April 28, 2006
You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the language. I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of the first of those people.

So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own project sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).

If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so: gnu.for.d AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building, maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.

'If you organize it...they will come'

Salud!
Gabe McArthur


April 28, 2006
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:11:20 +1000, Gabe McArthur <Gabe_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
> thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the language.
> I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
> and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
> had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
> looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything
...

> So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
> gnu-d.org site.

And how is this different, or an improvement, over Dsource.org ?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
April 28, 2006
I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the best interest of the language.
Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.

Gabe McArthur wrote:
> You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
> thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the language.
> I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
> and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
> had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
> looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
> afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
> that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
> the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
> 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
> at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
> that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
> plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
> and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
> the first of those people.
> 
> So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
> gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
> movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
> the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
> homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
> check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own project
> sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
> feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
> think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
> our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).
> 
> If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so: gnu.for.d
> AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
> maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.
> 
> 'If you organize it...they will come'
> 
> Salud!
> Gabe McArthur
> 
> 
April 28, 2006
Gabe McArthur wrote:
> You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the main D
> thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of the language.
> I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so -- and I sat around
> and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned that I
> had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you don't risk
> looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was also
> afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent critiques, or
> that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group devoted to the ideals of
> the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes between
> 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by Richard Stallman
> at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From reading
> that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to step up to the
> plate and provide those of us in the community who like D, a place to organize
> and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one of
> the first of those people.
> 
> So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
> gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
> movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects (including
> the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts, customizable project
> homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
> check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own project
> sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining what I
> feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of liscenses, I
> think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our libraries and the GPL for
> our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an IDE).
> 
> If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so: gnu.for.d
> AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make building,
> maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share in.
> 
> 'If you organize it...they will come'
> 
> Salud!
> Gabe McArthur
> 
> 


ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.

Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)
April 28, 2006
Gabe McArthur wrote:

> You may remember me from another post I made a couple of days ago on the
> main D thread site, regarding the state of the libraries and the focus of
> the language. I read your responses -- some were positive, others less so
> -- and I sat around
> and thought carefully about what everyone had to say.  I was concerned
> that I had really made myself look like a fool, but then I thought, if you
> don't risk
> looking like a fool, then you haven't really tried to do anything.  I was
> also afraid that I had put people off by my (perhaps overly) stringent
> critiques, or that people wouldn't be interested in joining a group
> devoted to the ideals of
> the GNU.  But, as I was reading through the internet on the differenes
> between 'free' and 'open-source' software, I came across an article by
> Richard Stallman
> at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html.  From
> reading that article, I've come to the conclusion that somebody needs to
> step up to the plate and provide those of us in the community who like D,
> a place to organize
> and develop free solutions to D's problems.  I thought that I might be one
> of the first of those people.
> 
> So, here it is!  I've created the basic (and quite ugly) site for the new
> gnu-d.org site.  I hope to have a lot of people participating in this new
> movement, so I'll be creating Wikis, Trac sites for GNU-D projects
> (including the GDC, I think), SVN annonymous access for checkouts,
> customizable project
> homepages, etc.  As people become involved, of course, they will be given
> check-in/versioning rights to repositories and management over their own
> project
> sites.  I will be putting up a wiki in the next couple of days outlining
> what I
> feel our first steps should be.  For instance, as to the issue of
> liscenses, I think it best to use the LGPL for the majority of our
> libraries and the GPL for our main projects (gdc, a build mechanism, an
> IDE).
> 
> If you have something that you'd like to email me about, please do so:
> gnu.for.d
> AT gmail.com.  I look forward to working with the community to make
> building, maintaining, and working with D a joy that everyone can share
> in.
> 
> 'If you organize it...they will come'
> 
> Salud!
> Gabe McArthur

DSource do currently have forums, svn and Trac. Oh, and quite a few existing projects. And Brad is a really great guy.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
April 28, 2006
>ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.
>
>Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)

Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous repositories.  I'm talking about conformity and organization.  Standardized libraries.  A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools.  A debugger (GDB).  Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole.  This is so that as the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people everywhere to work with D becomes lower.  Further, it will work off a standard development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly than any one person.  Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized volunteers.

As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed under the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code.  Take a look at Mono for crying out loud.  Their runtime and compiler are both GPL.  And that's not even necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL.  The community can decide as to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the MIT or BSD liscenses).

Besides, until big time companies actually have a working collection of tools and a coherent library, getting corporate backing seems somewhat moot.  Look at the Linux kernel -- we have absolutely no conception of how much corporate money goes into the kernel every year (it's on the order of 10's of millions, to be sure), and they don't seem to have huge concerns about contributing back to the community -- if they did, the kernel wouldn't have grown as it has!


April 28, 2006
Gabe McArthur wrote:
>>ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.
>>
>>Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)
> 
> 
> Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous
> repositories.  I'm talking about conformity and organization.  Standardized
> libraries.  

If you actually take a look around, you'd find that such things have been under way for quite a long time.


A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools.  A debugger
> (GDB).  Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole.  This is so that as
> the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people
> everywhere to work with D becomes lower.  Further, it will work off a standard
> development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly
> than any one person.  Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's
> just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized
> volunteers.


Yes, we've been trying to get full debug support (from the compiler) for, er, a couple of years or more. GDB currently works alongside GDC, with symbol demangling and so on. Sure, it could be better.

However, you clearly imply there is no such "organized group of volunteers". This shows a certain ignorance in the matter.


> As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed under
> the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without
> necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code.  Take a look at Mono for
> crying out loud.  Their runtime and compiler are both GPL.  And that's not even
> necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL.  The community can decide as
> to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the MIT
> or BSD liscenses).


:-D

As I understand it, all the code on dsource.org is completely "OPEN". No viral licenses. That's what the D community, thus far, has chosen to do ... we feel that's better for "the corporate angle" you mention

[snip]


BTW: firing up some rabid GPL/LGPL site to compete with dsource.org seems like an attempt to /split/ the community, rather than coalesce it. Perhaps you'd care to support dsource instead?
April 29, 2006
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:44:31 +1000, Gabe McArthur <Gabe_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

>> ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.
>>
>> Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)
>
> Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and vague/nebulous
> repositories.  I'm talking about conformity and organization.  Standardized
> libraries.  A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools.  A debugger
> (GDB).  Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole.  This is so that as
> the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for people
> everywhere to work with D becomes lower.  Further, it will work off a standard
> development model, where the community can move and contribute much more quickly
> than any one person.  Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but he's
> just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of organized
> volunteers.
>


I just don't get it ... sorry.

Dsource can already support such projects, so why do you want to create a competing site?  That just helps fragment the D community, which sounds like the very thing you are trying not to do.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
April 29, 2006
Without GNU, Without the miracle of Linux, Apache, Firefox.

We need a miracle of D, and GNU can make it.


"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> ??????:e2u4ob$v42$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm not a big fan of GNU, and I don't think that GNU-izing D is for the
> best interest of the language.
> Let's be realistic: For D to succeed, it has to be used for commercial
> projects. The big guys in the market must embrace it.
>


April 29, 2006
"Gabe McArthur" <Gabe_member@pathlink.com> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:e2u5sf$109e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >ach ... I thought perhaps you were serious about helping for a moment.
>>
>>Have a trout ... courtesy of dsource.org :)
>
> Realize this: dsource is a collection of disparate tools and
> vague/nebulous
> repositories.  I'm talking about conformity and organization.
> Standardized
> libraries.  A compiler that works in conjunction with other tools.  A
> debugger
> (GDB).  Everything can be organized as one cohesive whole.  This is so
> that as
> the libraries grow and the compiler becomes better, the threshold for
> people
> everywhere to work with D becomes lower.  Further, it will work off a
> standard
> development model, where the community can move and contribute much more
> quickly
> than any one person.  Walter is a great guy with a fantastic vision, but
> he's
> just one man, and his output can't really compete with a group of
> organized
> volunteers.
>

Yes!



> As to the corporate angle, that's why the libraries should be liscensed
> under
> the LGPL, as that permit commercial code to link to the libraries without
> necessarily forcing them to disperse their own code.  Take a look at Mono
> for
> crying out loud.  Their runtime and compiler are both GPL.  And that's not
> even
> necessarily to say that all libraries MUST be LGPL.  The community can
> decide as
> to whether we can let other compatable liscenses into the mix (perhaps the
> MIT
> or BSD liscenses).
>
> Besides, until big time companies actually have a working collection of
> tools
> and a coherent library, getting corporate backing seems somewhat moot.
> Look at
> the Linux kernel -- we have absolutely no conception of how much corporate
> money
> goes into the kernel every year (it's on the order of 10's of millions, to
> be
> sure), and they don't seem to have huge concerns about contributing back
> to the
> community -- if they did, the kernel wouldn't have grown as it has!
>
> 


« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home