philcrissman.com

Douglas Crockford provides a nice summary of what JSLint does:

When C was a young programming language, there were several common programming errors that were not caught by the primitive compilers, so an accessory program called lint was developed which would scan a source file, looking for problems.

As the language matured, the definition of the language was strengthened to eliminate some insecurities, and compilers got better at issuing warnings. lint is no longer needed.

JavaScript is a young language. It was originally intended to do small tasks in webpages, tasks for which Java was too heavy and clumsy. But JavaScript is a very capable language, and it is now being used in larger projects. Many of the features that were intended to make the language easy to use are troublesome for larger projects. A lint for JavaScript is needed: JSLint, a JavaScript syntax checker and validator.

JSLint takes a JavaScript source and scans it. If it finds a problem, it returns a message describing the problem and an approximate location within the source. The problem is not necessarily an error, although it often is. JSLint looks at some style conventions as well as structural problems. It does not prove that your program is correct. It just provides another set of eyes to help spot problems.

For people using large amounts of Javascript, maybe this would be a useful tool.

Continue reading ‘JSLint’

If you aren’t aware of what Mambo is, it’s a PHP/MySQL-based CMS (Content Management System), and it’s the software that this site is built around. The Mambo CMS has won LinuxWorld awards two years running now (I think; someone can correct me, if they like).

And as of yesterday, the development team departed.

They departed from Miro, that is. There is a detailed story at NewsForge and discussion on Slashdot, but here’s the scoop in brief: the name “Mambo” is copyrighted to a corporation called Miro, who serves (served) as a sort of sponsor/business side of the Mambo CMS project. It’s an open source project, though, so the development team is volunteer; and when Miro recently decided to form a Mambo Foundation, without consulting or involving any of the developers, they (the developers) decided to discontinue the relationship.

So, the next release (by the dev team) will have a new name, and will likely continue to grow. I’m looking forward to it, and plan to upgrade my site to this new version when it’s available.

Project forks like this are possible in any open source project, but in large ones they are fairly rare; it seems to take a pretty big disagreement to cause a major split. XFree86’s license decision last year caused an almost instant shift to the x.org server in the linux distro world (if that made no sense to you, don’t worry; that probably means that you wouldn’t be interested ;-) ); technically, someone could even fork the linux kernel, and begin using it to develop an OS with a different name. No one is doing this because the Linux Kernel developers do such a great job that a fork like that would be counterproductive and would probably go nowhere.

In cases like this, the Miro/Mambo split, hopefully it’s clear that if you intend to work with a scattered team of volunteer developers, it’s a good idea to check out what they think before making major decisions, like forming a new foundation. ;-)

Continue reading ‘Mambo Dev Team Leaves Miro Behind’

A friend and I were just talking the other day about the need for a tool like this; that is, a migration tool. You throw a disk into your Windows machine, it helps you copy your documents, bookmarks/favorites, and other pertinent settings, and then after you install Linux you could put your files back in your home directory and your bookmarks back into your browser.

A company called Resolvo has created something that sounds quite similar to our idea; it’s called the MoveOver Enterprise desktop migration tool. It is advertised as handling not just documents and bookmarks, but email, wallpaper, and other user-specific settings.

If I were releasing a Linux distribution targetted at the average consumer, I would definitely include something like this in the box; it’s a great idea. I’m not sure how MoveOver accomplishes it’s task; that is, where does it save the data? It could require you to have a blank CD and write to that. One of our ideas was to have our hypothetical tool create a small partition, save the data there, and then copy it back after installing Linux; the trouble is in ensuring that it is not overwritten by your Linux install, but if you integrated the two tools that would be doable.

There’s a little more information here.

Continue reading ‘Windows-to-Linux Migration Tool’

A lot of the blogs that I personally get a lot out of… those of Terry Storch and Scott Hodge, for example… have a consistent theme of blogging about leadership. I’ve read my share about leadership, and I think it’s a great, valuable topic. I don’t necessarily have a lot to say about it from experience, however, as my leadership roles have been fairly limited.

However, I’d like to think I know a thing or two about following.

I’m of the opinion that just like leadership can (must?) be learned, following can also (must also?) be learned. That is, just because you’re following doesn’t mean you’re any good at it.

For lack of any better way to share a few thoughts on following, I’ll tear a page from Brian Bailey’s book and try a list. ;-) This one will be a “top five” … I may think of more later, but I couldn’t create ten in one go tonight.

In no particular order…

1. Just because you’re in the herd, doesn’t mean you’re following. You can be in a company, a church, an organization of any type; just because you’re there, doesn’t mean you’re following. That is, it doesn’t mean you’re contributing to the vision that the leader has for that organization. There are a lot of people, in workplaces and churches, and any other applicable settings, who are just there. Drifting. Flowing with the current is not following.
2. Being a follower doesn’t mean having no personality or motivation. Just because you aren’t the leader doesn’t mean you have no ideas, no passion, no motivation, and no vision. If you want to follow well, you need all of those things. But you don’t become a “yes man/woman”, or a blindly obedient automaton; that’s not valuable, or even desirable, to a leader. Be yourself, have some energy; your leader will appreciate it.
3. If the vision you have is not the same as the vision of your leader… you aren’t following. This might be a collary to the previous point; yes, have vision. But if you’re going to be a help, you can’t be running around with your own vision of how things should be. You need to share the leader’s vision. I shouldn’t have to repeat it, but this is not the same a blind subservience. Rather, it is dependent on the leader doing his/her job as well; part of the leader’s job is to communicate the goal, the vision, or the end result, to those who are helping. If your leader has done that, then you know what that goal is. If you can’t make the leader’s goal, your goal… you aren’t following.
4. You don’t decide how to follow. There’s some blurring among all these, but this is one of the ones I feel strongest about. For example, if you decide to “help” me, you don’t just do whatever you like, and call that “helping.” If you actually want to help me, you’ll find out what I want help with, or what I want done. Likewise, if I’m going to help you, I need to find out what you want me to do; otherwise, I’m not helping. I’m just doing my thing, with some sort of “hope” that it is useful. A good thought: if the leader doesn’t think you’re following, then you aren’t.
5. Don’t act like a pawn. A common way of looking at leaders and follower, is looking at them like kings and pawns. Chess wouldn’t be very interesting if each player just had a king and fifteen pawns. A common demotivator, I think, is allowing oneself the self-image of being a pawn; expendable, not very useful, and without the need for much initiative. A good leader doesn’t want an army of pawns; they’re looking for (to keep the Chess analogy alive) knights, bishops, rooks, and queens. In my opinion, one of the best way to be one of these non-pawns is by first of all, simply not seeing yourself as “just a pawn.”

Some people will look at this list, and think that I’m advocating brown-nosing. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but if you’ve already made that conclusion, there’s probably not much chance I could convince you otherwise. Now, I am certainly advocating a work ethic, and an awareness of the things that your leader (again, at work, church, or wherever) thinks are important or valuable. And in the event that you do have the desire, potential, and motivation to be a leader, being a good follower will only accelerate your progress in getting there. Every great leader is also a great follower. But you don’t follow in order to lead; you follow because you believe in the leader. If you can’t believe in the leader, you’d better either start believing, or find a new leader, because your work or ministry is going to be an uphill battle.

Continue reading ‘Following’

Just for a change of pace, let’s talk about music for a minute.

I listen to all kinds of music; literally all kinds. I can’t honestly think of a single genre in which I couldn’t find at least something that I thought was worth listening to. Jazz is a big favorite of mine, though.

This morning, I’m listening to Free Jazz, by Ornette Coleman. It’s not the most accessible music in the world; by that I mean, this is not your pleasant, soothing sounds of early Miles Davis or John Coltrane. This isn’t Pat Metheny or (urg) Kenny G. Free Jazz is one of the first recordings of it’s type; nearly the entire album is improvised. There was a minimal amount of pre-planning, and then the musicians just start playing. By “pre-planning” I mean that they wrote about two or three bars of music and used it as a change point between extended portions where one or more instruments take the lead. There are only two tracks on it, which are essentially two takes of the same song. One is 37 minutes long, the other is 17 minutes long. Coleman used a double quartet; so there are eight musicians altogether, four on different horns, and two drummers and two bass players. The double rhythm section leads to some interesting portions where the drummers or bass players are soloing.

Since it’s (almost) entirely improvised, though, it the music tends to be a little chaotic; some might say abrasive. Some people like it, some don’t; I’m one of those that do. If it sounds interesting to you, check out Free Jazz by Ornette Coleman. You just might like it.

Continue reading ‘Ornette Coleman’