Use OSS to Prove Experience
After some years of working in different positions and lots of projects, you will realize that you tend to specialisation and that is difficult to get new projects.
For example, when I joint my current company, my profile was very sysadm oriented, and it was kind of hard to prove I’m not a bad programmer (IMHO, I started programming when I was 13).
When you do that thing you’re known to do well, you’ll be more focused to do it again and again. Call it ultra-specialisation or just “you’ve been typecasted”.
Just in case you want to change your role a little bit, you’ll see that it’s very difficult, because your CV shows you as hardcore sysadm. Then it’s when open source software can help you in your career.
About two months ago I realized that I’ve never been a significant contributor for any open source project. I’ve submitted small patches every now and then, but nothing noticeable that I could highlight in my CV. Although I’ve been programming for almost 20 years of my life, to different degrees of programming, I don’t have enough stuff to prove that I can program professionally in some areas (OK, may be bogom; but it’s small and with little interest right now).
So I started to look for a interesting project to be involved in, for at least 4 hours a week, and contribute as much as I can so I can fix that gap in my CV.
Finally, my target is Cherokee, and I’ve started to work hard in reading the code, and I’ve been successful fixing two small bugs that required deep code reading (aka 1 hour of code reading though the tree to write a two line fix).
I think I’ll be comfortable with the code in a pair of weeks, so I will need less that 4 hours week to be productive (but I like it, so I wouldn’t mind spending more time hacking on it heh).
What do you think? Is this a good idea to improve your CV?
From Android and the Linux kernel community, by Greg Kroah-Hartman.
The whole post it’s worth reading, lemme quote another sentence Google shows no sign of working to get their code upstream anymore
. That’s important, IMHO.
It reminds me the complaint on the way Google is developing another open source project: Chrome (er, Chromium browser); they use several open source libraries, including them in the source tree, and forking existing FOSS code bits for Chromium like a rabbit makes babies: frequently, and usually, without much thought.
So if you want, you can find a pattern here. Google isn’t playing the open source community rules, they’re just using (abusing?) open source. Come on Google, give something back!
From Jim Whitehurst in Welcome to the conversation on opensource.com.
Good news, although I’d have liked it better without Red Hat being so visible in this initiative. I mean, there are other actors in the open source market, some of them competitors of Red Hat, and it would be a good idea they play an active role in the conversation too. Sometimes it’s important that the host it’s neutral, you know.
I’m sure opensource.com it’s a good idea, and I wish them a great success.
Weird Things on Fedora 12
- Icons in menus and buttons are not shown by default in GNOME 2.28.
- In Fedora 12, a local user may install signed packages without authentication. This is a change from Fedora 11.
Not a big deal because both things can be fixed (please notice I don’t mean these are broken features, but restore the behaviour I’m used to and I like).
There are two things I’d like to mention here:
- I bet the people behind those changes are doing them with good will, with a neat rationale, and willing to make Gnome/Fedora better. The overreactions from some people are not.
- Those are defaults. You don’t need to stick to them, and everybody has an opinion about what looks better or what’s more secure.
I have an opinion too. Just stay calm and let others know what you think, respecting the hard work of other people, even when you’re convinced that they are wrong.
In other news, Fedora 12 it’s a rocking release. The upgrade didn’t work as smooth as I would have expected, but I survived heh.
Update: the authentication stuff will be fixed today, please read PackageKit policy: background and plans.
Notice that I would have liked the idea if any local logged user was any local and trusted logged user. I mean, it’s like using sudo for PackageKit, but without the user entering his password twice.
Google Chromium OS
So you made a Linux distribution, adding some code such as a web browser that you made yourself (and it’s an open source project too, called Chromium), and you’re cool.
In fact you’re so cool than nobody cares on the fact that your new operative system it’s possible thanks to already existing open source projects, because your stuff it’s cool even when you give them the same stuff they already don’t want (Linux? are you kidding? that stuff sucks!).
That’s only because you’re Google, and it will happen to whatever you release (even if it’s an uncool project like wave heh).
Link: Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services
The Franklin Street Statement (named for the FSF’s office address) is something like a definition of what should be a free service, as a network service that it’s the result of free software and which shares free data.
Overall I like the idea, although I don’t think some parts are a good idea (we hope to work with organizations including the FSF to provide moral and technical leadership on this issue
; I’d have liked it better being just in the open source arena… is there a definition for a open service?).
Yes, I endorse the Franklin Street Statement.
Yahoo! releases Traffic Server as Open Source software under the Apache Software Foundation incubator project.
OK, we already have the awesome SQUID for that, but it’s very interesting that Yahoo! it’s releasing code (and Traffic Server claims to be very good delivering traffic at high speed rates).
Link: Open vs. open vs. open: a model for public collaboration
Very worth reading, and I would like to add some comments from the organization/enterprise point of view.
I agree that most enterprise based projects stop in Open (available)
model, and some of them even fail on that (old link but current, IMHO). Because of this, they never get full advantage of a open source development model. I call this we release code because it’s cool (I know it’s reducing too much, but open source nowadays it’s not only a development model but a marketing strategy).
This kind of openness is very often confused with the Open (for participation)
, and obviously it doesn’t work as expected (oh!).
I mean, just because it’s available it’s not enough to make people participate, because releasing the source code it’s only the first step to make a community grow. It can grow without help, but you won’t get all you could from it. Sometimes you’ll get free support, sometimes you’ll get bug reporting, and it’s nice when it works.
I’m not a community manager or something like that, but I don’t understand when a company wants to open a project just because the open source flag it’s cool, and after that they don’t care enough to build a community around this release.
Zimmerman explains a third model that, in my opinion, it’s the most difficult to achieve in the enterprise based project: Open (transparent)
. That model may lead to a a community driven project, and it’s the ultimate kung-fu of public collaboration, but it doesn’t fit very well in a enterprise driven project. In fact, some big projects have suffered this.
My two cents.
From techwizrd’s identi.ca timeline.
I agree.
Tonight we had a nice discussion about Ubuntu, Ubuntu One, and the infrastructure stuff Canonical is keeping closed.
The first thing I’ve realized is identi.ca groups are like IRC channels. Second thing is that you can have a very interesting conversation limited to 140 chars per message. And third is people isn’t happy with closed components and the abuse of the Ubuntu brand (Ubuntu is a word strongly related to a community, and having it associated with closed source it’s nasty).
I think it would be different if Ubuntu One
was called Canonical something
and not Ubuntu, and techwizrd message is the key for me.
Should Canonical change the name of the service?
Link: Red Hat Success Story: Banco Pastor
This press note it’s very impressing for me, and it’s not for the success story with a bank in Spain but because very often customers in Spain don’t allow you to disclose your work with them. So the fact Red Hat is doing business with a bank in Spain is good news, but making it public it’s a double win!
I know some guys inside Red Hat Spain, and I know they’re working in some awesome projects (believe me when I say awesome, and Fedora it’s involved in this awesomeness), but the customer doesn’t allow Red Hat saying it in public.
I think this is a big deal, because we all know the success stories of the privative software vendors, but we need to know that free software is for real and that there are real solutions working out in the real world.
We know all companies look for the business, but as free software advocate and supporter I feel it’s a pity nobody knows that the free software it’s kicking ass.
So congratulations for Red Hat, and keep on rocking (even we don’t really know how much you’re rocking!).
