FreeFormats: Difference between revisions

From SpaceElevatorWiki.com
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
=== Quote from Linus Torvalds: ===
<blockquote>Science may take a few hundred years to figure out how the world works, but it does actually get there, exactly because people can build on each others' knowledge, and it evolves over time. In contrast, witchcraft/alchemy may be about smart people, but the knowledge body never 'accumulates' anywhere. It might be passed down to an apprentice, but the hiding of information basically means that it can never really become any better than what a single person/company can understand.
And that’s exactly the same issue with open source (free) vs proprietary products. The proprietary people can design something that is smart, but it eventually becomes too complicated for a single entity (even a large company) to really understand and drive, and the company politics and the goals of that company will always limit it.
In contrast, open source works well in a complex environment. Maybe nobody at all understands the big picture, but evolution doesn’t require global understanding, it just requires small local improvements and an open market ('survival of the fittest').</blockquote>
== Principles ==
== Principles ==
We should do everything in OpenOffice.org. It is free, uses a good XML file format, runs on all platforms, has spreadsheets you can embed in a document, math, writes to PDF, etc. Having everything in one tool helps to keep things organized, make it easy to get translated, etc. Keith worked on text engines for 5 years, and just wrote a book using the OpenOffice writer and found it to be good enough.
We will try to use open formats and free tools like Mediawiki, OpenOffice.org, Blender, etc. If we use 30 proprietary tools, and each one costs $300, then our free wiki isn't so free for people to contribute to.
 
Free software has a critical mass of technical people working on it already, but not always the market share or the name recognition. In other words, free software is better overall than proprietary software even though it might have 1/10th the users and so still have a little polishing left to do.


Strictly speaking, free software has nothing to do with a Space Elevator, but restricting ourselves to free software is actually a little restriction, saves us money, lowers the barriers to having people help us, gives us better tools in the long term, etc.
Free software has a critical mass of technical people working on it already, but not always the market share or the name recognition. In other words, Keith is sure that free software is better overall than proprietary software even though it might have 1/10th the users and so still have a little polishing left to do. Ferrari's don't have AC or cupholders, and we shouldn't let a lack of polish get in the way of using some of the amazing free tools that are out there.


The free software principles that have made it what it is can help us with the space elevator. To believe in these principles for the space elevator, but not for the tools to design it, is illogical. We cannot share data unless we all have code to manipulate that data. There is a connection between free software and cooperation and shared knowledge.
Strictly speaking, free software has nothing to do with a Space Elevator, but restricting ourselves to free software is actually a little restriction, saves money, lowers the barriers to having people help us, gives us better results, etc.


If anyone wants to know more, then should read my soon to be released book "Software Wars"
To believe that we can all work together to design the space elevator, but not believe that free software isn't a very helpful piece of the puzzle is illogical. We cannot share data unless we all have code to manipulate that data.
In the meanwhile let's just pick the best programs and formats and oh yes, they happen to be free.


=== Quote from Linus Torvalds: ===
If anyone wants to know more, then should read my soon-to-be-released book "Software Wars"!
<blockquote>Science may take a few hundred years to figure out how the world works, but it does actually get there, exactly because people can build on each others' knowledge, and it evolves over time. In contrast, witchcraft/alchemy may be about smart people, but the knowledge body never 'accumulates' anywhere. It might be passed down to an apprentice, but the hiding of information basically means that it can never really become any better than what a single person/company can understand.
And that’s exactly the same issue with open source (free) vs proprietary products. The proprietary people can design something that is smart, but it eventually becomes too complicated for a single entity (even a large company) to really understand and drive, and the company politics and the goals of that company will always limit it.
In contrast, open source works well in a complex environment. Maybe nobody at all understands the big picture, but evolution doesn’t require global understanding, it just requires small local improvements and an open market ('survival of the fittest').</blockquote>


== Diffing and merging ==
== Diffing and merging ==
OpenOffice (the writer, at least) has a good ability to diff and merge documents. We can also turn on change tracking, which records who, what, when and where. If we get to the place where multiple want to improve files at the same time, we can work on better solutions. In general read all you want, but make your changes and upload them right away so there is no need to merge.
OpenOffice (the writer, at least) has a good ability to diff and merge documents. We can also turn on change tracking, which records who, what, when and where. If we get to the place where multiple want to improve files at the same time, we can work on better solutions. In general read all you want, but make your changes and upload them right away so there is no need to merge.

Revision as of 06:08, 15 July 2008

Quote from Linus Torvalds:

Science may take a few hundred years to figure out how the world works, but it does actually get there, exactly because people can build on each others' knowledge, and it evolves over time. In contrast, witchcraft/alchemy may be about smart people, but the knowledge body never 'accumulates' anywhere. It might be passed down to an apprentice, but the hiding of information basically means that it can never really become any better than what a single person/company can understand.

And that’s exactly the same issue with open source (free) vs proprietary products. The proprietary people can design something that is smart, but it eventually becomes too complicated for a single entity (even a large company) to really understand and drive, and the company politics and the goals of that company will always limit it.

In contrast, open source works well in a complex environment. Maybe nobody at all understands the big picture, but evolution doesn’t require global understanding, it just requires small local improvements and an open market ('survival of the fittest').

Principles

We will try to use open formats and free tools like Mediawiki, OpenOffice.org, Blender, etc. If we use 30 proprietary tools, and each one costs $300, then our free wiki isn't so free for people to contribute to.

Free software has a critical mass of technical people working on it already, but not always the market share or the name recognition. In other words, Keith is sure that free software is better overall than proprietary software even though it might have 1/10th the users and so still have a little polishing left to do. Ferrari's don't have AC or cupholders, and we shouldn't let a lack of polish get in the way of using some of the amazing free tools that are out there.

Strictly speaking, free software has nothing to do with a Space Elevator, but restricting ourselves to free software is actually a little restriction, saves money, lowers the barriers to having people help us, gives us better results, etc.

To believe that we can all work together to design the space elevator, but not believe that free software isn't a very helpful piece of the puzzle is illogical. We cannot share data unless we all have code to manipulate that data.

If anyone wants to know more, then should read my soon-to-be-released book "Software Wars"!

Diffing and merging

OpenOffice (the writer, at least) has a good ability to diff and merge documents. We can also turn on change tracking, which records who, what, when and where. If we get to the place where multiple want to improve files at the same time, we can work on better solutions. In general read all you want, but make your changes and upload them right away so there is no need to merge.