User talk:Jordansparks
"Open" Dental
[edit]Why was the name of this software changed from "Free Dental" to "Open Dental"?
Why was GNU/Linux support removed?
Just wondering. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: Free has two meanings in English. I needed to convey the "freedom" meaning rather than the "no cost" meaning. That was done a very long time ago, and I wish the wikipedia entry didn't even mention Free Dental, but I'm not allowed to edit that. I sure wouldn't mind if you edited that. I think it's hard to find any references to Free Dental, so it's not even very accurate to mention that. GNU is still in place. The source code is online and downloadable. Linux: No advantage over Windows, in my mind. I have no intention of using Linux. I have other things to spend resources on. It was also, fundamentally, nearly impossible. We make heavy use of the Win32 API which is not even present in Linux. I want a very powerful interface, and I would have to dumb it down to support Linux. JordanSparks (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- What about libre?
- It sounds like, due to designing the software in a certain way, you got into a situation where it appeared that GNU wasn't very powerful.
- There's little point in developing an important piece of libre software (something medical, which we are in desperate need of) and then not releasing it for libre operating systems. How can we escape the insidious grip of freedom-disrespecting technology if we have to use a non-libre operating system to run the programs we need? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: Fair points. It doesn't advance the libre cause. But it was a positive development to the field of dentistry, and a huge boon to dentists. Prior to this, they had no freedom of their own database. Their data was tucked away in a proprietary format that they could not access. Control over the data was the freedom I craved and the freedom that I gave to tens of thousands of offices. At this point, the vast majority of offices could care less that it's open source, but the open database is very popular. Also, keeping it open source means we can use MySQL for free, so that's a big bonus and keeps costs down. JordanSparks (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have you considered posting a request somewhere for people to make a new version of the software for GNU? I'm sure there's someone out there who would be willing to do that. We should always take full advantage of the social good of cooperation libre software allows for. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: The software is already GNU, so you really meant Linux. But what you are suggesting is simply too hard. Nice sentiment, but it's not going to happen.JordanSparks (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I meant the GNU operating system; Linux is the kernel used by the GNU operating system. Also, why is it too hard? DesertPipeline (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline:Ah, you are correct. I was conflating GNU and GPL. Obviously, I don't use Linux. I know it's too hard because we're talking about a mature 20 year old software. Software gets improved with many small isolated changes over long periods of time, so if GNU support was to be included, it would need to have been included 20 years ago. It's too late. What you are proposing would affect nearly every line of code in the program. It's not an isolated change of any kind, so that makes it nearly impossible to program. Most software engineers would understand this issue, which makes me think you are probably not a software engineer. No insult intended. It's like suggesting changing out the foundation of a skyscraper. It just doesn't work. I mean, I supposed you could jack up the skyscraper with some ridiculous amount of money, but nobody ever does it. They instead just build a new building.JordanSparks (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, software can sometimes need re-developing. I was suggesting that someone make a new version of the software from the beginning with GNU support – the Windows version could be kept as it is and the new version could be designed for GNU specifically. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: Yeah sure, starting over would work. And the existing code gives a lot of ideas about how to do things, so it's easier than starting from scratch -- slightly. But it would take a lot of time, and the smart people out there are generally converting their talent into wealth, so nobody is available. Anyone is welcome to do so at any time, but I think there will be no takers. JordanSparks (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think there needs to be social change before the practice of developing non-libre software can be stopped? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really an issue for me or for anyone I know. I just look for software that's engineered well and fills my needs. I don't care if it's libre. JordanSparks (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's important for us to be in control of the technology we use; every day, we become more surrounded by it. It's only going to get worse unless people learn to respect themselves and refuse to use software which could mistreat them at any time, or be mistreating them already without their knowledge. But that's only one of the many problems we need to solve. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really an issue for me or for anyone I know. I just look for software that's engineered well and fills my needs. I don't care if it's libre. JordanSparks (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think there needs to be social change before the practice of developing non-libre software can be stopped? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: Yeah sure, starting over would work. And the existing code gives a lot of ideas about how to do things, so it's easier than starting from scratch -- slightly. But it would take a lot of time, and the smart people out there are generally converting their talent into wealth, so nobody is available. Anyone is welcome to do so at any time, but I think there will be no takers. JordanSparks (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, software can sometimes need re-developing. I was suggesting that someone make a new version of the software from the beginning with GNU support – the Windows version could be kept as it is and the new version could be designed for GNU specifically. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline:Ah, you are correct. I was conflating GNU and GPL. Obviously, I don't use Linux. I know it's too hard because we're talking about a mature 20 year old software. Software gets improved with many small isolated changes over long periods of time, so if GNU support was to be included, it would need to have been included 20 years ago. It's too late. What you are proposing would affect nearly every line of code in the program. It's not an isolated change of any kind, so that makes it nearly impossible to program. Most software engineers would understand this issue, which makes me think you are probably not a software engineer. No insult intended. It's like suggesting changing out the foundation of a skyscraper. It just doesn't work. I mean, I supposed you could jack up the skyscraper with some ridiculous amount of money, but nobody ever does it. They instead just build a new building.JordanSparks (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I meant the GNU operating system; Linux is the kernel used by the GNU operating system. Also, why is it too hard? DesertPipeline (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: The software is already GNU, so you really meant Linux. But what you are suggesting is simply too hard. Nice sentiment, but it's not going to happen.JordanSparks (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have you considered posting a request somewhere for people to make a new version of the software for GNU? I'm sure there's someone out there who would be willing to do that. We should always take full advantage of the social good of cooperation libre software allows for. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DesertPipeline: Fair points. It doesn't advance the libre cause. But it was a positive development to the field of dentistry, and a huge boon to dentists. Prior to this, they had no freedom of their own database. Their data was tucked away in a proprietary format that they could not access. Control over the data was the freedom I craved and the freedom that I gave to tens of thousands of offices. At this point, the vast majority of offices could care less that it's open source, but the open database is very popular. Also, keeping it open source means we can use MySQL for free, so that's a big bonus and keeps costs down. JordanSparks (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)