Thu 29th Oct 2009 @ 23:09 2009: Free Software is Dead. Long Live Open Source

Whilst the "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" camps usually get on just fine, there are differences between them, which have to be acknowledged and addressed. It does not at all mean that the two are incapable of working together, but as with all things, we can always learn from each other. Indeed, Free and Open Source Software are very often said in the same breath (like that) or in the same acronym (FLOSS, or FS/OSS).

Because it's what journalists are paid to do, Matt Assay on CNet writes that Free Software is Dead, Long Live Open Source, in which he pits the ideology of Free Software (where Freedom is the key ingredient) against the compromise-centric nature of Open Source (where Openness is important, balanced with pragmatism; "it doesn't matter how pure it is, if nobody uses it")

I would like to summarise the thrust of Matt's argument, but I can't actually find such a thing in the article. Instead, he simply asserts that "Free software has lost. Open source has won. We're all the better for it" without providing any evidence other than some quotes from other people who feel the same way that he does.

Fortunately, Glyn Moody has written a rebuttal entitled Without Free Software, Open Source would lose its meaning in which he points out that the compromises that Open Source advocates are willing to make, are only available to them due to the work already done by the Free Software community. It is an excellent article, expressed far better than anything I could hope to write.

If Open Source is based on the premise that pragmatism, usability and popularity, then there is no difference between the Open Source and Proprietary development models, other than the fact that at least the Proprietary model makes a profit.

Free Software is a different beast, because it comes from a different place. To compare the models in the way in which Matt Assay does, is like saying that "High School Musical" is better than "Catcher in the Rye" simply because it is more like the far-more-popular 1970s film "Grease". They all share a story around school life and growing up, but specialists in the field would place Catcher in a different category from the other two; it is at a different level. HSM only gets any credibility in such a comparison because the standard has been arbitrarily set to a popular, but qualitatively flawed product which was produced not for the purposes of making the world a better place, but with the sole goal of maximising shareholder value at the cost of all other factors.

Thu 22nd Oct 2009 @ 00:24 2009: Smoke Alarm

I have been staying at this hotel most of the time for nearly six months.

Tonight, hours before I am due to check out (having a short week this week - wahey!) - I notice that the smoke detector is covered with a plastic bag.


(link to full size image).

If I see this again, I shall name-and-shame the establishment. I will certainly bring this to their attention.

Maybe the previous occupant was a smoker? The room didn't smell of smoke; maybe an occupant a few months ago was a smoker, and nobody has noticed the bag? Hmm - not impressed.

Tue 20th Oct 2009 @ 23:38 2009: Windows 6.1+0.9

Apparently Windows 7 calls itself Windows 6.1 - as it would if it was a minor upgrade to Vista, for example. Which Microsoft assure is it is not: well that's alright then.

Or is it (as Adam Barr claimed in his fascinating book "Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters"), that Windows 2000 was due to be called NT5.0 - Windows XP was just a minor update to Windows 2000? - Which is why the Windows2000 banner has a small apologetic tagline "Built on NT Technology" to appease the developers who didn't want their more-stable NT product line associated with the less-stable "date-based" Windows versions 95, 98, 2000:


...Just as Windows 7 is a minor update to Vista.

I'm *not* a Microsoft basher, I wish them well.

For the record, this is a table of Windows version numbers. I suspect that there is more detail for the pedantic; I remember Windows 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11, though all of "Windows 3" is mentioned only in passing in the windowsteamblog site, and I don't know how they identified themselves internally.

Note that the blog linked above suggests that there is one tree; there are two, the "Windows for DOS" stream which leads up to Windows ME, and the "Windows NT" stream which leads from NT3.5 to XP and onwards:

Fri 2nd Oct 2009 @ 17:09 2009: Interesting way to announce a new phone number

http://alfie.ist.org/blog/2009/10/01#times-are-changing.en has an interesting way to announce a new phone number:

I now have a private [phone number]... If you subtract the number 3933309527644 from my old one you have my new one.