document/TranslateProject
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject.git synced 2025-01-13 22:30:37 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

翻译完成 by 乌龙茶

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
chunxiao ye 2014-03-12 13:21:18 +08:00
parent 7fcde98d6b
commit 09c79a13c9
2 changed files with 56 additions and 57 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

57
sources/GitHub's New Atom Text Editor Is Open Source, Sort Of, Though Not Really.md
View File

@ -1,57 +0,0 @@
好坑 乌龙茶占了
GitHub's New Atom Text Editor Is Open Source, Sort Of, Though Not Really
================================================================================
**GitHub has a new not-very-open open-source text editor, and nobody seems to care.**
Samuel Greenwald [claims][1] that "any IT leader who can't grasp an open source mindset is doomed to fail." While this may be true, people can be forgiven for not fully grokking open source, given the weird licensing gyrations that even the most open source savvy among us can go through.
Take GitHub, for example. GitHub just released its [Atom][2] text editor to much acclaim. While [some lauded Atom][3] as "completely open source," it's not. Not even close.
### Kind Of, Sort Of Open Source ###
Not that GitHub is dressing up Atom as open source. Not all of it, anyway. As GitHub co-founder Tom Preston-Werner specifies, only "Atom core" code will be closed source, while "all the existing MIT-licensed repos under the Atom org will remain so forever." The reasons are purely commercial, as he [notes][4]:
> Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere in-between, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch.
Back in the early days of open source, we had a name for this. Actually, Microsoft did. It was called "Shared Source." [Launched in 2002][5], Shared Source was Microsoft's way of giving its community a way to look but not touch (or redistribute) Microsoft's code. It didn't go so well for Microsoft, as SAP's Big Data chief Vijay Vijayasankar reminds us, but GitHub might do better:
> [@dberkholz][6] I remember the OSI peeps criticized MS quite heavily that it is a marketing stunt . But GitHub might make it alright this time
> — Vijay Vijayasankar (@vijayasankarv) [February 27, 2014][7]
He might be right.
### The GitHub Generation Can't Be Bothered ###
Microsoft, after all, was the evil empire, smearing open source as a "cancer," among other things. GitHub? It's the foster parent for open source projects everywhere. [In 2013[8] GitHub topped 10 million repositories and 3 million new users, with frenetic weekly activity: 20,000 issues, 50,000 comments, and 250,000 pushes on repositories maintained by contributors all over the world.
GitHub is, in other words, ground zero for open source.
Perhaps because of this, GitHub is getting a free pass. In the [HackerNews commentary][9] on the move, [few seem to be too bothered][10] that GitHub isn't actually opening up Atom. As a community, open source has largely won out over free software: less dogmatic, more practical. We've come to the point that many in the so-called "GitHub generation" [don't even bother to assign a license to their software at all][11].
Is this a good thing?
It's hard to say, and even harder to argue with GitHub's approach given that it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone and potentially helps many by giving the world a high-quality, low-cost text editor. The open-source community is increasingly libertarian: less likely to prescribe licensing and more concerned with good code and good products.
It's why GitHub, Atlassian and Amazon Web Services, which all rely on proprietary software or services to make money, can be so phenomenally popular with open-source developers.
Have we finally grown up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
via: http://readwrite.com/2014/02/28/github-atom-text-editor#feed=/hack&awesm=~oxpErHVIIaxz3H
译者：[译者ID](https://github.com/译者ID) 校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创翻译，[Linux中国](http://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
[1]:http://www.cioinsight.com/blogs/open-source-has-changed-everything.html#sthash.ESY4Kc3r.u8rX81Ow.dpuf
[2]:https://github.com/atom
[3]:http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/02/26/github-releases-text-editor-coders-named-atom/#!xHNqf
[4]:http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8
[5]:http://www.geek.com/news/microsoft-rep-clarifies-shared-source-initiative-550824/
[6]:https://twitter.com/dberkholz
[7]:https://twitter.com/vijayasankarv/statuses/438882094429642752
[8]:http://octoverse.github.com/
[9]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302941
[10]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7310017
[11]:http://readwrite.com/2013/05/15/open-source-is-old-school-says-the-github-generation#awesm=~ox6tkvcaUwiEF0

56
translated/GitHub's New Atom Text Editor Is Open Source, Sort Of, Though Not Really.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
GitHub的Atom文本编辑器算得上是开源的，但并不完全是
================================================================================
**GitHub有一个新的并算不上完全开源的文本编辑器，当然没人在意这个。**
Samuel Greenwald [要求][1]认为“任何IT领袖如果无法把握一个开源的心态那注定会失败的。”这也许是真的，人们可以原谅不完全的开源，考虑到许可的怪异，即使是最开源的在精明的我们中间可以通过。
对于GitHub，例如。 GitHub刚刚发布的[Atom][2]文本编辑器获得了很多的赞叹。虽然[一些赞美Atom][3]为“完全开源，”但它不是。还差得远。
### 开源的种类和排序 ###
这并不是说GitHub把Atom伪装为开源。不是所有的吧，反正。作为GitHub的联合创始人Tom Preston-Werner规定，只有“Atom core”代码将被封闭源代码，而“所有现有下的Atom其余代码将永远遵守MIT-licensed。”原因是纯粹的商业，他[解释][4]：
> Atom将不会封闭源代码，但它也不会开源。它将介于两者之间，因此很容易让我们对Atom进行贡献，同时仍然在根据限制性许可使用的来源，这样你可以看到一切正常。我们还没有最终决定究竟如何进行工作呢。我们将在充分的细节准备后正式启动。
早在开源的初期，我们并不是使用这个名字。事实上，微软做到了。它被称为“共享源代码”。 [于2002年推出][5]，共享源代码是给它一个社区的方式来看待，但没有触及（或重新分配），微软的代码，微软的方式。对微软来说它没有这么好，作为SAP的大数据主管Vijay Vijayasankar提醒我们，但GitHub上可能会做的更好：
> [@dberkholz][6]我记得在OSI偷看批评MS相当严重，这是一个营销噱头。但GitHub上可能会使好吗这个时候
> — Vijay Vijayasankar (@vijayasankarv) [2014年2月27日][7]
他也许是对的。
### GitHub的生成不能被打扰 ###
微软毕竟是邪恶帝国，涂抹开源为“毒瘤”，等等。 GitHub？这是无处不在的开源项目的养父母。 [2013年][8] GitHub上突破千万代码库和300万新用户，狂热的每周活动：20,000问题，50,000评论，和250,000推由世界各地的贡献者保证代码库进展。
GitHub的是，换句话说，地面零开源。
也许正因为如此，GitHub的是得到一个免费通行证。在[HackerNews评论][9]上，[少数似乎太在意][10]认为GitHub上没有真正开源Atom。作为一个社区，开源已经在很大程度上战胜了免费软件：少教条，更实用。我们已经走到如此地步，许多所谓的“GitHub的一代”[甚至懒得将许可证分配给他们的软件在所有][11]。
这是好事吗？
这很难说，甚至难以争辩给出GitHub上的做法，它似乎并没有伤害任何人，并有可能通过给世界一个高品质，低成本的文本编辑器来帮助很多人。开源社区是越来越自由意志论者：不太可能规定许可和更关心的是良好的代码和良好的产品。
这就是为什么GitHub上，Atlassian的和Amazon的Web服务，都依赖于专有软件或服务来赚钱，也可以如此惊人受开源开发者的欢迎。
你了解了吗？
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
via: http://readwrite.com/2014/02/28/github-atom-text-editor#feed=/hack&awesm=~oxpErHVIIaxz3H
译者：[乌龙茶](https://github.com/yechunxiao19) 校对：[校对者ID](https://github.com/校对者ID)
本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创翻译，[Linux中国](http://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出
[1]:http://www.cioinsight.com/blogs/open-source-has-changed-everything.html#sthash.ESY4Kc3r.u8rX81Ow.dpuf
[2]:https://github.com/atom
[3]:http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/02/26/github-releases-text-editor-coders-named-atom/#!xHNqf
[4]:http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8
[5]:http://www.geek.com/news/microsoft-rep-clarifies-shared-source-initiative-550824/
[6]:https://twitter.com/dberkholz
[7]:https://twitter.com/vijayasankarv/statuses/438882094429642752
[8]:http://octoverse.github.com/
[9]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302941
[10]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7310017
[11]:http://readwrite.com/2013/05/15/open-source-is-old-school-says-the-github-generation#awesm=~ox6tkvcaUwiEF0