My thoughts, exactly. But what else are they going to report on in order to sell more advertising?
It's interesting (and depressing) to me to look back over my adult life, and realize that not once has my Party offered me a credible candidate to vote FOR, though the other Party has had no trouble fielding candidates I wanted badly enough to lose that I forced myself to vote. If one Party can consistently offer up candidates who are evil and incompetent, one would think that the other Party would have enough sense to offer a clear alternative. But, Nooooo....
If you want mainstream buy-in, provide for the consumer. Remember that the consumer is lazy (like me). I want to use your thing, likely on Windows, give me binaries I can use. I don't really want to compile it.
If you are going to make me compile, package the whole thing in one spot. I don't want to have to hunt down and download half the internet just to see if your library will work for me.
Why no VS projects? I'm lazy remember, I don't want to be messing with makefiles and command line compilation - I'm not hardcore like you.
In this instance, libgeotiff, but it seems a common malaise. Almost everytime I've read about features of an OS lib and thought 'Sounds interesting, I might be able to use that' I find I have to download their source, and some other lib and a different framework etc. Then figure out how to compile it in Windows - which often seems to require code changes, modifications to makefiles and the like.
Generally I don't actually have time to figure it out, especially if it's a bit of a speculative inquiry. I get the impression that some OS proponents do it deliberately, being so rabidly anti-Microsoft or anti-PC, but that smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.
Some, like GIMP, provide well for Windows users. Some do provide win-binaries, but don't seem to emphasise them or market them very well, others don't give you anything.
ROI is usually so low for me, I often turn to closed solutions I can BUY and use straight-away, which is surely more 'harmful' to the OS movement??
I feel your pain. It is a hassle to go on to try several libraries and see which would work best and face those bizarre errors. It comes to the point I am completely surprised when one of those suddenly work out-of-the-box, specially when it is C/C++ code.
But by the way, it turns out I am also the developer of an open source library - so if you find anything to rant about it, please let mw know!
Well you have to pay for VS, makefile are free, that's why!
Codeplex did make MS-opensource better friend, yet it mostly worked for C# ...
Most C++ opensource project are only using opensource tools. There is only one open source cross platform world accept tool for C++, it's makefile!
I know it's a pain!
But... did you know (Myself learned quite recently) that... there is a way to convert makefile to visual studio (I stumbled upon it recently but forgot and can't find it again!) I think it might be a make option...
try "make --?" and see if one option fits the bill...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
They could use VS Express perhaps? But surely, providing support for 'consumerist' developers running Windows and using VS would substantially increase their potential pool of contributors? Which I would think they would see as a benefit.
The 'OS project must only use OS tools' attitude again seems needlessly self-limiting to me. OK, support other OS projects, but not to the exclusion of a potentially large pool of time-poor developers!
I don't know whether to feel hurt, offended or "uggh fire".
Well, keep in mind that I was also taking a potshot at myself, having hosted a couple open source projects. But I agree with the OP, it is one of my frustrations as well, and is why, when I was in the heyday of MyXaml, I tried to be as thorough as possible (granted, the point of that project was the code, but I also provided a lot of examples in binary and source.)
While the US struggles with its archaic voting system, here's a thought.
Despite numerous supposedly foolproof electronic voting machines on the market, all made by otherwise respectable companies, none have proven to be unhackable; in fact, they're laughably simple to break. If we can't even make a secure standalone machine to collect votes, there's no hope that anyone will ever create a secure Internet voting system. Or is there?
I'm convinced that there is no reason this cannot be done, and that the technology exists today to accomplish it. So let's put our heads together here and toss around ideas, shoot them down one by one, and thin the herd until we come up with an architecture that is unbreakable made of the pieces left standing. I'm not talking about coding anything, just outlining a bullet-proof structure and methodology. The implementation details can be left for an article later.
It exists already. As you said US have a very archaic system but that does not mean everyone has. Switzerland is a great example of internet voting. They are using it a lot. France is using it as well in major elections for its expats, etc...
But I guess nobody has written the article... You can do that piece
Seulement, dans certains cas, n'est-ce pas, on n'entend guère que ce qu'on désire entendre et ce qui vous arrange le mieux... [^]
Back in the 80's I worked for a company that made ballot counting equipment. Yes, we were part of the 'hanging chad' community. The process at that time was distinctly non-trivial, and that was without the security implications of a fully-electronic counting process.
Today, you require a system that is hardened and closed to be secure, yet sufficiently transparent that it can be validated and operated by non-technical personnel. Trust me, boards of election are not made up of technical people. You will find yourself used for political ends, and technical decisions will be resolved by politics rather than merit.
The next complication is that the system must be incredibly flexible. Every state, and most counties/precincts/parishes within a state, has their own notion of proper election conduct. Your software must adhere to those notions, and in fact must demonstrably and verifiably enforce them.
Finally, the software must be implemented in such a fashion that, when it does fail, it fails in the least harmful manner possible. Harmful, in this case, means harm to you. The 2000 election decimated the election 'industry'. Lots of companies went under and lots of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
It's interesting as a thought experiment. Would I ever work in that industry again? Not on your life.
Create an article about that, we can add suggestions and discuss it in its own thread.
What are the requirements ?
- do we create an voting machine for the current US voting system or for an imaginary democratic system?
- what kind of paper trails should it have ?
- What kind of input? mechanical (punch)? touch-screen?, scribbling ?
- Counting, again, electronic, mechanical ?
That's always been a problem, and probably always will be. All my life I've known significant numbers of people who never read a book or a newspaper, more recently never visit a news site on the Internet, yet are proud of the fact that they never miss voting! Crikey! If you choose - deliberately - to remain ignorant and uninformed, please don't foist your totally unqualified, empty opinions on the rest of us who care enough to study the issues!