I like how the meeting minutes(1) from 1978 resemble software development meetings of today. Especially Paul (Laughton) did have the same mentality as programmers today:
Nobody who has looked into the DOS is sure why bug #2 exists
Paul felt that bug #3 was trivial and he already knew how to fix
it.
Paul said that he could spend either3 to 4 days documenting the DOS,
or he could fix the bugs, and wanted to know which we wanted.
Paul still expressed some doubt as to what was causing bug #5, and
bug #2 was a mystery.
Wow. If this had been available when I was learning Apple II assembly when I was 8, I would have lapped it up. (Heck, I still will for nostalgia's sake.) At least, I had the source code for some games from computing magazines; that was enough to get me started.
That a major operating system today is open-source is a fantastic thing for young budding coders.
"Beneath Apple DOS" by Don Worth and Pieter Lechner was my bible back then. Reading this book absolutely blew my mind and opened up a world of possibilities, not mentioning a much more intimate knowledge of how copy protection worked on the Apple ][.
Brings back memories of getting magazines like inCider [1] and Windfall and attempting to type out the assembler or machine code for little apps or (monochrome ;) graphics stuff. Was much the same as magic to me then.
Then realizing there's a typo in there, somewhere... check digits helped a bit I think if whatever you used supported that.
Actually the Terminator listings were from Sandy Mossberg's "Disassembly Lines" column in Nibble magazine, where he published and discussed a commented disassembly listing of DOS.
(Or at least some portions of it. I read Sandy's column religiously at the time, but I don't remember how far it went.)
Anyone have thoughts on "effective meeting minutes?"
I know David Allen only wants to see "Next Actions" at the end of a meeting, but I'm curious if anyone has insight into a long (5+ year) project where meeting minutes were looked back upon.
My notes about my work (bug fix notes, development notes, etc) have been super helpful in the long term, but I've never really looked at meeting notes.
What data do you have that suggests the HN audience prefers GPL over other FOSS licenses? I, for example, find the GPL overly complicated and prefer more straightforward licenses such as the MIT license.
