The idea for SQLite actually came out of his frustrations with an existing database called Informix that was installed on a literal battleship
they said, “Well, do you have any pricing information?” “Well, look, I tell you what, let’s have a call tomorrow and I’ll get back to you on that.”
Of course, inside, I was like, “What? You can make money with open source software? How does this work? How do I price this? I have no idea how to do this.”Somehow or another, and I don’t know how this happened, Mitchell Baker, she’s the woman who runs the Mozilla Foundation, she got wind of this and called me up, says, “Richard, you’re doing this all wrong. Let me tell you how to set up a consortium.” She laid down the law, says, “Look, the developers have to be in control. Their decision is final. No voting rights on what gets to go into it. The companies that are using, they get the honor of contributing money, but you make all the decisions.” She was very adamant about this and she laid out everything. She’s a lawyer.
I actually started following some of their processes, and one of the key things that they push is, they want 100% MCDC test coverage.
That’s modified condition decision coverage of the code. Your tests have to cause each branch operation in the resulting binary code to be taken and to fall through at least once.I looked at Git, I looked at Mercurial, and I looked at my requirements and I thought, “You know what? I’m just going to write my own,” so I wrote my own version control system (fossil), which is now a project unto itself, and that worked out very, very well
Source : https://sebsauvage.net/links/
Really nice read, that gave me some food for thought and includes a nice summary of the Open Source vs Free Software history.
Some hand-picked quotes:
Fuzzy, contentious, and complex ideas have been stripped of their subversive connotations and replaced by cleaner, shinier, and emptier alternatives; long-running debates about politics, rights, and freedoms have been recast in the seemingly natural language of economics, innovation, and efficiency.
Stallman’s may not have been the best software on offer, but some sacrifice of technological efficiency was a price worth paying for emancipation.
Any move to subject the fruits of developers’ labor to public regulation, even if its goal was to promote a greater uptake of open source software, must be opposed, since it would taint the reputation of open source as technologically and economically superior to proprietary software.
As O’Reilly put it in 2010, “the art of promoting openness is not to make it a moral crusade, but rather to highlight the competitive advantages of openness.”
It seems that anyone who wanted to claim that a revolution was under way in their own field did so simply by invoking the idea of Web 2.0 in their work: Development 2.0, Nursing 2.0, Humanities 2.0, Protest 2.0, Music 2.0, Research 2.0, Library 2.0, Disasters 2.0, Road Safety 2.0, Identity 2.0, Stress Management 2.0, Archeology 2.0, Crime 2.0, Pornography 2.0, Love 2.0, Wittgenstein 2.0. What unites most of these papers is a shared background assumption that, thanks to the coming of Web 2.0, we are living through unique historical circumstances. Except that there was no coming of Web 2.0—it was just a way to sell a technology conference to a public badly burned by the dotcom crash.
Some words—like “law”—are particularly susceptible to crazy talk, as they mean so many different things: from scientific “laws” to moral “laws” to “laws” of the market to administrative “laws,” the same word captures many different social relations. “Open,” “networks,” and “information” function much like “law” in our own Internet discourse today.
O’Reilly admitted that he was the one to edit the Wikipedia page for the book. O’Reilly is perfectly positioned to control our technology discourse: as a publisher, he can churn out whatever books he needs to promote his favorite memes—and, once those have been codified in book form, they can be easily admitted into Wikipedia, where they quickly morph into facts. What’s not to like about “collective intelligence”?
As long as this “open data” was liquid and reusable, others could build on it. Neither the political process that led to the release of the data nor its content was considered relevant to openness. Thus, data about how many gum-chewers Singapore sends to prison would be “open” as long as the Singaporean government shared it in suitable formats. Why it shared such data was irrelevant.
O’Reilly deploys the highly ambiguous concept of openness to confuse “transparency as accountability” (what Obama called for in his directive) with “transparency as innovation” (what O’Reilly himself wants).
If Participation 1.0 was about the use of public reason to push for political reforms, with groups of concerned citizens coalescing around some vague notion of the shared public good, Participation 2.0 is about atomized individuals finding or contributing the right data to solve some problem without creating any disturbances in the system itself.
In 2011, Cameron’s government released a white paper on “Open Public Services” that uses the word “open” in a peculiar way: it argues that, save for national security and the judiciary, all public services must become open to competition from the market.
Raymond writes in The Cathedral and the Bazaa [...] that “one may call [Linux hackers] motivation ‘altruistic’, but this ignores the fact that altruism is itself a form of ego satisfaction for the altruist.” If it sounds like Ayn Rand, that’s because Raymond explicitly draws on her crazy talk.
Due to a long standing bug, no history file will be kept of the commands you enter in an interactive shell when using a Python 3 virtualenv.
I found out a simple workaround. Simply put the following in your ~/.pythonrc
:
import atexit, os, readline, sys
if sys.version_info >= (3, 0 …
This post aims to introduce a very useful tool to debug low-level issues in Python, how to enhance it and finally how to solve two annoying common problems.
All the basics are there : https://wiki.python.org/moin/DebuggingWithGdb
Tl;dr :
gdb -p $(pgrep -f …