Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

live555.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#11

Post by Roboprog »

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at.

I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method.

My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / archive software. Hard to fathom that some organizations still avoid version/revision control. How do you "undo" to yesterday when you change your mind about something???

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#12

Post by TerryADavis »

My operating system has no networking. Moving files in and out is tricky. My files are stored compressed. Every time I update my ISO download file, I generate a syntax highlighted HTML version of all my files and upload.

Moving files in-and-out of my operating system is a pain, so I do it all at once whenever I update my ISO.

My files can only be compiled my my compiler, so they are of no use outside my operating system. You must boot the ISO to compile.

All source files: http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Home/Wb2/LineRep.html#l587

All symbols alphabetically: http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Home/Wb2/SymsAlpha.html

All symbols by address: http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Home/Wb2/SymsAddress.html

----

I have a routine that captures a screen shot as a BMP file frame 8 times a second. I can use FFMPEG to convert my hundreds of BMP files into a video. I only support PC Speaker and it will log each freq so you can generate a SND file and FFMPEG can mix the SND into the video. I have a hand-held voice recorder and I can mix that track into it as well.

Now, I just use OBR for screencasts. SND quality is not as good, but far more convenient and there is no sync challenge.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#13

Post by learnstats2 »

Roboprog wrote: post #11

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at. I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method. My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / ar…

> How do you "undo" to yesterday when you change your mind about something???

One might argue that developer time is valuable enough to ensure that it's spent on things that won't be "undone".

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#14

Post by [deleted] »

learnstats2 wrote: post #13
Roboprog wrote: post #11

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at. I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method. My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / ar…

> How do you "undo" to yesterday when you change your mind about something??? One might argue that developer time is valuable enough to ensure that it's spent on things that won't be "undone".

[deleted]

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#15

Post by astrodust »

jordigh wrote: post #4
brixon wrote: post #2

1. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors. 2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.

From #mercurial in Freenode where I found this, "I hope he has some [VCS] internally. He still releases archives with the odd random file or line of testing code in though."

If you ever see someone release file.c.bak, it's just sad.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#16

Post by faceplanter »

learnstats2 wrote: post #13
Roboprog wrote: post #11

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at. I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method. My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / ar…

> How do you "undo" to yesterday when you change your mind about something??? One might argue that developer time is valuable enough to ensure that it's spent on things that won't be "undone".

That's totally unrealistic. Often it's not the dev. that changes his mind, but the client. And since they have the $$$ you will be "undoing" previous work.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#17

Post by astrodust »

earlz wrote: post #7
howeyc wrote: post #3

I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…

It seems to me that they don't actually WANT anyone to use it, and definitely not modifying the code... Really makes you wonder why they bothered to make it open source and LGPL licensed

I'd like to think the first part is talking about making extensions to the code, that you should be writing subclasses to add new functionality for your own use, not maintaining a series of patches.

That is, dependency injection for your extensions, not alterations to the core.

The whole project reeks of anachronistic development practices, though.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#18

Post by pc86 »

earlz wrote: post #7
howeyc wrote: post #3

I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…

It seems to me that they don't actually WANT anyone to use it, and definitely not modifying the code... Really makes you wonder why they bothered to make it open source and LGPL licensed

That's a pretty strained interpretation of "open source" on their part.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#19

Post by plorkyeran »

Roboprog wrote: post #11

Subclassing for versioning, eh? I remember talking to a friend in the early 90s who was doing that at the company he worked at. I was reading about SCCS at the time, and wanted to convince my management to use that, but couldn't get them away from the "directory tree per release version" method. My next job in the mid 90s used RCS, and I've never worked at a job since that didn't use some kind of version control / ar…

Modifying behavior only by subclassing rather than changing the code was the original idea of the open/closed principal. Of course, the idea has drifted a bit since then since everyone discovered that in practice it worked terribly.

Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?

#20

Post by bakabaka9 »

brixon wrote: post #2

1. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors. 2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.

I actually managed to contribute to it once, via the mailing list. This doesn't really invalidate (1), but maybe they just don't want GitHub-style forks ("modifying the supplied code 'in place' is something that we discourage").
Post reply on HN