Generated.

[homepage.git] / blog / index.rss

diff --git a/blog/index.rss b/blog/index.rss
index ff873f183a54032ab0dab86a94f5bf5ceef658cc..3a88d6efa0dbb1ebe154a709bcbba45df23f7556 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/index.rss
+++ b/blog/index.rss
@@ -6,6 +6,22 @@
                 <link></link>
                 <atom:link href="index.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        
                 <link></link>
                 <atom:link href="index.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        

+       <item>
+               <title>No patch is not better than a useless patch</title>
+               <link>No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html</link>
+               <guid isPermaLink="true">No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html</guid>
+                <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
+               <description>
+&lt;p&gt;Julien Blache
+&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.technologeek.org/2009/04/12/214&quot;&gt;claim that no
+patch is better than a useless patch&lt;/a&gt;.  I completely disagree, as a
+patch allow one to discuss a concrete and proposed solution, and also
+prove that the issue at hand is important enough for someone to spent
+time on fixing it.  No patch do not provide any of these positive
+properties.&lt;/p&gt;
+</description>
+       </item>
+       

        <item>
                <title>EU-parlamentet raner fellesskapet for musikk</title>
                <link>EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html</link>
        <item>
                <title>EU-parlamentet raner fellesskapet for musikk</title>
                <link>EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html</link>


@@ -322,39 +338,5 @@ wait $pid&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 </description>
        </item>
        
 </description>
        </item>
        

-       <item>
-               <title>Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications</title>
-               <link>Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</link>
-               <guid isPermaLink="true">Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</guid>
-                <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
-               <description>
-&lt;p&gt;Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
-very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure.  It is the
-simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
-open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
-Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
-thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
-avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
-application.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
-independently of the server applications.  One can even allow users to
-use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
-protocol and format.  In the normal case, only one client application
-is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
-application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
-blocked from doing so.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
-users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
-best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
-requirements change.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
-open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
-application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.&lt;/p&gt;
-</description>
-       </item>
-       

         </channel>
 </rss>
         </channel>
 </rss>