This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KyannaYeager.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious - I haven't read this book - but who is the Accidental Revolutionary in the title? One would assume it is Torvalds, but the title reads like it is Raymond. kibibu 07:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it just a load of bolox though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.60.43 ( talk) 08:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
is the comment about microsoft relevent?
This text was removed:
I am not at all a fan of MS software or their business practices (especially their business practices) either. But this seems like an unnecessary jab at Microsoft. Did Raymond really make such a statement in his essay? If he did, then the above statement needs to be changed to reflect this (and made NPOV). If he didn't, then this statement is off-topic and not appropriate (remember, this is an article about the essay, not about microsoft -- see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #6). maveric149
I really hate defending microsoft (I avoid their software like the Plague and only use it when I am coerced into doing so -- such as work and school). But the article needs to describe what Raymond said without stirring up unnecessary hornets nests (which the removed statement obvisously has). If he didn't say it, then it is not relevent. The statement could be placed in another article, such as "Open vs. Closed Source" or whatever. maveric149
I took out " Raymonds' choice of examples, however, may have been influenced by a desire to present Richard Stallman as out-dated." as it read like pure speculation. I thought the motivation in the choices was that two large projects had been so closed as to generate prominent and energy-sapping forks. Is there documentation otherwise? - David Gerard 10:46, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
"Richard Stallman, a man with whom Raymond had many heated arguments ("Free Software" Vs. "Open Source" etc.)."
These arguments happened after the essay. But the para seems to imply they were part of why Raymond picked GCC and Emacs as examples, so that example doesn't work at all. Anyone got one that does? Evidence of personal animosity between ESR and RMS before CatB? Else the sentence should be cut - David Gerard 10:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Further on this point, from [4]:
"In fairness, from watching a great number of ESR v. RMS arguments, it's a good idea to be skeptical of the claim that ESR said something about RMS, or that RMS said something about ESR. The _actual things_ that they say about one another and about one another's positions are a lot milder than the versions that get repeated by some flamewar participants. RMS has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for ESR, and ESR has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for RMS. What they actually say about one another is generally that they have an important tactical (and philosophical) disagreement; and they will not deny having respect and gratitude for one another's contributions. And I certainly don't think that they take their disagreements personally, although fans of either one will sometimes try to make it look more like a bitter personal rivalry. As far as I know, ESR's actual statements on this point (as contrasted with what he might be thought to have said) are more limited and politer, and extend to saying that he (ESR) is a better salesman (to business?) than RMS, which is true, and which RMS is not interested in disputing. They will then disagree over whether or not this is important or desirable."
That is: their partisans often use them as proxies. I suggest that without some firm evidence, this article should not risk doing this - David Gerard 15:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
We need these documented. I don't mean personal editorialising (as above) - I mean documenting famous criticisms of CatB and its ideas, and criticisms of those criticisms. The First Monday paper (even if it was crap) and reactions to it should be covered, for example. Any others? Famous criticisms by others are needed. (I have an urge to get this article through WP:FAC.) - David Gerard 11:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The work seems to be licensed under an Open Publication license, not a creative commons license.
Or is it just my browser's problem? AilaG 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale for merging. That the two pieces were sold in a compilation doesn't necessarily mean they're the same thing. Chris Cunningham 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"The essay helped convince most existing open source and free software projects to adopt Bazaar-style open development models, fully or partially — including GNU Emacs and GCC, the original Cathedral examples. Most famously, it also provided the final push for Netscape Communications Corporation to release the source code for Netscape Communicator and start the Mozilla project."
The above quote is referenced to Eric S. Raymond himself. In my eyes, what he says is probably biased to infinity and as such not proper material for an encyclopedia. I'd even want to remove the reference altogether and insert a {{fact}}. 80.217.188.76 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
...is an Antoine de Saint-Exupery quote, and should be addressed like that.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KyannaYeager.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious - I haven't read this book - but who is the Accidental Revolutionary in the title? One would assume it is Torvalds, but the title reads like it is Raymond. kibibu 07:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it just a load of bolox though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.60.43 ( talk) 08:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
is the comment about microsoft relevent?
This text was removed:
I am not at all a fan of MS software or their business practices (especially their business practices) either. But this seems like an unnecessary jab at Microsoft. Did Raymond really make such a statement in his essay? If he did, then the above statement needs to be changed to reflect this (and made NPOV). If he didn't, then this statement is off-topic and not appropriate (remember, this is an article about the essay, not about microsoft -- see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #6). maveric149
I really hate defending microsoft (I avoid their software like the Plague and only use it when I am coerced into doing so -- such as work and school). But the article needs to describe what Raymond said without stirring up unnecessary hornets nests (which the removed statement obvisously has). If he didn't say it, then it is not relevent. The statement could be placed in another article, such as "Open vs. Closed Source" or whatever. maveric149
I took out " Raymonds' choice of examples, however, may have been influenced by a desire to present Richard Stallman as out-dated." as it read like pure speculation. I thought the motivation in the choices was that two large projects had been so closed as to generate prominent and energy-sapping forks. Is there documentation otherwise? - David Gerard 10:46, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
"Richard Stallman, a man with whom Raymond had many heated arguments ("Free Software" Vs. "Open Source" etc.)."
These arguments happened after the essay. But the para seems to imply they were part of why Raymond picked GCC and Emacs as examples, so that example doesn't work at all. Anyone got one that does? Evidence of personal animosity between ESR and RMS before CatB? Else the sentence should be cut - David Gerard 10:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
Further on this point, from [4]:
"In fairness, from watching a great number of ESR v. RMS arguments, it's a good idea to be skeptical of the claim that ESR said something about RMS, or that RMS said something about ESR. The _actual things_ that they say about one another and about one another's positions are a lot milder than the versions that get repeated by some flamewar participants. RMS has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for ESR, and ESR has partisans who hold a lot of animosity for RMS. What they actually say about one another is generally that they have an important tactical (and philosophical) disagreement; and they will not deny having respect and gratitude for one another's contributions. And I certainly don't think that they take their disagreements personally, although fans of either one will sometimes try to make it look more like a bitter personal rivalry. As far as I know, ESR's actual statements on this point (as contrasted with what he might be thought to have said) are more limited and politer, and extend to saying that he (ESR) is a better salesman (to business?) than RMS, which is true, and which RMS is not interested in disputing. They will then disagree over whether or not this is important or desirable."
That is: their partisans often use them as proxies. I suggest that without some firm evidence, this article should not risk doing this - David Gerard 15:26, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
We need these documented. I don't mean personal editorialising (as above) - I mean documenting famous criticisms of CatB and its ideas, and criticisms of those criticisms. The First Monday paper (even if it was crap) and reactions to it should be covered, for example. Any others? Famous criticisms by others are needed. (I have an urge to get this article through WP:FAC.) - David Gerard 11:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The work seems to be licensed under an Open Publication license, not a creative commons license.
Or is it just my browser's problem? AilaG 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale for merging. That the two pieces were sold in a compilation doesn't necessarily mean they're the same thing. Chris Cunningham 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"The essay helped convince most existing open source and free software projects to adopt Bazaar-style open development models, fully or partially — including GNU Emacs and GCC, the original Cathedral examples. Most famously, it also provided the final push for Netscape Communications Corporation to release the source code for Netscape Communicator and start the Mozilla project."
The above quote is referenced to Eric S. Raymond himself. In my eyes, what he says is probably biased to infinity and as such not proper material for an encyclopedia. I'd even want to remove the reference altogether and insert a {{fact}}. 80.217.188.76 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
...is an Antoine de Saint-Exupery quote, and should be addressed like that.