Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
An interesting question. I think government should *use* open source software, which will inevitably evolve into contributing to it because sooner or later you have to fix it yourself. There's that itch which seems to bug only you. (which is not to say floss isn't being used in government now, but there could be more.) I am less confident in the idea they should fund it, at least not directly. Picking who is deserving of patronage and who is not will turn into a big game, on both side of the line, and developers will gravitate to working on those projects which have the most likelihood of being funded. 'tis only natural after all, and nothing wrong in that, but I don't think it as balanced as it might be. To see how this would probably play out, look to world of science where it's (relatively) easy to get a lab funded to work on a multi-year study of the effects of pharmaceuticals for treating erectile dysfunction and darn difficult to acquire funding for studying the rate of recidivism in ex prison inmates based on the construction materials and decorations of their cells (do ex-cons who spend 5 years in a blue room with a window re-integrate more successfully than those from a yellow windowless one?). Yes I just made that up, but I think you get the point. Main stream research is easy, yet truly interesting and civilization changing discoveries come from the margins. Government should do what it is good at, funding infrastructure and leveling the playing field. Roads sewer. I'm not sure what this might mean in terms of open source. Before the advent of Sourceforge, Google Code, Launchpad and the like I might have said government should provide free web and code hosting with version control for open source software projects. That the *kind* of thing it could do well and fairly. My imagination fails me as to what kind of sewer system we could really use right now but are lacking. :) cheers, -matt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: I get the impression they're pretty tilted pretty heavily toward academia -- they list Small Projects as up to $500,000 total budget with durations up to three years -- ever considered hiring a small army to work on Leo? :) Without knowing anything about the subject matter, I'd guess it's going to be extremely difficult to get a grant from instance like this without it happening it context of some university. Even then, developing something on top of leo would be more likely to receive funding than enhancing what's already there. Regarding paid open source development as such - a *lot* of what's available as open source has been developed by paid developers. It's rarity these days to develop software that is sold as shrink-wrapped boxes on shops - rather, it's usually about somebody paying you to do something that needs to be done. Case in point (that involves my own day job to some extent) - the modest email client: http://modest.garage.maemo.org/ Nokia needs an email client that works well with their upcoming devices, and it doesn't need to sell the email client specifically. A good email client just makes the device more appealing and provides more sales. Lots of Open Source development is being done in that capacity. In fact, these day / soon, almost everything coming from Nokia is open source (Symbian, Maemo), even if not exactly developed in 100% open fashion. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Thoughts on Leo coding style
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Scripts--@thin leoScripts.txt--Others--Call hierarchy tracing (using python 'trace' module) Thanks for this. If you know where you want the trace, g.trace(g.callers()) works fine. Yes, this is mostly beneficial for those who want to know how the code works (i.e. you only need to have half a clue where to start looking, and you don't have to add traces all over the place). This is veering way off topic, but I have a psychedelic plan in the back of my head on how this will be especially beneficial: - You run leo one, creating a *static* database about the *dynamic* flow of the program - When it has been run, you can create a call graph that you can use later on, to navigate up the stack even when the app is not running, when editing the code! - You could automatically create 'backlinks' (backlinks.py) back to nodes that call functions in this node, and forward to nodes this node calls You describe a way to _explain_ software. Lots of effort goes into tools to aid debugging software, little or none into explaining. Though related, they are different. As a result, code is constantly rewritten, because there is good support for starting from scratch and debugging, not for offering concise, accurate, elegant, accessible, informative ... explanations of existing code. That is why folks peek at Leo and leave, why Edward has peeked at other projects and decided to code his own solution instead of integrating theirs. That is why I consider your ideas 'killer app' material, at their core is the potential to improve the open source process across the board. Of course this is possible, to some extent, by searching for function names, but it breaks when many functions have the same name. You could also get quick information about how many times is this function typically run, the execution speed etc. It's a bit of pie-in-the-sky and probably worth an academic dissertation or two as such ;-). Tools like 'trace' are widely available (e.g. valgrind for C/C++), but never really integrated to IDE's (in a sense that IDEs would utilize the output while editing the code in static fashion). -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Thoughts on Leo coding style
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Kent Tenney kten...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Scripts--@thin leoScripts.txt--Others--Call hierarchy tracing (using python 'trace' module) Thanks for this. If you know where you want the trace, g.trace(g.callers()) works fine. Yes, this is mostly beneficial for those who want to know how the code works (i.e. you only need to have half a clue where to start looking, and you don't have to add traces all over the place). This is veering way off topic, but I have a psychedelic plan in the back of my head on how this will be especially beneficial: - You run leo one, creating a *static* database about the *dynamic* flow of the program - When it has been run, you can create a call graph that you can use later on, to navigate up the stack even when the app is not running, when editing the code! - You could automatically create 'backlinks' (backlinks.py) back to nodes that call functions in this node, and forward to nodes this node calls You describe a way to _explain_ software. Lots of effort goes into tools to aid debugging software, and testing software. 'coverage', 'figleaf' and friends are written as tools to evaluate unit testing, but they solve most of the problems one would want to solve if building an explainer. The difference is primarily attitude, point of view. little or none into explaining. Though related, they are different. As a result, code is constantly rewritten, because there is good support for starting from scratch and debugging, not for offering concise, accurate, elegant, accessible, informative ... explanations of existing code. That is why folks peek at Leo and leave, why Edward has peeked at other projects and decided to code his own solution instead of integrating theirs. That is why I consider your ideas 'killer app' material, at their core is the potential to improve the open source process across the board. Of course this is possible, to some extent, by searching for function names, but it breaks when many functions have the same name. You could also get quick information about how many times is this function typically run, the execution speed etc. It's a bit of pie-in-the-sky and probably worth an academic dissertation or two as such ;-). Tools like 'trace' are widely available (e.g. valgrind for C/C++), but never really integrated to IDE's (in a sense that IDEs would utilize the output while editing the code in static fashion). -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
@ Matt developers will gravitate to working on those projects which have the most likelihood of being funded That would be a step up from the current situation, where developers gravitate toward projects that have the greatest chance of being profitable (to a corporation, rather than society). @ Ville Interesting example. But I think we can agree that projects like Leo are more important than e-mail clients. I don't really see a way for companies to profitably fund public good projects such as Leo. Are you suggesting something like the Eclipse Foundation -- the Leo Foundation? Should I go around soliciting donations from companies? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What are Leo's worst bugs?
The problems involved in writing event handlers have little to do with refactoring. It's not so much the code itself that is complex; it is the varying contexts in which the code can be called. Yes, I understand how this can be - I've written plenty of GUI code in my time... Things are especially tricky with Leo, because some code can be called both from event triggers and also as the result of executing Leo's commands. Sure - although again I'd hope that the 'exposed API' makes these cases look reasonably uniform. I'll take a look when I get chance anyway... it still surprises me in this use case, and as I say it may be a useful 'way in' for me. Jon N --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: That would be a step up from the current situation, where developers gravitate toward projects that have the greatest chance of being profitable (to a corporation, rather than society). It seems open source developers will gravitate towards projects that they actually use. In general there seems to be very little greed motive. Interesting example. But I think we can agree that projects like Leo are more important than e-mail clients. I don't really see a way for companies to profitably fund public good projects such as Leo. Are you suggesting something like the Eclipse Foundation -- the Leo Foundation? Should I go around soliciting donations from companies? The way to extract money from leo development would be to add leo support for something that interests some big company. Of the top of my head, making Leo the first choice for rst editing might draw interest from companies that are using / moving to rst. The easiest way to hack on leo in paid fashion would probably be to hack on it while already working inside a company, as a side project. Or, apply for google summer of code money next year ;-). -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Thoughts on Leo coding style
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Kent Tenney kten...@gmail.com wrote: and testing software. 'coverage', 'figleaf' and friends are written as tools to evaluate unit testing, but they solve most of the problems one would want to solve if building an explainer. The difference is primarily attitude, point of view. Yeah, the explaining/analysis aspect (where Leo has a chance to win big) of these tools seems to have been totally been neglected. It's funny, since most of the time problems in big sotware projects happen because of limited understanding of the code base (and static analysis can only get you so far, and debugging is slow). -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
QFontEngine errors
I get several QFontEngine errors printed to the terminal when opening this file: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/135901/QFontEngine_error.leo The error seems to occur whenever the node with the Japanese character is selected. I'm guessing it's a qt error. The error lines look like this: QFontEngine: Glyph neither outline nor bitmap format=0 load glyph failed err=6 face=0x8eb18b0, glyph=22961 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
Interesting discussion, and I believe that the answer lies in the *use* of open-source software. Governments employ many people including armies of IT people. If they actually used open source software then they would naturally be supporting its development -- No extra funding is needed only a priority shift. We should lobby the government to adopt the policy of using and supporting open-source software. I live in Estonia, just across the pond from Ville, and they have built an amazingly integrated e-government infrastructure and offer the software they develop to other governments. People here still suffer from the addiction to closed source software, but careful promotion at the elementary school level can cure that in about ten years. So to expand my above statement, I believe that we should lobby the government to adopt the policy of promoting open- source software at the elementary school level and above. David Schryer On May 24, 7:31 pm, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: That would be a step up from the current situation, where developers gravitate toward projects that have the greatest chance of being profitable (to a corporation, rather than society). It seems open source developers will gravitate towards projects that they actually use. In general there seems to be very little greed motive. Interesting example. But I think we can agree that projects like Leo are more important than e-mail clients. I don't really see a way for companies to profitably fund public good projects such as Leo. Are you suggesting something like the Eclipse Foundation -- the Leo Foundation? Should I go around soliciting donations from companies? The way to extract money from leo development would be to add leo support for something that interests some big company. Of the top of my head, making Leo the first choice for rst editing might draw interest from companies that are using / moving to rst. The easiest way to hack on leo in paid fashion would probably be to hack on it while already working inside a company, as a side project. Or, apply for google summer of code money next year ;-). -- Ville M. Vainiohttp://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QFontEngine errors
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: I get several QFontEngine errors printed to the terminal when opening this file: Ditto. http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/135901/QFontEngine_error.leo The error seems to occur whenever the node with the Japanese character is selected. It seems to happen when UNL.py plugin tries to render the unl on status bar. Once I disabled UNL.py, the error went away. Luckily, it seemed to be pretty harmless (apart from annoying error messages). -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
It seems open source developers will gravitate towards projects that they actually use. In general there seems to be very little greed motive. Yes, open source developers work on projects they use. But what about closed source developers? I don't have any statistics, but my guess is that the majority of programmers are working on closed-source projects. I don't think they're motivated by greed so much as the need for a steady paycheck. If they could get that by doing open source work, then I think we would all be better off. The way to extract money from leo development would be to add leo support for something that interests some big company. Of the top of my head, making Leo the first choice for rst editing might draw interest from companies that are using / moving to rst. Yes, this sounds like a good idea. I don't really understand all the excitement surrounding rst, but something along those lines could probably work for me. Tailoring Leo for a specific environment... not quite as nice as free money to do whatever I want, but I could live with this :) The easiest way to hack on leo in paid fashion would probably be to hack on it while already working inside a company, as a side project. Yeah, but I'd rather avoid getting a real job if that's at all possible. Or, apply for google summer of code money next year ;-). That's just for students, isn't it? I suppose I could sign up for basket weaving at the local community college... :) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
I see this as a catch-22 situation. This may be heresy, but I'd say that at this point in time closed source programs are generally higher quality than open source (with some exceptions). I think this is because closed source developers, due to receiving a steady paycheck, can afford to devote more time to their projects. If open source programmers had good pay and job security, then I think there's no way closed source projects could hope to compete. But the fact remains that governments and individuals can point at various open source projects and say, they're not user friendly or something like that. On May 24, 12:59 pm, schryer schr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting discussion, and I believe that the answer lies in the *use* of open-source software. Governments employ many people including armies of IT people. If they actually used open source software then they would naturally be supporting its development -- No extra funding is needed only a priority shift. We should lobby the government to adopt the policy of using and supporting open-source software. I live in Estonia, just across the pond from Ville, and they have built an amazingly integrated e-government infrastructure and offer the software they develop to other governments. People here still suffer from the addiction to closed source software, but careful promotion at the elementary school level can cure that in about ten years. So to expand my above statement, I believe that we should lobby the government to adopt the policy of promoting open- source software at the elementary school level and above. David Schryer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should government provide funding for open source software?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, open source developers work on projects they use. But what about closed source developers? I don't have any statistics, but my guess is that the majority of programmers are working on closed-source projects. I don't think they're motivated by greed so much as the Majority of programmers are implementing customized systems. Much of that could be open source as well, since the buyer of the system will never really see the products (they are running on web servers, embedded devices,) Or, apply for google summer of code money next year ;-). That's just for students, isn't it? I suppose I could sign up for basket weaving at the local community college... :) http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/program/google/gsoc2009/faqs#student_eligibility The field of study doesn't need to be CS. I'm not sure how accredited that community college is, but basket weaving may raise some eyebrows at the review board ;-) -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: QFontEngine errors
It seems to happen when UNL.py plugin tries to render the unl on status bar. Once I disabled UNL.py, the error went away. How did you figure that out? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
