtualBox virtual machine. After
downloading the first two CDs and installing using them, the installation
asked for the third CD which was clearly marked as "optional components".
Since I didn't download that, I tried to avoid it, at which point the
installation aborted and left the installation in an unusable, unbootable
state.
From what I know of Mandriva Linux and other Linux distributions, you can
easily install them using only the first CD.
2. Next, I tried installing plain FreeBSD on a similar virtual machine. The
installation was made in text mode, and try as I might, it wouldn't detect the
VirtualBox internal networking interface. Someone told me that the installer
wasn't worked on for several years.
3. Someone who was able to successfully install FreeBSD, had to recompile a
large percent of the system from ports (including X, etc.) after wishing to
install something. I don't expect most newcomers to be able to tolerate this
without giving up.
4. An Israeli developer who tried to install OpenBSD commented about the
hostility of the installer and how, at a point, the instructions scrolled past
and he couldn't see them.
-------
So while I don't rule out that after some experience, an open-source
enthusiast will opt to experiment with the *BSDs or with less user-friendly
Linux distributions, I cannot recommend any of them as introductory OSes, and
mentioning them as alternatives to introductory distributions will just
confuse the reader. They are out of the scope of the document.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Freecell Solver - http://fc-solve.berlios.de/
Shlomi Fish
> Hello,
>
> I visited the page, and bookmarked it. It's funny, it's like you're
> describing almost the exact process I'm going through..
>
>
> About the programming part, I'm in Control/Feedback Systems, but I think
> that every person has something to benefit from learning to program..
>
> I used to be very into it, and then abandonned it for many years ... And
> now I'm back at it..
>
> I recently switched to Ubuntu, coming from Windows/Dos [I'm 23, and been
> using it for about 19 years]..
>
> Contrary to what most people fear when switching OS and the "I'll be
> lost" and the "I'll have to learn it all over again".. Well, it's not
> my experience at all. Sure I'll have to learn, a lot .. But I kind of
> like it, and I personnally like the Scortched Earth approach, where you
> jump in both feet, no previous contact with different OS or something..
> It's a matter of character.
>
> What amazes me, is that, it's like it "assumes" you want to write code
> and develop stuff .. It's like it's the default thing, you just write
> "python" or "perl" in the Terminal, and it says it's not installed and
> "proposes" to download it.. It was just waiting for you.. Like it was
> meant to be. I love it !
That's a feature of the Ubuntu command-line configuration, and is not specific
to typing "perl" or "python". Any uninstalled command you'll type on the
Ubuntu command-line will yield this prompt.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
What does "Zionism" mean? - http://shlom.in/def-zionism
Erez Schatz
--
Erez
Observations, not opinions.
Shlomi Fish
On Tuesday 28 Dec 2010 11:01:40 Erez Schatz wrote:
> This is so blatantly OT it shouldn't be on this list.
>
Maybe my impression is a bit biased, but it seems to me that most of your
posts to this list are replies to my posts where you criticise them (and not
in a particularly constructive way.). On the other hand, most of my posts (and
those of most other active members of the lists) were replies for people
asking for help, while trying to be helpful. And since I subscribed I've
posted much more posts than you.
Now before I configure my mail filters to filter out all your posts to
begi...@perl.org because they tend to make me irritated, I ask you to change
your ways. Can you please not try to criticise me here and instead focus on
helping people with their problems? You are being venomous and achieve nothing
of value.
> --
> Erez
>
> Observations, not opinions.
>
And you've got to practise what you preach.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/ways_to_do_it.html
Erez Schatz
> Hello Erez (and all),
>
> On Tuesday 28 Dec 2010 11:01:40 Erez Schatz wrote:
>> This is so blatantly OT it shouldn't be on this list.
>>
>
> Maybe my impression is a bit biased, but it seems to me that most of your
> posts to this list are replies to my posts where you criticise them (and not
> in a particularly constructive way.). On the other hand, most of my posts (and
> those of most other active members of the lists) were replies for people
> asking for help, while trying to be helpful. And since I subscribed I've
> posted much more posts than you.
Since most of your posts are related to directing people to your site,
I'd say we are about even. In more tightly-moderated lists you'd be
banned for spamming. If we take off the parts where you just rip through
people's style, platform, or design choices, or reprimand them for not
following what you consider to be the One True Way of writing emails,
the number is good, but not that hight.
>
> Now before I configure my mail filters to filter out all your posts to
> begi...@perl.org because they tend to make me irritated,
Feel free.
> I ask you to change
> your ways. Can you please not try to criticise me here and instead focus on
> helping people with their problems? You are being venomous and achieve nothing
> of value.
Sorry, the world just don't revolve around you, and people don't need to
conform to your ways. You have a problem with my writing, forward it to
the list moderator, or filter me out.
>
>
> And you've got to practise what you preach.
I am. This has nothing to do with "Perl beginners" and everything to do
with other, probably more guided lists.
jeff pang
> Since most of your posts are related to directing people to your site,
> I'd say we are about even. In more tightly-moderated lists you'd be
> banned for spamming.
I agree with this point.
Directing everyone to a personal site is always considered rude.
Regards.
William Muriithi
In most cases, I would also agree. But to his credit, he had mentioned that he was directing us to his own article and the link did not have advertisement as I was expecting. That imply he may just be driven by sharing, which I would not call a vice.
Give the guy the benefit of doubt sometimes .....
>
> Regards.
Shlomi Fish
On Wednesday 29 Dec 2010 09:37:44 Erez Schatz wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 01:04 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hello Erez (and all),
> >
> > On Tuesday 28 Dec 2010 11:01:40 Erez Schatz wrote:
> >> This is so blatantly OT it shouldn't be on this list.
> >
> > Maybe my impression is a bit biased, but it seems to me that most of your
> > posts to this list are replies to my posts where you criticise them (and
> > not in a particularly constructive way.). On the other hand, most of my
> > posts (and those of most other active members of the lists) were replies
> > for people asking for help, while trying to be helpful. And since I
> > subscribed I've posted much more posts than you.
>
> Since most of your posts are related to directing people to your site,
> I'd say we are about even. In more tightly-moderated lists you'd be
> banned for spamming.
Why do you feel that pointing people to relevant resources to the question at
hand on http://perl-begin.org/ (which I assume is what you mean by "your
site") constitutes spamming? And why do you think that this fact protects you
from my criticism of you?
> If we take off the parts where you just rip through
> people's style, platform, or design choices, or reprimand them for not
> following what you consider to be the One True Way of writing emails,
> the number is good, but not that hight.
I admit that I tend to comment on people's style, design choices or code
issues a lot. Other posters here also do that a lot. Normally, I do that
because such problems should be avoided in the future, and because I'm
reviewing the entire code and commenting on everything I find (which may
include some fixes to bugs). Do you feel that when people post to this
list, one should not comment on the bad elements exhibited in their code?
Regarding my E-mail netiquette comments, can you point to an email where I
commented about that, and did not write a Perl-related answer to the question
asked?
>
> > Now before I configure my mail filters to filter out all your posts to
> > begi...@perl.org because they tend to make me irritated,
>
> Feel free.
>
> > I ask you to change
> > your ways. Can you please not try to criticise me here and instead focus
> > on helping people with their problems? You are being venomous and
> > achieve nothing of value.
>
> Sorry, the world just don't revolve around you, and people don't need to
> conform to your ways. You have a problem with my writing, forward it to
> the list moderator, or filter me out.
You are right that the world does not revolve around me, and that I may often
like being the centre of attention. Before I resort to filtering you out,
which I'd rather not do, will you consider what I said?
>
> > And you've got to practise what you preach.
>
> I am. This has nothing to do with "Perl beginners" and everything to do
> with other, probably more guided lists.
That's good.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Rethinking CPAN - http://shlom.in/rethinking-cpan
Shlomi Fish
Well, just for the record, I normally refer people asking for help here to
http://perl-begin.org/ which is not my personal web-site (the latter being the
one mentioned in the signature). Moreover, I normally refer people to certain
parts of Perl-Begin where they can find more information to what they asked
about or need help with and not to the front page of this.
Furthermore, I aim http://perl-begin.org/ to be a community first-stop for
learning about Perl. While, since its inception, I've done most of the work on
it myself, I received some notable contributions from other people whom I
credit at http://perl-begin.org/contribute/list/ , the source code for the
site is in a publicly accessible version control repository, and the licence
for the content is the open-content/free-content Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC-by), which allows for nearly unlimited reuse. Everyone is welcome
to contribute to it by sending comments, corrections or patches.
As far as Perl beginner portals go, I feel it is much more communal than
http://learn.perl.org/ whose development model is tightly controlled and not
open, which has suffered from a lot of neglect since its inception (while
perl-begin.org has constantly been developed and enhanced), whose licence is
the highly restrictive CC-by-nc-nd licence, and which is far less
comprehensive. Nevertheless, it appears at the list signature of every message
to this E-mail and I don't see people complaining about it being "spam".
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/
vishesh kumar
Without involving in this dicussion deeply , i just want to mention
my view . As a newbie in perl as well in this forum i found Shlomi
Fish answers very useful and to the point. So i think blaming
spamming short of thing is not right.
Thanks
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-...@perl.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: beginne...@perl.org
> http://learn.perl.org/
>
>
>
Mark Voltz
Shlomi,
I'm new to Perl, but I perceive your posts to be among the most well thought
out opinions/instructions on this list and appreciate your willingness to
help. Certainly, your comments are pointed and clear, but you consistently
reference coding styles and idioms that seem to be agreed upon by the
majority of the Perl community.
I look forward to your feedback when the time comes.
Thanks,
Mark
Nathan Arthur
I have been lurking on this list for a few months, and I thought
perhaps you'd all like the perspective of a 'newbie' about this issue.
First, some background - I'm a long-time programmer, primarily in
java, secondarily in PHP and shell script. I have started working
with a new team who uses perl, so I've had to learn it - from them,
from books/tutorials, from this list, and by just writing it. I spent
a bunch of time with online tutorials and books before really getting
started, so most of my interest in this list is about "real-life
examples of perl" rather than "learning to program".
For my point of view: I find this list to be like most 'beginners'
lists I've seen - 20% filled with homework questions, 60% filled with
real questions with very helpful answers, and 20% filled with
bickering about religious wars (about perl, about response-style,
about email formatting, etc.) I honestly think that mix is normal and
indicates that the list is basically healthy, so I live with the 40%
that isn't useful to me, because the 60% is so useful. (Plus the
'mute' feature of gmail is great!)
In regards to Shlomi and his approach to the emails - he posts a lot.
Most of it is timely, accurate, and helpful. Even before this thread,
I had a real sense that he was keeping the list quality high - even if
a small part of his content is about religious wars. I don't mind the
links to perl-begin at all - perl-begin has been a great resource for
me. I thought this post about contributing to open source was
off-topic, and I'm glad someone pointed that out - but I think his
personal signal/noise ratio is high, and I think that discouraging him
from posting isn't good for the list.
In general, it seems like people on this list seem to be very
responsive, but often are rather harsh about email formatting and
such, while being somewhat mild about people asking the list to do
their job/homework for them. That has always seemed backwards to me
:)
I don't always agree with the answers/advice about the religious wars
- but I think it's important for all new netizens/programmers to learn
how to spot religious issues, so I don't feel it's necessary to jump
in.
In any case - this list has been good for me, and I really appreciate
all the contributors who have helped make it that way - with Shlomi at
the top of that list. Thank you!
Nathan
Raymond Wan
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 19:35, Shlomi Fish <shl...@iglu.org.il> wrote:
>> If we take off the parts where you just rip through
>> people's style, platform, or design choices, or reprimand them for not
>> following what you consider to be the One True Way of writing emails,
>> the number is good, but not that hight.
>
> I admit that I tend to comment on people's style, design choices or code
> issues a lot. Other posters here also do that a lot. Normally, I do that
> because such problems should be avoided in the future, and because I'm
> reviewing the entire code and commenting on everything I find (which may
> include some fixes to bugs). Do you feel that when people post to this
> list, one should not comment on the bad elements exhibited in their code?
I don't mean to take sides, but I should point out that what Shlomi is
being criticized to have done, has been done by others in the past at
varying degrees. And while I don't suggest Shlomi has a need to
defend himself, one defense is to just say those others were allowed
to do it...
Maybe Shlomi was a bit off-topic and maybe he is critical of people's
coding style -- I don't know for sure as I (honestly) didn't follow
that thread closely. But, if these things should not be part of this
mailing list, then someone ought to say something *irrespective* of
whether such a message is posted by Shlomi, a Perl newbie, or someone
highly respected in the Perl community. Otherwise, the criticism
leveled at Shlomi is a bit unfair...
Ray
Uri Guttman
NA> First, some background - I'm a long-time programmer, primarily in
NA> java, secondarily in PHP and shell script. I have started working
NA> with a new team who uses perl, so I've had to learn it - from them,
NA> from books/tutorials, from this list, and by just writing it. I spent
NA> a bunch of time with online tutorials and books before really getting
NA> started, so most of my interest in this list is about "real-life
NA> examples of perl" rather than "learning to program".
if you spent any time with the typical perl tutorial on the net, you
wasted it. maybe 3 or so of them are decent, the rest are garbage.
NA> For my point of view: I find this list to be like most 'beginners'
NA> lists I've seen - 20% filled with homework questions, 60% filled with
NA> real questions with very helpful answers, and 20% filled with
NA> bickering about religious wars (about perl, about response-style,
NA> about email formatting, etc.) I honestly think that mix is normal and
NA> indicates that the list is basically healthy, so I live with the 40%
NA> that isn't useful to me, because the 60% is so useful. (Plus the
NA> 'mute' feature of gmail is great!)
the formatting wars you are whining about are important. communication
is the goal here and if everyone posted however they wanted, not much
would happen. there are rules to email/usenet and they were created long
ago in ancient days and they are still valid. we read top to bottom so
post that way. we don't need to see the old emails fully quoted so edit
them (that rule came out of actual needs for less storage and
bandwidth. even though that isn't important anymore it is still a better
way to write emails).
NA> In regards to Shlomi and his approach to the emails - he posts a lot.
NA> Most of it is timely, accurate, and helpful. Even before this thread,
NA> I had a real sense that he was keeping the list quality high - even if
NA> a small part of his content is about religious wars. I don't mind the
NA> links to perl-begin at all - perl-begin has been a great resource for
NA> me. I thought this post about contributing to open source was
NA> off-topic, and I'm glad someone pointed that out - but I think his
NA> personal signal/noise ratio is high, and I think that discouraging him
NA> from posting isn't good for the list.
the rules are those who contribute and help, the make the rules. lurkers
can jump in but their voices are usually discounted. it is that way
since otherwise it would become lord of the flies in perl.
NA> In general, it seems like people on this list seem to be very
NA> responsive, but often are rather harsh about email formatting and
NA> such, while being somewhat mild about people asking the list to do
NA> their job/homework for them. That has always seemed backwards to me
NA> :)
nope. you are backwards to it! :)
NA> I don't always agree with the answers/advice about the religious wars
NA> - but I think it's important for all new netizens/programmers to learn
NA> how to spot religious issues, so I don't feel it's necessary to jump
NA> in.
and you are being religious about religious issues. pot meet kettle. :)
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
Raymond Wan
>>>>>> "NA" == Nathan Arthur <nar...@rainskit.com> writes:
> NA> from books/tutorials, from this list, and by just writing it. I spent
> NA> a bunch of time with online tutorials and books before really getting
> NA> started, so most of my interest in this list is about "real-life
> NA> examples of perl" rather than "learning to program".
> if you spent any time with the typical perl tutorial on the net, you
> wasted it. maybe 3 or so of them are decent, the rest are garbage.
Maybe. But people think in many ways and sometimes things have to be
explained differently for different people. That is why in a class,
there will be a handful -- yes, not a lot of people -- who won't
understand at the end. That's because we don't all think alike.
Saying the other tutorials are garbage is quite harsh and a bit
disrespectful to the authors who presumably meant well and didn't do
it to sabotage Perl's reputation. Maybe they aren't helpful to the
majority of people, but they may help a few people.
Thanks to Google, those top 3 you mention will probably be ranked at
the top, so the so-called "garbage ones" aren't going to negatively
affect many people.
> the formatting wars you are whining about are important. communication
> is the goal here and if everyone posted however they wanted, not much
> would happen. there are rules to email/usenet and they were created long
> ago in ancient days and they are still valid. we read top to bottom so
> post that way. we don't need to see the old emails fully quoted so edit
> them (that rule came out of actual needs for less storage and
> bandwidth. even though that isn't important anymore it is still a better
> way to write emails).
Yes/no. They are important, but one should realize that there are
varying levels of adherence to such rules. Should we expect a mailing
list to beginners to adhere to such posting rules or even coding rules
as well as, let's say, the developers of Perl6?
While I do agree that those rules are important, IMHO, I think before
people complain about how someone posts, we ought to consider the
audience. "Well, how else are they going to learn?", is perhaps what
you would say. Well, if you complain about them too much, they'll
leave Perl (let's face it -- they're beginners, so their initial
investment in Perl was small so far) and is that the type of
impression Perl experts should give?
All I'm saying is that the rules of posting are important, but we
ought to show some restraint. If we show restraint on one mailing
list for beginners and not another one where everyone posts regularly,
that isn't a bad thing.
> the rules are those who contribute and help, the make the rules. lurkers
> can jump in but their voices are usually discounted. it is that way
> since otherwise it would become lord of the flies in perl.
No. What makes this list are the beginners. Without them, there is
no list -- or the list would be very different. And many of them are
lurkers who jump in, post a question, and jump out. But, if the have
a good impression from the replies from the question they asked, they
might come in again months later. That's how the community can grow.
If we leave it to just the people who "contribute and help", then it's
no longer a list for beginners. It's for the contributors to post
among themselves.
The enforcement of the rules should be done to compromise between the
contributors and the beginners...not just one side. Or am I mistaken?
Ray
jeff pang
>
> If we leave it to just the people who "contribute and help", then it's
> no longer a list for beginners. It's for the contributors to post
> among themselves.
>
Right. Anyway Happy New Year all Perl gurus and beginners!
Regards.
Chap Harrison
Chap
(oops, sorry for the top-post ;-)
Octavian Rasnita
Sorry for top-post. I think that the context is obvious. :-)
Octavian
Uri Guttman
RW> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 13:28, Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "NA" == Nathan Arthur <nar...@rainskit.com> writes:
>> NA> from books/tutorials, from this list, and by just writing it. I spent
>> NA> a bunch of time with online tutorials and books before really getting
>> NA> started, so most of my interest in this list is about "real-life
>> NA> examples of perl" rather than "learning to program".
>> if you spent any time with the typical perl tutorial on the net, you
>> wasted it. maybe 3 or so of them are decent, the rest are garbage.
RW> Saying the other tutorials are garbage is quite harsh and a bit
RW> disrespectful to the authors who presumably meant well and didn't do
RW> it to sabotage Perl's reputation. Maybe they aren't helpful to the
RW> majority of people, but they may help a few people.
when they are full of mistakes, wrong coding ideas, bad writing, no
connection to the perl community, etc. etc. there are dozens of them
like this. i have reviewed many on usenet (search google).
RW> Thanks to Google, those top 3 you mention will probably be ranked at
RW> the top, so the so-called "garbage ones" aren't going to negatively
RW> affect many people.
not at all. google doesn't always show the best ones as there are so
many. i don't go searching for them. on usenet or other places
(including here) newbies will claim they are using some site to learn
perl. i go there to check it out and i get sick.
>> the formatting wars you are whining about are important. communication
>> is the goal here and if everyone posted however they wanted, not much
>> would happen. there are rules to email/usenet and they were created long
>> ago in ancient days and they are still valid. we read top to bottom so
>> post that way. we don't need to see the old emails fully quoted so edit
>> them (that rule came out of actual needs for less storage and
>> bandwidth. even though that isn't important anymore it is still a better
>> way to write emails).
RW> Yes/no. They are important, but one should realize that there are
RW> varying levels of adherence to such rules. Should we expect a mailing
RW> list to beginners to adhere to such posting rules or even coding rules
RW> as well as, let's say, the developers of Perl6?
not adhering when the first get here. adhering AFTER they are told about
netiquette and email quoting styles. there is a difference.
>> the rules are those who contribute and help, the make the rules. lurkers
>> can jump in but their voices are usually discounted. it is that way
>> since otherwise it would become lord of the flies in perl.
RW> No. What makes this list are the beginners. Without them, there is
RW> no list -- or the list would be very different. And many of them are
RW> lurkers who jump in, post a question, and jump out. But, if the have
RW> a good impression from the replies from the question they asked, they
RW> might come in again months later. That's how the community can grow.
RW> If we leave it to just the people who "contribute and help", then it's
RW> no longer a list for beginners. It's for the contributors to post
RW> among themselves.
you didn't get my point. the answers come from the core regular
experts. the questions from the beginners. so the experts make the
rules. if the newbies made the rules, nothing would get done.
this has happened in every other forum in network history. you need
rules (both technical and social) for this to work well. there is no way
around it.
Chap Harrison
Chap
Shawn H Corey
> And - seriously - thanks to the volunteers for their patience and effort. Given enough eyeballs, all questions are answerable (to paraphrase ESR:-)
>
> Chap
>
> On Dec 31, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>
>> > Happy new years to all of you too!
>> >
>> > Sorry for top-post. I think that the context is obvious.:-)
>> >
>> > Octavian
Top posts don't bother me as much as those who don't trim the quotes.
Other problems:
* Don't hijack threads. Once people decide not to read a thread, they
just skip any message in it. That means only those who are reading the
thread will see it when a new question is asked. You're better off
starting a new thread so the most eyes will see it.
(But if you do hijack a thread, please change its subject.)
Happy New Year everyone. :)
--
Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth,
Shawn
Confusion is the first step of understanding.
Programming is as much about organization and communication
as it is about coding.
The secret to great software: Fail early & often.
Eliminate software piracy: use only FLOSS.
jeff pang
>
> Top posts don't bother me as much as those who don't trim the quotes. Other
> problems:
>
Another problem:
Shawn your signature message is too long to read. :)
Regards.
Erez Schatz
wrote:
>>> On the other hand, most of my
>>> posts (and those of most other active members of the lists) were
>>> replies
>>> for people asking for help, while trying to be helpful. And since I
>>> subscribed I've posted much more posts than you.
> Why do you feel that pointing people to relevant resources to the
> question at
> hand on http://perl-begin.org/ (which I assume is what you mean by "your
> site") constitutes spamming? And why do you think that this fact
> protects you from my criticism of you?
Because you were basing your criticism on "I post more than you".
> You are right that the world does not revolve around me, and that I may
> often
> like being the centre of attention. Before I resort to filtering you out,
> which I'd rather not do, will you consider what I said?
I still don't get why is you filtering me any concern of mine.
--
Erez
Shlomi Fish
CCing the list.
On Monday 27 Dec 2010 22:33:08 Parag Kalra wrote:
> Hi Shlomi,
>
> Really nice article. Very informative indeed. Keep the good work and I
> really appreciate your efforts and contribution towards OpenSource.
I'm glad you like it. ( And it's not "OpenSource" but "open source".)
>
> Also most of the Per intermediate users are eager to know how can they
> start building their own Professional modules, how can they contribute
> to perldoc or testing Perl modules or to CPAN in any which way, how to
> use C language to develop their own modules (if required or any other
> language) etc.
>
> Any good pointers on these topics would be of tremendous users to Perl
> lovers. I know we should "Google" it but its always better to trust
> words of wisdom of an expert. :)
Well, this is outside the scope of my "How to start contributing or using"
document, but it is in the scope of http://perl-begin.org/ which I refer from
there. If you feel something is missing from there, please let me know and
I'll consider adding it.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
>
> Cheers,
> Parag
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Shlomi Fish <shl...@iglu.org.il> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I recently finished working on a new document titled "How to Start
> > Contributing to or Using Open Source Software" intended to get more
> > people involved in the world of free and open source software (FOSS).
> > You can find it here:
> >
> > http://teachingopensource.org/index.php/How_to_start_contributing_to_or_u
> > sing_Open_Source_Software
> >
> > Short link: http://bit.ly/gkeXn5
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Apple Inc. is Evil - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/apple/
Shawn H Corey
> Another problem:
> Shawn your signature message is too long to read.:)
>
> Regards.
Doesn't matter; nobody reads those things anyway. :)
Raymond Wan
>>>>>> "RW" == Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
> RW> Saying the other tutorials are garbage is quite harsh and a bit
> RW> disrespectful to the authors who presumably meant well and didn't do
> RW> it to sabotage Perl's reputation. Maybe they aren't helpful to the
> RW> majority of people, but they may help a few people.
>
> when they are full of mistakes, wrong coding ideas, bad writing, no
> connection to the perl community, etc. etc. there are dozens of them
> like this. i have reviewed many on usenet (search google).
Yes, I understand what you're saying. But maybe you can see my side
for a bit. And rather than repeating myself, let me try a concrete
example.
The standard way to teach pointers is usually some kind of picture
with boxes with one half with a value and the other half an arrow
pointing elsewhere. In some class, if you do this, maybe 90% of the
people who have any chance of getting it, will get it from this
picture. (Let's face it...maybe some people will never have a
chance...I'm ignoring them. :-) ). The remaining 10% may need to be
taught about pointers another way...through actual code or something
that I can't think of right now. It isn't like this 10% is hopeless;
perhaps they just need to get through the class with pointers, and go
on to excel in theoretical computer science.
Having a variety of ways of conveying something may help this 10%.
And since it's on the Internet, it isn't occupying anyone's disk drive
(except maybe the server which they've paid money for). It certainly
isn't affecting you. But if they come to the mailing list complaining
about how something doesn't work? Well, explaining to them the
correct way with a wrong way from someone else might help the learning
process. I realize many people on this list (perhaps yourself) may
not thinking the learning process is important...you just want to send
one reply to solve their problem and move on to the next one. But for
some, the learning part is important and that might encourage them to
stick with Perl or the mailing list.
As for your comment about not being part of the Perl community, you
make it sound like being in the Perl community is an exclusive club.
It isn't. Thanks to the Internet, anyone who can write HTML can give
their 2 cents about Perl. This environment helps both Perl and open
source in general. So, I don't quite agree with that the author of
tutorials has to be "part of the Perl community". If so, I definitely
am not in it since I haven't yet received my membership card! :-)
While I'm at it, I'll whinge about something. When I'm stuck on
something related to Perl, I don't know if anyone realizes this too,
but many web page authors literally copy the examples from the Camel
book. Whether that is ethical or illegal, I leave it between them and
O'Reilly. But what annoys me is that I sometimes want to see another
example other than the one in the book, but page upon page gives
everything you complain about -- they're correct and probably by
people in the Perl community, but the examples are not original.
There are pages out there that have mistakes, but occasionally, they
offer a different example that gives me that "Oh!" moment. One tiny
advantage of not being in the Perl community, perhaps??
> RW> Thanks to Google, those top 3 you mention will probably be ranked at
> RW> the top, so the so-called "garbage ones" aren't going to negatively
> RW> affect many people.
>
> not at all. google doesn't always show the best ones as there are so
> many. i don't go searching for them. on usenet or other places
> (including here) newbies will claim they are using some site to learn
> perl. i go there to check it out and i get sick.
Well, Google works by the Page Rank algorithm, so rather than getting
sick, you and other people who think like you can link to them to
increase their score. That may also include the page Shlomi refers to
occasionally.
> RW> Yes/no. They are important, but one should realize that there are
> RW> varying levels of adherence to such rules. Should we expect a mailing
> RW> list to beginners to adhere to such posting rules or even coding rules
> RW> as well as, let's say, the developers of Perl6?
>
> not adhering when the first get here. adhering AFTER they are told about
> netiquette and email quoting styles. there is a difference.
Hmmmmm, you're missing my point. My point is why do you expect
newbies to *want* to adhere to such rules?
Put it another way, suppose you are a university lecturer teaching
computer science and want to get the coding style of students up. But
how much you can do depends on whether it is your first year class or
your fourth year class. Your first year class is full of lurkers who
may end up changing their major. Your fourth year class presumably
has decided that CS is for them and they're more likely to listen to
the rules and styles.
My point is that this mailing list is like the first year class every
day throughout the year [some of you might say it's more like a
primary school class :-) ]. So, how much emphasis is places on the
rules should depend on the audience.
> you didn't get my point. the answers come from the core regular
> experts. the questions from the beginners. so the experts make the
> rules. if the newbies made the rules, nothing would get done.
>
> this has happened in every other forum in network history. you need
> rules (both technical and social) for this to work well. there is no way
> around it.
And again, you didn't get my point. :-) We might as well write in
different languages... ;-)
I did not suggest newbies make the rules. You are only presenting two
different extremes -- either the core experts makes the rules or the
newbies make the rules. What I'm saying is that the core experts can
make and enforce the rules but *while* keeping in mind that the
mailing list loses its name without the newbies. My point is to show
restraint in terms of pointing out the rules or else the list will
just have core experts talking among themselves.
Ray
Octavian Rasnita
> On 10-12-31 10:58 PM, jeff pang wrote:
>> Another problem:
>> Shawn your signature message is too long to read.:)
>>
>> Regards.
>
> Doesn't matter; nobody reads those things anyway. :)
This answer is very good for "Top posts don't bother me as much as those who don't trim the quotes." also. :-)
When top-posting, the advantage is that it is not important how many messages remain at the bottom, exactly because nobody reads what's below the current message anyway. :-)
And by the way, there was a period when it was OK to say words like "black" but now it isn't. There was a period when it was OK to follow that old netiquette that said that bottom-posting is the good way, but now it isn't.
So, for all of the list members, please don't remember about netiquette when talking about bottom-posting, because it is very rude to bottom-post.
Better say that bottom-post is an old habit (and advanced programmers usually have old habits and not the newbies) and that the rules are enforced by the advanced programmers because they can help the others, and they want to everyone respect their preferences as a respect for their efforts of helping the newbies for free, not because the netiquette says this or that.
Octavian
Shawn H Corey
> This answer is very good for "Top posts don't bother me as much as those who don't trim the quotes." also.:-)
>
> When top-posting, the advantage is that it is not important how many messages remain at the bottom, exactly because nobody reads what's below the current message anyway.:-)
Which would mean every response gets longer and longer. No thanks.
BTW, this list does have an archive, so if you really want to, you can
look back on old posts. Your technique would imply that each message
should be its own archive. I would rather not have unearthly long
messages. Please trim your quotes.
Jenda Krynicky
> This answer is very good for "Top posts don't bother me as much as
> those who don't trim the quotes." also. :-) When top-posting, the
> advantage is that it is not important how many messages remain at the
> bottom, exactly because nobody reads what's below the current message
> anyway. :-)
Exactly ... if ... and it's a big if ... they still remember the old
post. Which is something you may fairly safely assume in personal
conversation but not on a mailing list. Expecially since most of the
people most likely to be able to help are on several lists at the
same time.
> And by the way, there was a period when it was OK to say words like "black" but now it isn't.
And it was a much better period. Fuck newspeak and fuck political
correctness. Rose, the same as shit, under any other name would smell
the same. Change the smell, not the name! Otherwise you may go on
changing the name every twenty years.
> There was a period when it was OK to follow that old netiquette
> that said that bottom-posting is the good way, but now it isn't.
Because you said so?
Jenda
===== Je...@Krynicky.cz === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz =====
When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed
to get drunk and croon as much as they like.
-- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
Brian Fraser
lot less fucking drama?
At least be original (or copypaste from Stack Overflow[0]) and do this on
topic, folks.
By the way, happy new year!
[0]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/234075/what-is-your-best-programmer-joke/273868#273868
Octavian Rasnita
>> And by the way, there was a period when it was OK to say words like "black" but now it isn't.
>
> And it was a much better period. Fuck newspeak and fuck political
> correctness. Rose, the same as shit, under any other name would smell
Better for who? For you maybe, but for most of the people is much better now than dozens years ago.
But it is all right, from your "oldspeak" I don't think you are one of those who sustain that old netiquette. :-))
>> There was a period when it was OK to follow that old netiquette
>> that said that bottom-posting is the good way, but now it isn't.
>
> Because you said so?
Yes. Me and many others.
I bottom post (on Perl - related mailing lists) and also usually trim the old posts, but not because bottom-post is the right way for Windows users - for most computer users, but because this is the preference of many Perl experts on these lists and it is a form of respect for their efforts, not for their opinions regarding the political corectness.
Octavian
Jenda Krynicky
> From: "Jenda Krynicky" <Je...@Krynicky.cz>
> >> There was a period when it was OK to follow that old netiquette
> >> that said that bottom-posting is the good way, but now it isn't.
> >
> > Because you said so?
>
> Yes. Me and many others.
>
> I bottom post (on Perl - related mailing lists) and also usually trim
> the old posts, but not because bottom-post is the right way for
> Windows users - for most computer users, but because this is the
> preference of many Perl experts on these lists and it is a form of
> respect for their efforts, not for their opinions regarding the
> political corectness.
They are not Windows, Mac or Unix users. They are mailing list users!
And their OS has nothing to do with what's right for mailing lists.
Raymond Wan
> Better say that bottom-post is an old habit (and advanced programmers usually have old habits and not the newbies) and that the rules are enforced by the advanced programmers because they can help the others, and they want to everyone respect their preferences as a respect for their efforts of helping the newbies for free, not because the netiquette says this or that.
An extension to your reasoning is that there aren't just two groups of
users on this list -- advanced and newbies -- but multiple levels.
Beginners who don't follow the advanced programmers' rules may have
questions that intermediate programmers can answer who aren't as
nit-picky about the rules. Then, advanced programmers can direct
their attention to more immediate questions by people who write in a
way that they like and everyone is happy. How the question is asked
implicitly says who (which group) the question is for...
Core Perl experts that think it's just them and beginners on the list
"risk" scaring people in the middle groups away, further making the
problem worse [for them]. No??
Ray
Brandon McCaig
> An extension to your reasoning is that there aren't just two groups of
> users on this list -- advanced and newbies -- but multiple levels.
> Beginners who don't follow the advanced programmers' rules may have
> questions that intermediate programmers can answer who aren't as
> nit-picky about the rules. Then, advanced programmers can direct
> their attention to more immediate questions by people who write in a
> way that they like and everyone is happy. How the question is asked
> implicitly says who (which group) the question is for...
>
> Core Perl experts that think it's just them and beginners on the list
> "risk" scaring people in the middle groups away, further making the
> problem worse [for them]. No??
This whole discussion is stupid. :P The OP was a little off topic, but
as others have said, Shlomi Fish is one of the more constructive
posters on this list. And even ignoring that, the OP wasn't /that/ off
topic. Maybe I only feel this way because it actually interests me to
write open source software, but meh.
The mailing list rules are about being fair to everyone. If you bottom
post, quoting only what is relevant, then everyone can easily read
through the thread without having to jump large sections of text, or
downloading the same data numerous times for no reason. Not everybody
has a high speed broadband connection and not everybody reads their
mail from a Web browser or GUI client. I find the rules make a lot of
sense and challenging them is just lazy, not logical. It doesn't even
require much effort to bottom post properly so I find this argument
extremely childish. Looking for software solutions on the Web I
encounter a lot of poorly designed message boards where everybody just
clicks on a 'quote' button. You end up with a horrible mess where the
original message is copied n times throughout the thread, the second
message n - 1 times, etc. It's just ugly and makes it very difficult
to read. The same thing would happen with mailing lists if best
practices weren't used. I pretty much won't participate on mailing
lists that don't enforce such rules. It's just too much work to try.
As for the experienced members correcting coding style, I really
appreciate it. It helps you to learn how to write clean Perl a lot
faster than if you struggle with it yourself. And not only cleaner
looking code, but cleaner logic too. Helps you to spot errors that you
wouldn't otherwise have spotted, etc. Reading this list, and reading
those corrections, has quickly helped me to learn Perl and become
comfortable both reading and writing Perl code. You don't always have
to agree with the advice you're given, but it certainly doesn't hurt
to be given it.
</two_cents>
/ontopic
As for the OP's document, I personally found it way too long to read
through when the thread was originally posted. :P That's perhaps a
good thing, but I think a lighter introduction to the topic might
benefit the document some. It seems you have to do a lot of reading to
get anywhere, but maybe that's just because I've already acquired a
lot of the introductory knowledge. :-/ I don't know. Looking at it
again, and looking back on how long it took me to get to where I am
now, I find it hard to believe that somebody that needs most of those
questions answered would be able to read from start to finish and
grasp most of what he had read. I imagine most would become lost or
confused and quit. :P There is just a lot to those various topics and
I think a more practical approach (i.e., tutorial-like) would help.
It's really such a broad topic though, encompassing so many other
complicated topics, that I can't imagine it working. Perhaps a better
approach would be splitting it into many documents.
--
Brandon McCaig <www.bamccaig.com> <bamc...@gmail.com>
V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. Vg qbrfa'g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.
Castopulence Software <http://www.castopulence.org/> <bamc...@castopulence.org>
Octavian Rasnita
Ray
:-)
(bottom - posted:)
Octavian
Octavian Rasnita
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> wrote:
> An extension to your reasoning is that there aren't just two groups of
> users on this list -- advanced and newbies -- but multiple levels.
> Beginners who don't follow the advanced programmers' rules may have
> questions that intermediate programmers can answer who aren't as
> nit-picky about the rules. Then, advanced programmers can direct
> their attention to more immediate questions by people who write in a
> way that they like and everyone is happy. How the question is asked
> implicitly says who (which group) the question is for...
>
> Core Perl experts that think it's just them and beginners on the list
> "risk" scaring people in the middle groups away, further making the
> problem worse [for them]. No??
> The mailing list rules are about being fair to everyone.
Exactly, but they are not.
> If you bottom post, quoting only what is relevant, then everyone can easily read
> through the thread without having to jump large sections of text,
If everyone top-post, nobody need to jump any portion of text.
Yes, I know that false reason that maybe somebody doesn't remember about the thread, that maybe he is subscribed to more mailing lists, but for this problem there are solutions, like to define rules in the mail client and redirect the messages from a mailing list to a special folder.
If somebody reads a message on the current thread, do you think that he might not remember what is this discussion about?
> or downloading the same data numerous times for no reason. Not everybody
> has a high speed broadband connection and not everybody reads their
> mail from a Web browser or GUI client.
This is another false reason. Don't tell us that someone is usually reading email messages using telnet to the port 110 of his POP3 server in a command line...
And it doesn't matter if the message is top-posted or bottom-posted for the size of the message. The old messages need to be trimmed. Yes, that's the solution, but not the bottom-post.
> I find the rules make a lot of sense and challenging them is just lazy, not logical.
We can also say that it is lazy to not wait until you download that unneeded data, but it is not fair. Fair is to read the messages as easy as possible, not with a bigger effort just because an old rule says that.
> It doesn't even require much effort to bottom post properly so I find this argument
> extremely childish.
Can yougive some hints about how to bottom-post as easy as top-posting when using Outlook Express?
(But please don't tell me that another eventually less used email client that doesn't have other more important features is better and that I need to change it.)
> Looking for software solutions on the Web I
> encounter a lot of poorly designed message boards where everybody just
> clicks on a 'quote' button. You end up with a horrible mess where the
> original message is copied n times throughout the thread, the second
> message n - 1 times, etc. It's just ugly and makes it very difficult
> to read.
I am a member of a mailing list and I don't care about forums. I don't like the forums because they are much hard accessible.
If the messages from the mailing list are stored and presented on the web as a forum this is a secondary scope of a mailing list. The most important scope is to be used as easy as possible.
> practices weren't used. I pretty much won't participate on mailing
> lists that don't enforce such rules.
Ok, if you don't care about the other members' problems due to these rules, go ahead and unsubscribe if you don't like it.
Or if you are so important for the mailing list and you can impose a rule that makes other members' life harder, say your opinion clearly and show that you don't care about those members. I love to hear that.
> It's just too much work to try.
Much work? For what? To be able to read the new message immediately without needing to jump over a lot of text you already read?
For those who need to jump over a lot of same and same messages just to be able to read a line or two of the new message involves much more work.
Trimming is OK, but bottom-posting is not, and those who like or care about forums should use forums, not mailing lists.
> As for the experienced members correcting coding style, I really
> appreciate it. It helps you to learn how to write clean Perl a lot
> faster than if you struggle with it yourself. And not only cleaner
> looking code, but cleaner logic too. Helps you to spot errors that you
> wouldn't otherwise have spotted, etc. Reading this list, and reading
> those corrections, has quickly helped me to learn Perl and become
> comfortable both reading and writing Perl code. You don't always have
> to agree with the advice you're given, but it certainly doesn't hurt
> to be given it.
Yes you are right, but it depends how that correction is made.
If I ask if the code
$x=$y+$z;
is correct, it is very OK to be answered that yes, it is OK, but that it be helpful to add other things like
use strict;
maybe even
use warnings;
and that it is also nice to use spaces between vars and operators and that it will need to declare the variables using
my $x = $y + $z;
...
But is not OK to be first told that I need to use strict and warnings, or that I need to add "my" or spaces, because maybe I already know these things and use them in my code, but I stripped them down on the mailing list because I am interested only in the code.
The corrections are OK because other beginners will read them and they will be very helpful, but it is not OK to start the messages with them making the person who asked to feel stupid.
Octavian
Raymond Wan
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> wrote:
>> Core Perl experts that think it's just them and beginners on the list
>> "risk" scaring people in the middle groups away, further making the
>> problem worse [for them]. No??
>
> This whole discussion is stupid. :P The OP was a little off topic, but
> as others have said, Shlomi Fish is one of the more constructive
> posters on this list. And even ignoring that, the OP wasn't /that/ off
> topic. Maybe I only feel this way because it actually interests me to
> write open source software, but meh.
Well, maybe the discussion is "stupid", but it is certainly not irrelevant.
If you have an interest in open source software, then I think you will
agree that open source software isn't just about having source open
and which file should a new function be added. As much as open source
contributors would just like to talk about coding, other benign
administrative-related discussions take over.
Likewise, everyone just wants to talk about Perl on this list, but how
the list is run is also relevant. Perhaps we would all like to have
the best of both worlds -- the popularity of an unmoderated list but
with rules of a moderated list. But, unless I am mistaken, this list
isn't moderated. All we can really do is ignore postings that we
don't like; and some newbie posting for the first time might be helped
by another "newbie" who posted for the first time 4 weeks ago.
Just a thought...but I know keeping the status quo is always far easier... :-)
Ray
Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 02:55:32
> From: Shlomi Fish <shl...@iglu.org.il>
> To: begi...@perl.org
> Cc: Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez <un...@alvaromantilla.com>
> Subject: Re: New Document:
> "How to Start Contributing to or Using Open Source Software"
>
> On Monday 27 Dec 2010 21:44:05 Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it is not fair to pointing the reader out directly to Linux.
>> There are other systems out there more Open Source than Linux like OpenBSD
>> (for example). I think a briedfly review of these other OS would be good
>> for the article and, after that, let the reader to choose between Linux -
>> OpenBSD - FreeBSD - NetBSD, etc...
>
> First of all, while the licence of most of the BSDs is a permissive one
> whereas the licence of most of Linux is the GPL, which is more restrictive,
> the GPL is still open-source. You can argue that the BSD licence and the X11
> licence are more "open" or more "free" than the GPL or LGPL but that doesn't
> make them more "open source".
Well, that is your opinion.
>
> Secondly, the reason I didn't point the user to the BSDs was the same as the
> reason I didn't refer them to Gentoo Linux or Archlinux: they are not ready or
> even not intended for newcomers, who are the target audience of the article.
> For example:
>
> 1. I tried installing PC-BSD on a VirtualBox virtual machine. After
> downloading the first two CDs and installing using them, the installation
> asked for the third CD which was clearly marked as "optional components".
> Since I didn't download that, I tried to avoid it, at which point the
> installation aborted and left the installation in an unusable, unbootable
> state.
>
So, your very poor argument is based in your very poor experience.
> From what I know of Mandriva Linux and other Linux distributions, you can
> easily install them using only the first CD.
>
Again, based in your experience. You can install FreeBSD or OpenBSD (by
example) from just one CD and install what you want from packages or
ports. Same way as you do with those Linux distributions that need to
connect to packages repositories trough Synaptic and tools like that just
for do the same.
> 2. Next, I tried installing plain FreeBSD on a similar virtual machine. The
> installation was made in text mode, and try as I might, it wouldn't detect the
> VirtualBox internal networking interface. Someone told me that the installer
> wasn't worked on for several years.
>
That is weird. There is a lot of people running FreeBSD on VirtualBox /
VMWare installation. So...the only clear enough on this point is: you
don't know how to run a FreeBSD system in YOUR VirtualBox
> 3. Someone who was able to successfully install FreeBSD, had to recompile a
> large percent of the system from ports (including X, etc.) after wishing to
> install something. I don't expect most newcomers to be able to tolerate this
> without giving up.
>
Well, maybe you have a point here...but just surf the internet and see
tons of Linux forums with "newcomers" desesperate because the things does
not work as expected in their super cool Linux systems and, funny thing,
the next door guy has the same Linux and the same configuration and everything
works from him.
> 4. An Israeli developer who tried to install OpenBSD commented about the
> hostility of the installer and how, at a point, the instructions scrolled past
> and he couldn't see them.
>
This is the best point of your email: go to google and search for
"Installing OpenBSD in 5 minutes" (which by the way is in a Virtual
Machine) and don't say bullshit about things you don't know.
Funny note: "the instructions scrolled past and he couldn't see them"..are
you refering to dmesg??? LOL
> -------
>
> So while I don't rule out that after some experience, an open-source
> enthusiast will opt to experiment with the *BSDs or with less user-friendly
> Linux distributions, I cannot recommend any of them as introductory OSes, and
> mentioning them as alternatives to introductory distributions will just
> confuse the reader. They are out of the scope of the document.
>
Again, your document is OK but you don't have enough experience in all
OpenSource environment to have the only truth of the world.
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
--------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez
LPIC-1 (2001), LPIC-2 (2004),
Novell Certified Linux Administrator (2010),
Novell Certified Linux DataCenter Specialist (2010)
--------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah C. Foster
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
> >On Monday 27 Dec 2010 21:44:05 Alvaro Mantilla Gimenez wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >> I think it is not fair to pointing the reader out directly to Linux.
> >>There are other systems out there more Open Source than Linux like OpenBSD
> >>(for example).
Open Source is ambiguous here. In this context it merely means the
source code is available. In that instance, both the BSDs and the
Linux distros are equally "Open". If you refer to "Free Software" as
the Free Software Foundations do then you are talking about a fairly
specific set of licenses, the GPL, under which Perl is licensed. (To
be perfectly clear, Perl is licensed under a dual license; the
Artistic License and the GPL, at your discretion.)
> >> I think a briedfly review of these other OS would be good
> >>for the article and, after that, let the reader to choose between Linux -
> >>OpenBSD - FreeBSD - NetBSD, etc...
Without a doubt these OSes are hugely important, especially in the perl world.
> >First of all, while the licence of most of the BSDs is a permissive one
> >whereas the licence of most of Linux is the GPL, which is more restrictive,
The GPL is not more restrictive. On the contrary, it grants more
permissions to the user of your software. In fact it grants the user
the same freedoms you enjoy. This is something that the BSD license
does not do, rather it allows one to subvert your freedom and not contribute
changes back to your software.
> >the GPL is still open-source. You can argue that the BSD licence and the X11
> >licence are more "open" or more "free" than the GPL or LGPL but that doesn't
> >make them more "open source".
I don't think you could successfully make that argument. I realize
many people feel in their gut that the BSD is more free since it lets
you do nearly whatever you want. But that is not freedom, it is merely
the abscence of obligation.
The GPL is designed to ensure that the freedoms you enjoy with Open
Source are not taken away from you once you share your software. It
allows others the same freedom you possess thereby increasing the
amount of opportunity and real freedom in the ecosystem as opposed to
granting those privileges a select few. This is a much more
responsible approach. Surely there are times when a BSD license is
more appropriate and corporations love to use it to release software
because it absolves them of any necessity to maintain or support their
software, but that does not give it any special imprimatur of "free"
or "open".
Jeremiah