[svlug] Re: Wish there was a program that..

[Roland Krause]

I would like to agree with Scott and Dan (Wow Dan! - you handle your
email program with quite some virtuosity :-) ). 

Anyway, I believe the best way to get into Open Source coding is to
pick a program that you really like and fix a bug or implement a small
feature. 

May I suggest KDE :-) 

Ok, I'll shut up.
Regards,
Roland


>    2. Re: Wish there was a program that.. (Dan Martinez)

> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.3 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.4 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.5 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.6 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.7 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.8 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.9 message/rfc822 
> From: Dan Martinez <dfm at area.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:44:36 -0700
> To: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> 
> Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that people do things backwards. They _start_ an
> > open-source project, _then_ they start writing code. The better
> > approach is to start writing code, get to the point where you've
> > actually accomplished something, _then_ make it into an open-source
> > project. This is effectively how all successful open-source
> projects
> > were originally created.
> 
> To amplify this point a bit: the specific problem Scott refers to is
> that a lot of people will write the beginning scraps of a program --
> if they actually write any code at all to start with -- declare that
> they've started an open-source project, and believe that they're
> halfway to victory. History suggests that in practice such projects
> run an appallingly high risk of dying on the vine.
> 
> Writing the skeleton of an ambitious program and expecting others to
> fill it in for you generally doesn't work very well. If people
> download your tarball, compile it, and realize that it doesn't
> actually do anything interesting yet, they're likely to simply shrug,
> delete it, and move on to something else.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you build something modest that actually
> works,
> users are more likely to play with it, realize that with just a
> *little* more effort it could be extended in some useful fashion, try
> it, and get hooked on making improvements to the software.
> 
> Jamie Zawinski talks about this sort of thing a bit in his
> "resignation and postmortem", in which he talks about some of the
> problems that nearly wound up strangling Mozilla in its crib. (I'm
> thinking in particular of "Excuse #2".)
> 
>     http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
> 
> A fairly perceptive guy I used to work with summed it up succinctly
> and memorably when he said, of open-source projects, that "the
> interesting stuff happens at the edges, not at the core." (Hi,
> Scott!)
> 
> Dan
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 3.10 message/rfc822 
> From: Scott Hess <scott at doubleu.com>
> Subject: Re: [svlug] Wish there was a program that..
> CC: svlug at lists.svlug.org
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys.com>
> 
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:53:32PM -0700, Scott Hess wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > Here's my suggestion for a quick project: a CD player program
> that
> > > > works on machines that have no hardware connection between the
> CD
> > > > and the sound card.
> > > 
> > > _No_ hardware connection would be a tough nut to crack :-).
> > 
> > But this is becoming common.
> 
> How does it work - Wireless?  Telepathic rays?  :-).
> 
> > In the old days, you could just flip a bit and the CD player would
> play
> > out through the sound card.  Increasingly, modern PCs don't have
> such
> > any direct path between the CD player and sound card, and most
> Linux
> > CD-player programs don't work.  To play a CD, you have to have the
> CPU
> > extract samples and then shoot them out to the sound card, and
> Windows
> > CD-player programs generally work this way now.
> 
> Aha.  I see.  For some reason, I assumed this was _already_ how it
> worked.  
> I've never bothered to connect the CD->sound card cable.  I'm sure
> there's
> a pile of them at the bottom of a box, somewhere in my closet.  But,
> indeed, when I get down and check the only machine I recall ever
> playing a
> CD directly on (no mp3 rip), I see that it has the cable. The main
> issue
> with doing something like this is that players seem to fall out into
> CD-type players (which won't know how to talk to the sound card)  and
> mp3-type players (which won't know how to talk to the CD).
> 
> The problem I was considering was somewhat different.  I want to put
> my 
> computers in a remote closet with a Epia (or somesuch) as a console. 
> I 
> can remote X, I think I can remote sound via esound, but you start
> getting 
> more sketchy when you remote CD-ROM and floppy devices...
> 
> Later,
> scott
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/svlug
> 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com