1. 2

    I’ve been looking for something like this for ages.

    1. 2

      I love On the Metal Podcast! all the episodes have been amazing :D

      1. 2

        This one was the best to me.

      1. 6

        I like this year’s redesign. No question about VCS for the second time confirms, at least to me, that Git has gone way over 90% adoption and that SVN and Mercurial are under 10% maybe. Just speculating. The fact of the matter remains that there it is not worth asking the question anymore.

        1. 2

          Connecting to a machine translation engine (I’m guessing Google’s or DeepL’s) and trying to figure out a translation workflow on Git.

          1. 37

            Social Distancing isn’t a new answer here, right? :__)

            1. 1

              Company: GitLab

              Company site: https://www.about.gitlab.com

              Position(s): A whole bunch

              Location: Remote

              Description: https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/apply/

              Tech stack: Ruby, Rails, Git, PostgreSQL, Redis, NGINX https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/architecture.html

              Contact: https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/faq/

              1. 4

                The introduction of the term “open source software” was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, “free software,” was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.

                (emphasis mine) Wow. whether that is plain ignorance or a lie aimed to ignorant people, shame on them.

                1. 3

                  Yes, this is a quite weird reason or explanation.

                  Free in English means both libre and gratis (free as in „free speech“ and free as in „free beer“). And free software is both libre and gratis – where gratis is related to the license fee. I see nothing confusing here. It does not say, that you will get e.g. custom development, consulting or support for free. Just the license is free for anyone (compare it to proprietary software – this is huge difference).

                  And what about the Open source? Let us read the Open Source Definition. It is the first criterion labeled „Free Redistribution“ which says:

                  The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

                  1. 4

                    Free software can be charged for. Look at all the GPL WordPress plugins that cost money but you get the source.

                    1. 3

                      Or, of course, the support packages and hosted instances of apps like Discourse, Red Hat, and MariaDB.

                      1. 1

                        Free software can be charged for.

                        I should have added „once published“. Technically it is true, you can charge money for the distribution or for giving the software under the GPL license*. But once anybody gets this license from you, he can freely redistribute it. So usually you do not charge money for distribution or license but for services (consulting, support, custom development…). Theoretically you can ask money for license/distribution of an already published work, but there is low motivation to pay you and it is better to call it rather „support“ or sometimes „donation“ than a license fee.

                        *) e.g. I develop something and ask the first customer for the money – without paying he will not get anything (I am not obligated to publish or share my work) and after the payment, he will get free software licensed under GNU GPL.

                      2. 3

                        “Free Software” you have to explain once. “Open Source” you can never explain, as the current round of proprietary licenses that people are trying to call “open” shows. This wasn’t an improvement.

                      3. 5

                        I think you misread that, what she’s saying is that almost everyone who hears “Free Software” for the first time thinks it means “free” as in “no price”. She’s not claiming that this is what “Free Software” means, she’s saying that the term is confusing and ambiguous.

                        1. 5

                          Yes, that fell under the a lie aimed to ignorant people umbrella, which is what I think this is (in my honest opinion, that is. I know it may sound strong). Lie because someone not very familiar with the issue might be quick to internalize that simplistic explanation. The Free Software movement is and always was political and saying that “open source” isn’t just about businesses exploiting is a lie to make ourselves feel better. Again, I feel I have to make a disclaimer here that I’m not trying to flame.

                          1. 5

                            No problems with the flame framing, at least for me. However, what is your explanation then? What’s your view on what she describes as a problem? To my understanding, her take sounds realistic and reasonable.

                            1. 4

                              You mean my view on whether people mistake ‘free software’ for free as in beer? It’s a completely real problem, of course! But it’s not as much of a problem as “open source” is for free software. RMS on his essay Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software makes an argument on this which basically boils down to that “free software” stands for ethical responsibilities and freedoms. In my humble opinion RMS’s insistence on absolutely correct terminology hurt this effort back in those days.

                              Basically I think that sidelining or sometimes plain ignoring the commons in favor of terminology is bad. But as always these things are never black and white and you can find sense in both apparent sides of the argument. I don’t think people who regard “free software” is a bad term reject its ethics and I don’t think people who regard “open source” a bad term reject the complex issues behind software and politics. But sometimes the actual problem is that both are up for exploitation by profit seeking entities.

                              1. 3

                                The OSF regarded RMS as blockage and routed around him.

                            2. 2

                              I’m with arp242. It’s been true enough in my experience with ordinary people that I used open source to avoid it.

                              Another major problem is that many enterprise buyers believe that you get what you pay for in software. “Free Software” must be low quality. Also, many want to pay to justify the budgets for their personal fiefdoms. Those two effects mean a term like open source (or just avoiding “free”) increases paid, enterprise adoption.

                              1. 2

                                As I replied in another comment subtree, I completely agree with you, it’s just that I believe this derails the conversation about “free software” since we talk less about proprietary software making our life more difficult and more about terminology. It’s completely understandable that different people have different things in mind when talking about this!

                                1. 1

                                  Again who cares what they think. If they choose to pay for inferior software that gives them less freedom they’re ironically free to do so.

                                  We don’t say vim is bad because it’s hard to use for brand new users because we recognise that its benefits way way exceed its first time use costs.

                                  In the same vein, we shouldn’t decide what word we use based on how people understand it on first impression when it the trade off is a word that colours the discourse we read it in the subsequent tens or hundreds of thousands of times we read it.

                                  1. 1

                                    People that want to increase adoption by enterprises along with odds they’ll contribute code or money to open-source projects. Some people who want to get paid working of OSS, too.

                                    1. 2

                                      I’d prefer less corporate influence on free software. I don’t think any real successful businesses are operated by people so stupid that they’d dismiss free software based on the fricking name anyway.

                              2. 1

                                Who cares what people think the first time they hear the term? I’ve heard and seen open source tens of thousands of times. The first time is a distant memory.

                              3. 2

                                I think the article accounts for this pretty well. Not in the introductory paragraph as quoted, but further on:

                                those new to the term “free software” assume it is referring to the price. Oldtimers must then launch into an explanation, usually given as follows: “We mean free as in freedom, not free as in beer.”

                                I see other comments in this lobste.rs thread that have felt it necessary to repeat the “free speech vs beer” distinction to make their point, even though presumably most of us are not newcomers. So I think we can agree that this limitation of English is real, and was probably even more of a problem in 1998.

                                Other comments have pointed out Open Source has other meanings that can make it harder to explain sometimes. It’s possible to accept that and also accept Christine’s explanation for why they went with Open Source at the time. The article also touches on this:

                                while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term “open” had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn’t have a better idea

                              1. 4

                                This earlier lobsters thread and the link therein gives some hints for how it likely works.

                                https://lobste.rs/s/7khgtp/barebones_git

                                I shared some thoughts here:

                                https://lobste.rs/s/7khgtp/barebones_git#c_rtjjpm

                                I assume you are referring to the client/server setup and not something like a forked git source tree?

                                1. 1

                                  Exactly. Thanks.

                                  1. 1

                                    Overworked, underpaid (and proud of it!), and stacked almost exclusively with deeply-PC/‘woke’ folk. I’ll, uh, pass.

                                    1. 2

                                      stacked almost exclusively with deeply-PC/‘woke’ folk. I’ll, uh, pass.

                                      I’m curious; how do you know this? Is it just from their “Diversity & Inclusion” mission statement?

                                      1. 2

                                        That, casual conversation with some of their older Ops folk, and a chat with Syd himself from ‘back in the day’.

                                        1. 9

                                          Thanks. It’s definitely a red flag, which is unfortunate because at least superficially, “social justice” sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, there’s a large overlap between that and hateful tribalism. For example, from this job ad

                                          with the goal to change the IT industry from a white, bearded clump to something that’s a little less monochrome and have a few more x-chromosomes

                                          Being genuinely inclusive is good and important. Casting aspersions on an entire group of people (their own employees, no less!) for their genitalia and/or skin colour is never ok. For some reason this is given a pass when it comes from proponents of the correct political ideology.

                                          1. 1

                                            Wouldn’t with the goal to make the IT industry more diverse amount to the same? That’s what I understand from this quote, the only difference being that the quote clearly states the current state of affairs and what would make it more diverse.

                                            1. 5

                                              I find it totally offensive for myself or any of my peers to be described as a “white, bearded clump”.

                                            2. 1

                                              I am curious to understand why you immediately redflagged this after law’s statement and rejected the massive evidence (https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-GitLab-EI_IE1296544.11,17.htm) – at least compared to a one-line statement – that Gitlab is, at the very least, a nice place to work in.

                                              1. 2

                                                Good question. I think it’s because it’s far riskier for one’s own political capital or reputation to say something critical, and I think this is especially true of criticising political correctness. Nobody ever got fired for saying “oh yeah, it’s great. I am happy, everyone is happy.”

                                                Or perhaps looking at it another way: a “woke” culture in a company is a good thing to some people. There are many people who are that flavour of political extremist, and would feel welcome among their own. The original observation was indeed “this is a woke company”, and not “this is a bad company.”

                                                Glassdoor are not letting me read reviews without an account, but if the company were an echo chamber (likely, since I don’t believe the diversity movement is interested in diversity of opinion), then what’s to correct for all the positive reviews coming from people who 1. want to save their own skin, and/or 2. are quite comfortable with political correctness?

                                                1. 2

                                                  How is law risking anything by saying what he said – or anything for that matter – under a nickname?

                                                  1. 2

                                                    I don’t know about this person specifically, but it’s not uncommon to be able to deduce who a person is by combing through their post history, and possibly cross-referencing it against content they’ve authored in other online communities.

                                                    1. 3

                                                      I don’t won’t to be impolite by insisting (sorry if I am) but you actually trusted this person’s single-line statement rather than publicly available, verified, anonymous feedback.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Don’t worry, I don’t think you’ve been impolite. It’s totally fair to ask.

                                                        You are right, I drew a likely (in my mind) conclusion from a single source over an entire repository of reviews. I’ve presented my justification for this; perhaps it’s not entirely legitimate and it will be based on some of my own experiences and biases.

                                                        I wouldn’t say I “trust” the above anecdote comprehensively, but it’s certainly a signal. I could see a motive for someone to say some company is “bad”, but I don’t understand why someone would describe a company’s culture as “woke” if it isn’t.

                                        2. 1

                                          Dodged a bullet, thanks.

                                          1. 1

                                            I was shocked to see how much less I’d make at Gitlab - my pay would be literally half what it is right now. They index their remote pay to cost of living wher eyou live, and in the United States it’s indexed for an entire state. In my home state, cost of living varies WIDELY based on what part of the state you are in, and this acted much to my detriment.

                                            I understand and appreciate the difficulty of figuring out what to pay remote workers in a global workforce, but I definitely think Gitlab hasn’t solved it yet. I’m also grateful their salary transparency after the introductory interview meant that we weren’t wasting each others’ time - I wish more companies did this.

                                        1. 2

                                          n.b. there are many (distributed) version control systems – not only Git – and it is applicable to any of them

                                          1. 1

                                            Yep, true. Plastic SCM, Mercurial, Bazaar…

                                          1. 3

                                            I let calmtechnology.com expire because my ubiquitous computing project hadn’t moved for a few years. It’s such a cool idea, I regret being cheap and lazy.

                                            Glad it’s being used in this way at least. I’ve been camping on the idle domain for a while.

                                            1. 1

                                              You owned that domain?

                                              1. 2

                                                Yep. I registered a couple of domains back in 2003 when I was trying to come up with a name for my consulting company. Then I lazied up and lost some amidst the shuffle and have been camping hoping that their new registrant made the same mistake I did.

                                                Looks like calmtechnology.com is going to stick around. I hope I get livefuture.com and inya.com back.

                                              1. 5

                                                Oh! Didn’t realize someone else already posted this here until just now that I posted the announcement on emacsconf-discuss and was about to post it here :)

                                                We have an awesome lineup of talks this year, and I’m very excited for November 2.

                                                1. 2

                                                  Yes you do, bandali. Congrats and wish you a huge turn up!

                                                  1. 2

                                                    Thanks, Mordo!

                                                1. 3

                                                  A nice article - even though obviously quite heavy advertising Amazon’s services to offer. This part caught my attention though:

                                                  In fact, we anticipate that there will soon be a whole generation of developers who have never touched a server and only write business logic. The reason is simple. Whether you’re building net new applications or migrating legacy, using serverless primitives for compute, data, and integration enables you to benefit from the most agility that the cloud has to offer.

                                                  While this is definitely the direction things are going, I do hope the next generation of developers will take the time to understand what goes on under the hood, how servers are provisioned and do spin up their own instance/databases on side projects, to learn about them. Just like if you’re a React developer, knowing what goes under the hood at the JS/DOM level is something that makes you a better engineer, knowing what happens at the infra level is equally interesting, even if it works well enough.

                                                  Also, if your service becomes large enough, you do want to be able to compare the cost and tradeoffs of using something like Lambda versus dedicated hardware, provisioned virtual machines or another cloud provider.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    True. Maybe, this is my opinion, he’s referring to future developers who might not be graduated in CS or engineers; people that have learned any language with easy syntax and have learned enough to program just business logic.

                                                  1. 1

                                                    Ciera Jaspan’s research is related to aspects covered in this case study. Listen to this, might be worth it: https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2019/05/22/monolithic-repositories-with-ciera-jaspan/ Also her research: https://ai.google/research/people/CieraJaspan

                                                    1. 3

                                                      This certainly covers the ‘happy path’ of GUIs – the stuff we’re all familiar with, plus a handful of others in the 1980s section – but I’m disappointed that it didn’t cover interesting-but-unfamiliar experiments.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Not necessarily the happy path, but the well-trod path at any rate.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Like which ones?

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Plan9’s rio/acme, colorforth, mesa, morphic, swyft, and NeWS, to name a few.

                                                            1. 1

                                                              Has anyone written about them? I’d love to read a piece on them.

                                                              1. 2

                                                                I’m working on a book on the subject of unusual UIs, and so I’ve been gathering documents on them here.

                                                        1. 0

                                                          The comparison table on their website is petulant to the point of driving me off their product.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            hahah why?

                                                          1. 1

                                                            This guy has been a gift from god.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              “Google’s codebase is managed in a single monolithic repository. An engineer at Google can explore almost any area of the codebase within the entire company.”

                                                              Where I work, the second sentence applies but not the first. The article leads with this, which seems to be strongly implying that there is a dependency relationship.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                You should listen to the complete episode. She clarifies that certain repos are separated (Open Source for one type) and that access to every part of the monolith is granted though there are permissions at the commit level.

                                                                1. 2

                                                                  I understood rikkus to say that “can explore almost any area of the codebase” doesn’t imply “there must be a monorepo”, because such transparency is also possible with a sea of repos.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    Oh, my bad then. It is true that multi repo allows full accessibility but, come on, it makes it much more complicated to say the least.