www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Curtis <keit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Liberal corporate open source policies
Date Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:24:20 GMT
Hi all;

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@apache.org>wrote:

> On 3/22/2011 7:19 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> >
> > I guess some might consider a solution like that no worse than any other
> but I think
> > endorsing such a stack goes against a good policy. If you are going to
> make a policy, you
> > should love the results it endorses. That is all I was trying to suggest.
>
> See, I guess that's where I think this discussion has gone off the rails
> for an Apache Software Foundation discussion.
>
> In large measure, ASF participants are pragmatists.  This isn't a culture
> you might find in the Gnome or other FSF projects which seek to win an
> entirely free (as in beer) ecosystem.  Linus himself is exempted from
> this gross over-generalization, as he does not come down against allowing
> vendors to interface closed source with his kernel or running his kernel
> on top of closed systems, so I'd place him in this same pragmatist culture.
>

I try to be pragmatic as well but free software is better and cheaper and so
these worthy goals and reasons should be reflected in the policies on a
topic.


> You might find this is orthogonal to our public letter to Sun with respect
> to Java, the TCK and the Apache Harmony project.  But this was not; the
> letter simply sought the terms promised by Sun and their compliance to the
> JSPA which Sun authored.  Had those promises and JSPA contract not existed,
> the ASF would have been just as likely to never attempt the Harmony
> project,
> yet it was still developing code in Java.
>

Since I'm off-topic, I'll mention that I wrote a chapter in my book on why
Java should be abandoned. (http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=2228)
Whatever you are working on with Oracle I hope is not distracting you. Sun
never invested nearly as much into Java as MS did in .Net, and I can't
imagine Oracle improving things. I live in the world of PHP, Python, and the
Linux desktop, so don't run much ASF technologies

I think you guys should make a goal of moving towards the Python community:
http://scipy.org/Topical_Software

Note this can be done in a pragmatic way. The point is to first have goals
and then figure out how to get there. If you have "pragmatic" goals you are
aiming too low. It is important to be practical about means but not about
the ends.



>  Advocacy for open source and/or completely open
> solutions is fine, but the two are not identical.  And until there is
> an open chipset design for their target architecture, the "entirely 100%
> open solution" champions are being disingenuous, IMHO :)
>

I have found that the hardware doesn't matter. A computer is happy to add 0
+ 0 billions of times per second all day long. It is the software that
matters. And the most important software is the programming language that
you write your other software in.

-Keith

P.S. Here is a chunk of something I wrote about programming languages that
is relevant here:
-----------
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=1691

The most popular free computer vision codebase is OpenCV, but it is
time-consuming to integrate because it defines an entire world in C++ down
to the matrix class. Because C/C++ didn’t define a matrix, nor provide code,
countless groups have created their own. It is easier to build your own
computer vision library using standard classes that do math, I/O, and
graphics, than to integrate OpenCV. Getting productive in that codebase is
months of work and people want to see results before then. Building it is a
chore, and they have lost users because of that. Progress in the OpenCV core
is very slow because the barriers to entry are high. OpenCV has some machine
learning code, but they would be better delegating that out to others. They
are now doing CUDA optimizations they could get from elsewhere. They also
have 3 Python wrappers and several other wrappers as well; many groups spend
more time working on wrappers than the underlying code. Using the wrappers
is fine if you only want to call the software, but if you want to improve
the underlying code, then the programming environment instantly becomes
radically different and more complicated.

There is a team working on Strong AI called OpenCog, a C++ codebase created
in 2001. They are evolving slowly as they do not have a constant stream of
demos. They don’t consider their codebase is a small amount of
world-changing ideas buried in engineering baggage like STL. Their GC
language for small pieces is Scheme, an unpopular GC language in the FOSS
community. Some in their group recommend Erlang. The OpenCog team looks at
their core of C++, and over to OpenCV’s core of C++, and concludes the
situation is fine. One of the biggest features of the ROS (Robot OS),
according to its documentation, is a re-implementation of RPC in C++, not
what robotics was missing. I’ve emailed various groups and all know of GC,
but they are afraid of any decrease in performance, and they do not think
they will ever save time. The transition from brooms to vacuum cleaners was
disruptive, but we managed.

C/C++ makes it harder to share code amongst disparate scientists than a GC
language. It doesn’t matter if there are lots of XML parsers or RSS readers,
but it does matter if we don’t have an official computer vision codebase.
This is not against any codebase or language, only for free software lingua
franca(s) in certain places to enable faster knowledge accumulation. Even
language researchers can improve and create variants of a common language,
and tools can output it from other domains like math. Agreeing on a standard
still gives us an uncountably infinite number of things to disagree over.

---------

Mime
View raw message