Archive for the ‘tech’ Category
It came up at work, we checked with the author to ensure what we saw in the code and by experiment. Documenting here in case anyone else has the question.
“It forces SSL everywhere by default. The only mechanism to disable SSL is to provide a url as :endpoint that uses the http scheme instead of https.”
Open source simply isn’t open source without a proper license. Unless you’ve explicitly told others that they can modify and reuse your work, you’ve only showed others your code; you haven’t shared it. Here at GitHub, we’re big fans of open source, so we set out to better understand how our users approached licensing their code by looking at license usage across public, non-forked repositories, in hopes of encouraging more users to share their work with others.
Share your code
If you haven’t already, we encourage you to add a
LICENSEfile to your project. To make things a bit easier, if you begin to create a file named
LICENSEvia the web interface, we’ll even provide you with a list of common license templates to choose from.
This is just the start. Look forward to a more in depth analysis over the coming weeks as to how license usage affects project success, as we delve deeper into the numbers. Of course, in the mean time, we encourage you to explore license usage on GitHub using the Licenses API.
Happy open source licensing!
[One of the many parts of software development that I truly enjoy is making easy things easier. It’s not hard to include a license in a project, but time is always at a premium and discipline is as well. When something requires even a little bit of both the chances that a large community will consistently perform those actions diminishes. Of course, even better, is when someone does it for you. Sadly, the vast majority of the code I’ve written will never see the light of day. But that’s the way it goes. We (at work) open source what we can, when we can.]
The end of David Carr’s current column in the NY Times is, I think, meant to outrage us. Reporters are being asked to deliver papers. I’m trying to think of what the analog would be in programming. We have to do a lot of menial tasks. Without a pulpit like Carr’s on which to tell our tale of woe. But I agree. Having a professional reporter deliver papers is ridiculous.
Summary: You have to let more of the world in. Or eventually the world will invent what you have with a different name. That’s always been the option. The Times should have fully made the transition to the web by now. The biggest part of that transition is allowing more voices to speak directly through your platform.
[I think what Dave has is still true (he’s said this before many times, he’s just not being heard (yet?). But I also think that David Carr missed something that he wrote about at the top of the column.
I read on Friday that the price of taxi medallions in New York City had fallen about 17 percent, a drop created by competition from ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. The impact is remarkable because neither company possesses big capital assets, or a huge number of employees. Instead, they put a new user interface over cars and drivers already on the road. In the same way, Airbnb has remade the rental markets, not by buying properties, but simply by surfacing available units on the web to people in need.
What he ignored is that there is a new interface for journalists too. It’s called blogging. And while the Times could potentially lose exclusive access to those people, no one else has to. And in fact, the Times doesn’t have to either if they do what Dave suggests. The Times no longer needs to have “big capital assets, or a huge number of employees” or at least as much or as many. They could take advantage of the new interface for journalism to rebuild their business.
I don’t mean to belittle the pain the people involved in these changes have to go through. Many probably liked the way things were, and worked hard to do their part and make it the success it was. But nothing lasts forever, and the old model is going away.]
And isn’t it sad that a U.S. president can have such a strong opinion on a regulatory decision that’s such obvious common sense, so obviously beneficial to consumers (and the lack of which is so obviously harmful), so well-supported by the citizens, and falling on the shoulders of someone he appointed, yet it still has such a low chance of actually getting done?
[More than sad, it’s everything that’s wrong with government in the US today.]
Very worrisome — a canary-in-the-coal-mine indicator that casual users no longer trust Apple with major iOS updates. Last year the number for iOS 7 adoption was in the 70s in October, which was a faster adoption rate than iOS 6 the year prior.
[Here’s my take. Lots of devices don’t have the room necessary to complete the update, and folks haven’t made time to do anything about it yet. My son’s device is a perfect example, 16G, totally maxed out. I haven’t had time to check that it’s backed up, wipe it, update, and then reload. It’s gonna wait…]
Every day I try to do some development work on my projects, but I see the end coming, not too far away. I don’t think I’ll be digging any great new holes in the future, but I do want to wrap up all the stuff I’ve started. That’s what the last few years have been about. I want to have great open publishing tools, that don’t require you to give everything you have to a billionaire in the hopes of getting a little attention.
[It does all come to end, and in technology it is harder to sustain a legacy I think. If you build a great building, it could easily be standing hundreds of years later. Software rarely lasts for 10 of years, although some stuff does. I have no problem with that. What I did/do is mostly work for hire. I love doing it, and it’s been kind to me, but most of programming I’ve done is already long gone from an executable standpoint. Some of it lives on as lessons applied to current work, and some of it lives on in the work of people I’ve taught. So when Dave says “Maybe it won’t go anywhere. Maybe it’ll all be swept aside, forgotten, along with so many other dreams of so many other people who thought they could make a difference.” I hear him, but I feel like all the folks who learned something about software from using his stuff, or writing their own software in his, or simply taking ideas and running with them in their own direction… that’s what makes a lasting difference. There is no way to sweep that aside. It just is.]
Sure, maybe O’Reilly’s post bugged me because he’s playing the familiar game of using recent Apple product news as a strawman to compare to an utterly different kind of technology, while throwing in coded phrases like “Apple hype machine.” (Replying to a comment on his own article, O’Reilly declares, “What I wrote wasn’t really about Apple Pay.” Of course it wasn’t.)
But I think what really rankles is that Tim O’Reilly is applying his vision to a Silicon Valley utopia where people take Ubers to their Cover-booked restaurants, always operating on their own recognizance and never, ever waiting for the check. There’ll be spandex jackets, one for everyone.
Apparently these people never go to the supermarket.
[Common problem… Apple is used for so many things unrelated to Apple. OTOH, people are now making pants with larger pockets because of Apple. So if that matters to you, regardless of what phone you carry, thank Apple.]