On a press conference, Google Inc. reported about their new Operating System, Google Chrome OS, and their intention to cooperate closely with the ‘Open source community’. According to Sundar Pichai, the deputy director of Google, the operating system will be released at the end of 2010. The system has to be really fast, and therefore all the programs you’ll use on your minilaptop (the machine for which Chrome OS is manufactured) will be web applications. There are several advantages for using web applications. First of all, the minilaptop doesn’t require great system requirements, as almost of of the programs are web based. That makes your computer a lot faster. Second, it’s a lot easier for the ‘open source community’ to make programs with codes the already know. Chrome OS itself is Linux-based.

Read the article here, have a look at a preview here .

Wouter Snoeck

Microsoft has stopped the distribution of it’s newest Windows 7-upgrade tool for minilaptops. The underlying reason for this sudden stop is that there were voices claiming that Microsoft is violating the open source code of this tool.

The application Windows 7 USB/DVD download is designed for owners of the XP-netbooks who want to install Windows 7 on their device. A blogger named Rafael Rivera reveals in a blogpost that the Microsoft code uses Imagemaster, a tool which has been released under the “GPLv2-open-source-licence” (General Public Licence).
This GPL allows, just like any other open source licence, that the code may be used by others. But, there is a catch, GPL has it’s own conditions about the freely sharing and adapting of there code. It is exactly this curveball that Microsoft failed to dodge when they were producing this tool.

Carl Van Acker

The Mozilla Foundation, the makers of the famous (and free to download) browser Mozilla Firefox and the e-mail program Mozilla Thunderbird, earned about 79 million dollar in 2008. If you know that none of their programs need to purchase a license,  it’s a rather high amount of profit. The greatest part of the 79 million comes from another enterprise in the same market, Google Inc. Now, Google has his own Open source programs like Google Chrome etc. The profit of Mozilla has grown a lot in the years where Google didn’t have his own browser (in 2007 the earning of mozilla has grown about 12%, in 2008 just a little growth of 5.3%). Before google you just had Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox as the 2 great oligarchs. Now Google is penetrating the market.  The contract between Google and Mozilla is still going until 2011. We all hope Mozilla can stay in Business after 2011!

Read the Article on ZDnet

Wouter Snoeck

I’ve been involved in some discussions regarding Java recently, and I’ve repeated said that I mostly find it a solution that is still looking for a problem.

Looking back at this post by Paul Graham on “Java’s Cover” I find it interesting how many of his points still ring true, 8 years later.

My favorite quote:

It could be that in Java’s case I’m mistaken. It could be that a language promoted by one big company to undermine another, designed by a committee for a “mainstream” audience, hyped to the skies, and beloved of the DoD, happens nonetheless to be a clean, beautiful, powerful language that I would love programming in. It could be, but it seems very unlikely.

My problem with it is simple, and it’s why I dislike ClearCase, and many other technologies; it makes easy things hard. I’m busy. I’d use it if forced to, and then I’d try desperately to like it. Until then, I have better things to do.

Mozilla Labs started a new open source project : Raindrop . This service uses a mini web server to pull your messages from multiple sources (Email, Twitter, Facebook…)  and organizes it in one place. What’s more, Raindrop is able to place the most important messages first in order to relieve the user of a lot of useless information. It also allows you to interact with them using your favorite web browser. Since Raindrop is an open source project, all interested people are invited to contribute to its design, development and testing by using standard open Web technologies.

Pieter Parret

Well yes, we know this already from the way that it makes easy things hard, and hard things nearly impossible, but it’s rarely been captured with the eloquence that I find in these wonderful quotes on the topic.

And yet, as cockroaches are to humans this technology/language/marketing campaign continues unabated until having java on one’s resume is a requirement to find a job through some ignorant HR department that has no idea what is is. Like the job posting I saw a few years ago for a java programmer with 10-years experience when java was only 7 years old. Luck with that.

My favourite quote:

If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. — Robert Sewell

My boss asks me occasionally why I don’t use Java, and I tell him that I have many tools in my toolbox, some good and some bad that I bought on impulse due to good marketing or simply because they were new. Java is like my trendy flip-grip pliers from Crappy Tire that try to be both clippers and needle-nose pliers, but suck at both jobs. I don’t hate the tool, but I certainly don’t reach for it often, and I’m thinking of throwing it out.

La legge regionale 54/2009 compie un passo decisivo verso l’introduzione dell’open source nella pubblica amministrazione.

Colpisce molto la soluzione legislativa contenuta nell’art. 26 (trascritto in calce), ove, a dispetto delle maggiori cautele sulla scelta tra open source software e software proprietari espressa nella direttiva Stanca e poi nel codice dell’amministrazione digitale, qui si abbraccia nettamente ed aprioristicamente il modello open source e i formati liberi.

Quanto alla previsione del necessario ricorso ai formati liberi il discorso è sicuramente più chiaro e meno problematico rispetto alla scelta in ordine al ricorso necessario all’open source.

Il ricorso ai formati liberi, infatti, intende evitare che i file generati o ricevuti nell’ambito dell’attività amministrativa possano divenire inutilizzabili un domani, come invece potrebbe accadere qualora i formati siano di tipo proprietario. Quindi ben venga la scelta radicale verso i formati aperti, che intendono garantire a priori l’utilizzabilità dei file. Per la pubblica amministrazione ciò deve essere considerato rilevante e sarebbe opportuno che tutte le software house iniziassero a considerare imprescindibile la standardizzazione dei formati, optando definitivamente per i formati aperti.

Quanto alla soluzione che esige il necessatio ricorso all’open source software, invece, qualche perplessità rimane. Per determinati enti, infatti, con particolar riferimento «alla Regione [Toscana] e agli enti e organismi dipendenti dalla Regione, ivi compresi quelli di consulenza sia della Giunta regionale che del Consiglio regionale», «agli organismi privati, comunque denominati, controllati dalla Regione», nonché «alle aziende sanitarie e agli enti del servizio sanitario regionale», l’art. 26 della legge regionale 54/2009 impone aprioristicamente l’adozione dell’open source, senza preoccuparsi di porre l’attenzione sulla necessità di valutare se, nel caso concreto, le soluzioni di tipo proprietario siano migliori o meno di quelle a codice aperto.

I due modelli di business, infatti, non si contrappongono in modo tale che il software OS sia necessariamente migliore del software di tipo proprietario, potendosi verificare anche il contrario. Potrebbe cioè verificarsi che venga sviluppato un applicativo non buono con rilascio del codice sorgente aperto, così come potrebbe verificarsi che una società specializzata in un determinato settore sviluppi con logiche di tipo proprietario un software che non ha eguali tra quelli rilasciati con il modello dell’open source. E’ dall’analisi del caso concreto delle singole soluzioni che si comprende se sia migliore, per quell’applicazione, il software proprietario o quello con codice sorgente aperto.  

Poiché la qualità del software non è dipendente dal modello di business utilizzato per svilupparlo, non ha molto senso abbracciare a priori un modello anziché un altro. È a parità di qualità del software che il modello open source dà evidenti vantaggi rispetto al modello di sviluppo che segue le logiche proprietarie.

È per questo che la normativa nazionale, dalla direttiva Stanca al codice dell’amministrazione digitale (d.lgs. 82/2005), fissano principi ed indicazioni per consentire alle pubbliche amministrazioni di scegliere la soluzione migliore tra open source software e software di tipo proprietario. La scelta va valutata caso per caso nell’ambito della procedura di acquisizione, condotta secondo le regole fissate, in Italia, dal Codice dei contratti pubblici.

Del resto, una soluzione aprioritica per un modello di business va ad incidere in maniera drastica sul mercato, alterandolo, dato che nega ingiustamente alle software house o agli sviluppatori e programmatori che offrono prodotti software di tipo proprietario la possibilità di concorrere per la fornitura di cui la pubblica amministrazione necessita.

C’è invero anche il dubbio che l’art. 26 della L.R. n. 54/2009, della Regione Toscana, pur lodevole negli intenti, possa risultare viziata perché contrastante con la normativa nazionale e comunitaria, sia con riferimento al codice dell’amministrazione digitale, che con riferimento al codice dei contratti pubblici e alle norme sul regime di libera concorrenza tra gli operatori nel mercato unico europeo.

Al di là del possibile pregiudizio degli operatori del settore informatico che si conformano al modello di tipo proprietario, il rischio è anche che si vada ad incidere, paradossalmente, sul principio di imparzialità, efficienza e buon andamento della pubblica amministrazione sancito costituzionalmente all’art. 97 Cost., proprio con riferimento all’organizzazione dei pubblici uffici. Infatti, negare a priori l’acquisizione di software non conforme al modello di business «open source» pregiudica l’efficienza dell’azione amministrativa, nella parte in cui viene rifiutata la soluzione qualitativamente migliore anche ove venga offerta con software proprietari.

A parte tali primi rilievi critici, che vanno sicuramente discussi ed approfonditi, il ricorso all’open source software da parte della pubblica amministrazione merita di essere incentivato, per gli enormi vantaggi che puà arrecare alla P.A.

Per un approfondimento su open source e pubblica amministrazione si rinvia a questo e-book, prelevabile gratuitamente, concesso in licenza creative commons.

Di seguito riposto il testo integrale dell’art. 26 della L.R. 54/2009 ed il testo dell’art. 2 ivi citato, per agevolarne la lettura.

Art. 26 – Programmi informatici a codice sorgente aperto e formati liberi

1. La Regione, nel rispetto della normativa statale in materia di informatizzazione della pubblica amministrazione, sostiene l’innovazione, incentiva la ricerca e promuove lo sviluppo e la diffusione di programmi informatici a codice sorgente aperto e di formati liberi come strumenti e modalità operative in grado di assicurare la libertà di accesso, l’interoperabilità tra le applicazioni ed i servizi, l’uso e lo sviluppo delle tecnologie, il pluralismo e la crescita della competitività nell’offerta dei prodotti informatici.

2. Per le finalità di cui al comma 1, i soggetti di cui all’articolo 2, comma 1, adottano programmi informatici a codice sorgente aperto e formati liberi.

3. Per le stesse finalità di cui al comma 1, la Regione favorisce ed incentiva l’adozione dei programmi informatici a codice sorgente aperto e formati liberi da parte dei soggetti di cui all’articolo 2, comma 2.

4. Ai fini della presente legge, per assicurare maggiore economicità alle attività della pubblica amministrazione e favorire al tempo stesso la concorrenza nel mercato delle soluzioni informatiche, nelle procedure di valutazione delle gare pubbliche per l’acquisizione di programmi informatici costituisce titolo preferenziale l’uso di codici sorgente aperti o di formati liberi, sulla base di una valutazione di tipo tecnico-economico delle diverse soluzioni disponibili sul mercato e delle esigenze organizzative.

***

 Art. 2 – Ambito di applicazione

1. La presente legge si applica: a) alla Regione e agli enti e organismi dipendenti dalla Regione, ivi compresi quelli di consulenza sia della Giunta regionale che del Consiglio regionale; b) agli organismi privati, comunque denominati, controllati dalla Regione; c) alle aziende sanitarie e agli enti del servizio sanitario regionale.

2. La presente legge, nell’ambito dei rispettivi ordinamenti e nel rispetto delle modalità organizzative di ciascuno, si applica inoltre: a) agli enti locali, ai loro consorzi, associazioni e agenzie; b) agli enti e organismi dipendenti o strumentali degli enti locali; c) agli organismi privati comunque denominati controllati dagli enti locali.

3. La presente legge si applica altresì ai concessionari di servizi pubblici regionali e locali e ai soggetti privati, limitatamente allo svolgimento di attività di pubblico interesse nelle materie di competenza regionale.

Fabio Bravo

www.fabiobravo.it

Привет!

На прошлой неделе в Центральной городской библиотеке Ванкувера проводился День демократической прессы.

Событие было посвящено развитию общественной журналистики, альтернативных  и независимых средств массовой информации в противовес медиа-корпорациям.

в Центральной библиотеке Ванкувера

Участники мероприятия рассказывали, как интернет-технологии позволяют любому стать журналистом. Сегодня каждый, кто имеет интернет может разместить свои новости в блогах, видео-роликах на YouTube,  в социальных сетях  (Facebook) и т.п. Порой эти сообщения оперативнее, достовернее и объективнее тех, которые исходят от медиа-корпораций. Профессиональные журналисты зачастую черпают новости из общественных интернет-источников информации.

Медиа революция – это не фантастика. Сейчас уже существует порядка 200 млн. блогов, 100 млн. видео-роликов на YouTube, 13 млн. статей в Википедии, которая считается более полной, чем Британская энциклопедия.

Последние события в России подтверждают реальную силу социальной журналистики.

Простое видео на YouTube позволило майору милиции из Новороссийска Дымовскому восстать против системы, стать сенсацией интернета. Его видео-сюжеты, выложенные в интернет  на прошлой неделе, уже просмотрены  более 600 тыс. раз. Его  информацией заинтересовались профессиональные журналисты, Дымовский дал  пресс-конференцию в Москве. В Википедии появился раздел об ещё вчера мало кому известном майоре милиции. Выступления Дымовского вызвали большой общественный резонанс в интернете. Его противники и его последователи размещают свои  видео-ролики на YouTube.

Данная информационная война происходит фактически в обход большинства официальных средств массовой информации, в которых  эти события широко не освещаются.

Таким образом, то, что на прошлой неделе в Ванкувере обсуждалось и продвигалось, в России активно реализовывалось.

Для развития общественной журналистики необходимы компьютеры и интернет.  Поэтому на Дне демократической прессы немало внимания уделялось распространению бесплатного программного обеспечения.  Были представлены бесплатные программы Ubuntu – аналог Windows, Open Office 3 – аналогичный Microsoft Office, а также другие бесплатные ресурсы (Open Source Software).

Благодаря интернету сегодня каждый решает – хочет он покупать продукты крупных корпораций или предпочитает альтернативные источники.

]]> http://muhammadghazali.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/open-vs-fauxpen/ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:28:38 +0000 muhammadghazali http://muhammadghazali.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/open-vs-fauxpen/ http://masteringdigitalphotography.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/re-touch-your-photos/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:09:19 +0000 masteringdigitalphotography.org http://masteringdigitalphotography.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/re-touch-your-photos/

Re-touch Them Old Photo’s For Free

Article by:  Simon Henry

A lot of people scan old photo’s onto their computer’s so they have a digital copy which can be backed up and is safe from spillages, fires, dog’s chewing etc.  The other benefit apart from duplication is that old photo’s can be re-touched to enhance and re-create what was originally viewed by the photographer.  One of the best tools I have come across to do this is GIMP – a free program tailored around many of Adobe Photoshop’s features.  GIMP was born in 1995 when Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis began developing the original project during a semester.  The first public release of GIMP – version 0.54 was made in January 1996.  Since then GIMP has been developed and tweaked to become a highly recognised and functional software package which provides users with a non-bloated experience (the download is around 16MB) and a feature rich range of tools.  Whether you want to re-touch photo’s or let out your creative side and create something unique from your photos, I’m sure GIMP has something to offer!  GIMP is what’s known as Open source software so is free to use as it’s built and maintained by a network of volunteer programmers.  If you would like a free copy of this great program then feel free to download it from their web-site http://www.gimp.org.  If you would like a full downloadable eBook with many lessons and extra’s then head over to http://www.masteringdigitalphotography.org to claim your free report!  Best regards, Simon.

That is, there don’t seem to BE any.

There are several quite good trackers available, such as Psycle, Buzz, Buzé (a Buzz variant), Milky Tracker, Impulse Tracker, and the like. Similarly, there are the sublimely powerful yet supremely difficult to use Pure Data, jMAX, CSound, and Supercollider.

But for normal human beings, trackers and programming environments aren’t really an option. The others that typically get listed (Temper, Cockos REAPER, Pro Tools Free) are either not genuinely free (Temper and REAPER are shareware/trialware), or ancient discontinued versions of a current commercial piece of software.

Then there is MU.LAB Free, the crippled version of MU.LAB’s full version. In my estimation, this is the best option as far as something that’s truly freeware – but of course, it only allows 8 tracks, and they want you to buy their full version.

KRISTAL is a decent enough multitracking audio host, but it doesn’t do MIDI.

Linux has some decent options, such as LMMS, Ardour, MUSE, and Rosegarden. (I think one of those doesn’et do MIDI or something, but I don’t remember which). But I want to know why there doesn’t seem to be any real free or open source Windows software package for a budding electronic musician. If we have a collection of free video editing packages available for Windows (even if they all, in my opinion, suck), why not for the audio end of things too?

Well, but then, we do have free strictly audio editors, like Audacity, Wavosaur, and the above-mentioned KRISTAL. But I’m looking for something that can be used for really generating sounds and sequencing samples.

WAIT, apparently LMMS has a Windows version? I should give this a try. And then, there’s also DarkWave Studio. I shall investigate, and report back.

Hello everybody!

Last Saturday was Media Democracy Day at the Vancouver Public Library.  It was both very informative and very interesting.  Chris and I weren’t able to attend the entire day, but for the couple hours we were there we learned much that was useful.  And much that made us think.

Ifny Lachance spoke about FreeGeek and its mission to distrubute free

Ifny Lachance (FreeGeek)

computers and software to whoever needs them.   FreeGeek volunteers take apart and recycle old computer parts into new, usable machines.   Volunteers are trained to do this, and after volunteering for several hours and assembling a certain number of machines, are able to assemble their own (free) computer to take home.

And if you can have free computer why can’t you get  free software?  This is posible too.  Infy talked about several alternatives to “Micro$oft”.  Like Ubuntu.   Chris decided to try Ubuntu instead of Windows.  He loves it and says he won’t go back.   I downloaded Open Office 3, a Free and Open Source Software alternative to Microsoft Office, and haven’t noticed any difference.  Except price…it was free of course.

Next we got to screen Be the Media a film about citizen journalism as

Chad Schroter-Gillespie and Nick Middleton

alternative to coprorate media by Nick Middleton and Chad Schroter-Gillespie.   This 20 minute documentary introduced the many different ways ordinary ‘citizens’ are becoming involved in journalism through alternate media like blogs, YouTube, podcasting,  etc.  It’s message: everyone can be the media today and that often citizen journalism may be more pertinent, trustworthy, and effective, to a large and often discredited corporate media.

The “Social Media Revolution” isn’t a fad.   (You’ll find an interesting YouTube video about it here).

A number of independent media representatives also set up information tables in the main foyer of the library and answered questions for those who were interested.  The Vancouver Observer, an online magazine, CO-OP Radio, and the Website Media Co-op were present, among others.

So people today can choose, if they want, to have their own opinions, to make their own contributions to media, or to continue to buy corporate packaged thoughts and information.

See you!

One of the problems facing many computer science departments  today is having to squeeze what they need on a very tight budget. Often budget restraints not only hamper the department’s growth but also the students interest in excelling in their chosen field.

At ICCT, it is surprising that we still adhere and confine ourselves to using proprietary (and very expensive) computer technology. In this day and age where free and equally competitive technologies can easily be accessed, the admin and IT department still find itself supporting a religion of expensive software.

Is is because this is what they are used to, or simply they lack the ability to adapt to change, or simply the lack of innovation for its CS department. Let’s take the classic case of C++ programming. Bejeezus, we are still using Turbo C++ (which often ends up as a Turbo C session, no objects created whatsoever, but that’s a different issue altogether). Better and more robust C++ IDEs (yes, not compilers ladies and gents, but complete IDEs) can be downloaded freely and legally from the ‘net. Let me give you a quick rundown.

• Bloodshed Software’s Dev C++ IDE
• C-Free Standard Version
• Code::Blocks Free C++ IDE
• and last but not the least, the MS Visual C++ Express Edition

For rapid GUI based development we are still opting to use Microsoft Visual Basic 6, whose support has long been ceased by Microsoft (how about we try using and teaching Visual Basic 2008 Express Edition instead).

And for our, OS we are still intent on buying Windows, binding ourselves with the 1 license per PC pact with the guys from Redmond. Ever thought of using an open source OS (maybe a good linux variant) and use what’s left of the money to improve the CS department. I am not saying that Linux is better than Windows but there are other alternatives that we can use.

Again, these are just tools and how to use them will still mainly depend on how they are burned into each CS major’s mind (read as taught). It is not enough that we are given instructions on what to do, its better that we understand why it needs to be done.

Like most of us we all believe in something, ICCT can be a player in the ICT field (not the athletic part), but we all (yes this includes students, faculties and admins) to do our share of the work.

Cutter Consortium has published the Executive Update entitled Open Source Software and Agile Software Development: Parallels and Lessons for Enterprise IT by Sebastian Hassinger (“Seb”) and me. Here is the abstract:

The phenomenon of open source software (OSS) is a recognized and mature aspect of the global IT market with profound implications for enterprise IT. A newer trend emerging is the various disciplines and methodologies that fall under the rubric of agile software development, which has a number of interesting parallels with and similarities to OSS. With the adoption en masse of OSS projects, such as Linux and Apache, by the mainstream enterprise customer, there is a track record of more than 10 years with which to gauge the extent and the nature of the impact on the enterprise. While agile has not yet reached the level of adoption that OSS enjoys, all indications are positive for that occurring in the near future. By examining its parallels with OSS, one can make inferences about the nature of the long-term potential impact of agile.

I am honored to co-publish with Seb!

(If you have not yet “e-met” Seb, here is his bio:

Sebastian Hassinger has worked in the IT industry for more than 25 years in large firms and as an entrepreneur. He founded two ISPs, helped launched several startups, and held senior strategy and business development roles with Apple, IBM, and Oracle. Mr. Hassinger created the first customer support Web site for Apple Computer. At IBM, he helped create a new business unit in the Tivoli subsidiary to address the needs of system management in the Internet era; worked on special projects for Tivoli’s CTO, including defining an Internet protocol for management of dynamic services; and was Senior Strategist for IBM’s Pervasive Computing initiative. At Oracle, Mr. Hassinger is Director of Market Development, where his specific responsibilities include developing the financial services market worldwide and the Asia-Pacific horizontal market. He holds MBAs from Columbia University and London Business School, is a published author, and holds more than a dozen software and business model patents. He can be reached at shassinger@gmail.com).

Computer Economics recently asked this question to the visitors of its website : What are the main benefits of using  open source software? Their answers  were certainly surprising. The main advantages were ‘reduced dependence on software vendors’ (44 %) followed by ‘lower total cost of ownership’ (22%)and ‘easier to customize’(17%). This means  that software buyers first and foremost detest  their dependence on vendors for maintenance and support and the necessity to accept version upgrades. IT decision makers also realize that open source is not always completely free and that software license costs are not their only expenses. Administration and support costs give them even more trouble with most types of software.

Pieter Parret