<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tithing for Open Source</title>
	<atom:link href="http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/03/tithing-for-open-source/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/03/tithing-for-open-source/</link>
	<description>Linux, politics, and other interesting things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:09:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: etbe</title>
		<link>http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/03/tithing-for-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-18660</link>
		<dc:creator>etbe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=1115#comment-18660</guid>
		<description>Warren: The problem of users breaking software that passes all your tests is part of the nature of the computer industry.  The number of possible combinations of all variables is far too great to test them all.

No-one is the perfect vision of anything.

But I have observed cases where people complain about issues that they have the technical ability to fix.  With Open Source software there is nothing but time preventing them from fixing the issues in question.  I suggest that management assign a portion of the time of such people towards fixing such problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warren: The problem of users breaking software that passes all your tests is part of the nature of the computer industry.  The number of possible combinations of all variables is far too great to test them all.</p>
<p>No-one is the perfect vision of anything.</p>
<p>But I have observed cases where people complain about issues that they have the technical ability to fix.  With Open Source software there is nothing but time preventing them from fixing the issues in question.  I suggest that management assign a portion of the time of such people towards fixing such problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Warren</title>
		<link>http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/03/tithing-for-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-18658</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=1115#comment-18658</guid>
		<description>&gt; It seems to me that the approach that many companies take towards fixing software bugs goes against this ideal. They wait for software to fail in production and then file a bug report and hope that someone else will fix it.

I am part of a team that runs a reasonable number of servers.  We try to test all of the functionality in a development area.  For a reasonably large subset of the functionality, we simply lack the bandwidth and test cases to fully test the software as we deploy it.  Our users are much more ingenious at breaking our configurations than we are.  I always try googling for an answer before filing a bug report on open source software (not always on major vendor supported software).   I rarely can look at the source code and find the bug quickly, primarily because I lack the basic knowledge of how the code is internally structured and what other problems have been addressed in similar areas.  I would love to have the deep knowledge of the software I am using, but what resources I have to learn applications, I am primarily spending on the custom code our in-house developers write.

Maybe I am not your perfect vision of a sysadmin.  Even in your example of logs filling up a filesystem, usually it takes something happening to one server (or getting close to happening), to cause us to look at the other servers and implement solutions.  With many competing priorities we are primarily reactive.  We all want to be proactive, but getting to where we can be is hard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; It seems to me that the approach that many companies take towards fixing software bugs goes against this ideal. They wait for software to fail in production and then file a bug report and hope that someone else will fix it.</p>
<p>I am part of a team that runs a reasonable number of servers.  We try to test all of the functionality in a development area.  For a reasonably large subset of the functionality, we simply lack the bandwidth and test cases to fully test the software as we deploy it.  Our users are much more ingenious at breaking our configurations than we are.  I always try googling for an answer before filing a bug report on open source software (not always on major vendor supported software).   I rarely can look at the source code and find the bug quickly, primarily because I lack the basic knowledge of how the code is internally structured and what other problems have been addressed in similar areas.  I would love to have the deep knowledge of the software I am using, but what resources I have to learn applications, I am primarily spending on the custom code our in-house developers write.</p>
<p>Maybe I am not your perfect vision of a sysadmin.  Even in your example of logs filling up a filesystem, usually it takes something happening to one server (or getting close to happening), to cause us to look at the other servers and implement solutions.  With many competing priorities we are primarily reactive.  We all want to be proactive, but getting to where we can be is hard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AlphaG</title>
		<link>http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/04/03/tithing-for-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-18656</link>
		<dc:creator>AlphaG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etbe.coker.com.au/?p=1115#comment-18656</guid>
		<description>As long as an administrator follows proper dev/test/UAT/Production release procedures I have no issue with this, it shows diligence, excellence in execution and a proven methodology to minimise risk to whatever server infrastructure they are maintaining. Anything less is just poor judgement. 

As we all know writing changes whilst solvingproblem needs to be fully regression tested with each upgrade prior to release.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as an administrator follows proper dev/test/UAT/Production release procedures I have no issue with this, it shows diligence, excellence in execution and a proven methodology to minimise risk to whatever server infrastructure they are maintaining. Anything less is just poor judgement. </p>
<p>As we all know writing changes whilst solvingproblem needs to be fully regression tested with each upgrade prior to release.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

