Well, it looks like we procrastinated too long in switching to the latest
version of the web site, and I made a bad assumption.
Fate, in the form of an old TWiki bug and published exploits, has forced
our [my] hand in moving the web site to the latest version. As a result,
it looks different. But
On Sep 23, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
Just to amplify where maddog's going - the future of writing
software is writing as little software as possible.
Excellent points! Looks like I'm going to have a lot to stuff into my
ten minutes of fame!
___
On Sep 23, 2005, at 07:00, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
I would point out why software development under Open Source is better
than
closed source techniques:
o peer review
o rapid turnaround of development
o large numbers of field testers
Just to amplify where maddog's goin
Not exactly tools related, but you might want to mention that using FOSS
has fewer licensing problems than using proprietary. And note that I
said "using" - developing with FOSS in a proprietary environment may
present more of a licensing headache than its worth.
--Bruce
Ted Roche wrote:
Ric
On Sep 23, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
If you get too many responses you'll fill a whole lot more than ten
minutes.
Oh, I'm sure I'll need to pick and choose, prioritize and see what I
can fit in. But the more insights I have, the better my understanding
of other's perspectives o
I would point out why software development under Open Source is better than
closed source techniques:
o peer review
o rapid turnaround of development
o large numbers of field testers
o etc.
(sent from the Korean Airlines departure lounge)
md
--
Jon "maddog" Hall
Rick at SwaNH asked if I could fill in on a panel discussing future
software directions. This was better, imo, than having no GNHLUG
representation at all. Next year, I'm hoping we can try better to
have a slate of presentations ready to propose when the Call for
Papers goes out. I have the
