Comments for Web 2.0 Evolution http://web20evolution.wordpress.com Web 2.0 & Accessibility Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:07:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Video Test by iljitsch http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/video-test/#comment-62 iljitsch Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:07:35 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/video-test/#comment-62 Note that this video doesn't show up in the podcast feed. Note that this video doesn’t show up in the podcast feed.

]]> Comment on CC needs support by Rafa http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/cc-needs-support/#comment-61 Rafa Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:48:19 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/cc-needs-support/#comment-61 Jose Jesus, I agree, and probably governments should contribute as well. This would even be desirable for the Spanish government, in order to compensate the Internet community for the "SGAE canon". Iljitsch, Interesting. I was not aware of the Founer's copyright. From a user (reader) perspective, I'm OK with that, since all 14-year books (or older) can even be online and fully available. However, I understand your comment as author. Jose Jesus,
I agree, and probably governments should contribute as well. This would even be desirable for the Spanish government, in order to compensate the Internet community for the “SGAE canon”.

Iljitsch,
Interesting. I was not aware of the Founer’s copyright. From a user (reader) perspective, I’m OK with that, since all 14-year books (or older) can even be online and fully available. However, I understand your comment as author.

]]> Comment on FOSS by Rafa http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-60 Rafa Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:33:17 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-60 Hi, Mauricio, I agree that support is an issue for open source, but probably is a question of mind-change by end-users and big companies, and will take some time. On your first paragraph, you say that it is difficult to create experts group. In Nortel (the company I work for), a big IT team is focused on Microsoft products only and creates and supports customized SW packages (MSoffice, Adobe, Outlook; they are called distribution, like in Linux) for all employees. Probably they could dedicate their time and efforts for a specific GNU/Linux distribution instead. On your second paragraph, you say that companies need to pay 15K for Suse support. Yes, but probably there are alternate free options and, if not, others surely much cheaper than paying Microsoft or Suse (Nortel pays a lot of money to Microsoft every year for support. The way I see web2.0 related to open source is to change the way users (and companies) use software. It is not about acquiring licenses any more: you now have different options to choose (free and not free). For example, OpenOffice vs MSOffice, Windows vs GNU/Linux, GIMP vs Photoshop, and many other examples. And I see the free options become a real alternative to the non-free ones. And they did not exist 5 years ago. Regards, Rafa Hi, Mauricio,
I agree that support is an issue for open source, but probably is a question of mind-change by end-users and big companies, and will take some time.
On your first paragraph, you say that it is difficult to create experts group. In Nortel (the company I work for), a big IT team is focused on Microsoft products only and creates and supports customized SW packages (MSoffice, Adobe, Outlook; they are called distribution, like in Linux) for all employees. Probably they could dedicate their time and efforts for a specific GNU/Linux distribution instead.
On your second paragraph, you say that companies need to pay 15K for Suse support. Yes, but probably there are alternate free options and, if not, others surely much cheaper than paying Microsoft or Suse (Nortel pays a lot of money to Microsoft every year for support.

The way I see web2.0 related to open source is to change the way users (and companies) use software. It is not about acquiring licenses any more: you now have different options to choose (free and not free). For example, OpenOffice vs MSOffice, Windows vs GNU/Linux, GIMP vs Photoshop, and many other examples.
And I see the free options become a real alternative to the non-free ones. And they did not exist 5 years ago.
Regards,
Rafa

]]> Comment on Bringing Accesibility to Web 2.0 (FireVox) by Rosa Delgado http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/bringing-accesibility-to-web-20-firevox/#comment-59 Rosa Delgado Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:41:12 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/bringing-accesibility-to-web-20-firevox/#comment-59 I don't have personal experience with this, but yes proffesional "as final user". I was in a proyect where the developers' team used this or something very similar and i had to do some tests. When i read this, i rembered this project, and i thougth it was a good experience. I don’t have personal experience with this, but yes proffesional “as final user”. I was in a proyect where the developers’ team used this or something very similar and i had to do some tests. When i read this, i rembered this project, and i thougth it was a good experience.

]]> Comment on I, Cyborg? by TISCAR .:. Periodismo -:- Blogs -:- Educación » El CyBLOG como identidad digital http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/what-is-a-cyborg/#comment-56 TISCAR .:. Periodismo -:- Blogs -:- Educación » El CyBLOG como identidad digital Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:07:41 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/what-is-a-cyborg/#comment-56 [...] semana pasada estuve hablando con un grupo de ingenieros de un Máster de la UC3M sobre mi idea de CyBLOG: el blog entendido como el cyborg 2.0, una suerte [...] [...] semana pasada estuve hablando con un grupo de ingenieros de un Máster de la UC3M sobre mi idea de CyBLOG: el blog entendido como el cyborg 2.0, una suerte [...]

]]> Comment on FOSS by mtamayoo http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-51 mtamayoo Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:50:46 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-51 With open source products are there a "few" problems such as support. For as much "experts" you have in a company, the expertise in open source products is not achievable. For instance, Linux has at least 40 different "versions" or "distributions", each one based on a slightly different variant of the open source license, as it is open sourced, anybody has the right to open the source code and modify it for their purposes. For instance, a company could like to strip down some security code to make a faster database server. Well, under the open source licenses, the improvements that the company makes to the code are obliged to be made open source as well, it means that the intellectual property used (and paid) by the company has to be given for free to the open source community. Well, at least for me, does not make sense that a company has to pay to their "experts" for they work just to make it available to the competitors for free! Another problem that many of my enterprise customers have found while trying to implement open sourced solutions in enterprise systems is the high cost of support in the open source alternatives. For instance, for maintaining up to date a SuSe Enterprise server you have to pay 15000 USD a year and that includes only the right to download the patches, not even support on their installation process. Would you pay 15000 dollars for keeping out of risk a server when other "closed source" manufacturers (Sun, Apple, Microsoft) do it for free??? I could enumerate a lot of problems of doing so... and the proof of that is precisely what you mention: Big companies prefer to pay for a closed source software when they need to maintain business continuity. When you want to learn the internals of a software, however, as an academic experiment, using open source software is the best idea. Would you manage your critical firewall for instance on a box that anybody on the Internet could reverse-engineer and find the holes on it? Would you run an airplane with a software who nobody has a responsibility on the bugs it might have? Would you make an open-heart surgery to a patient with an open-source controlled vital signals sensor? There are scenarios for all... if you hire your employees just to run games or see nice cubes rotating in their screen you can for sure buy them Linux boxes without the support your company need for keeping the business running! There is a lot of topics about it, but I think open source is off-topic around web 2.0, because it can be made with open or closed software. With open source products are there a “few” problems such as support.
For as much “experts” you have in a company, the expertise in open source products is not achievable. For instance, Linux has at least 40 different “versions” or “distributions”, each one based on a slightly different variant of the open source license, as it is open sourced, anybody has the right to open the source code and modify it for their purposes. For instance, a company could like to strip down some security code to make a faster database server. Well, under the open source licenses, the improvements that the company makes to the code are obliged to be made open source as well, it means that the intellectual property used (and paid) by the company has to be given for free to the open source community.
Well, at least for me, does not make sense that a company has to pay to their “experts” for they work just to make it available to the competitors for free!

Another problem that many of my enterprise customers have found while trying to implement open sourced solutions in enterprise systems is the high cost of support in the open source alternatives. For instance, for maintaining up to date a SuSe Enterprise server you have to pay 15000 USD a year and that includes only the right to download the patches, not even support on their installation process. Would you pay 15000 dollars for keeping out of risk a server when other “closed source” manufacturers (Sun, Apple, Microsoft) do it for free???

I could enumerate a lot of problems of doing so… and the proof of that is precisely what you mention: Big companies prefer to pay for a closed source software when they need to maintain business continuity. When you want to learn the internals of a software, however, as an academic experiment, using open source software is the best idea. Would you manage your critical firewall for instance on a box that anybody on the Internet could reverse-engineer and find the holes on it? Would you run an airplane with a software who nobody has a responsibility on the bugs it might have? Would you make an open-heart surgery to a patient with an open-source controlled vital signals sensor?

There are scenarios for all… if you hire your employees just to run games or see nice cubes rotating in their screen you can for sure buy them Linux boxes without the support your company need for keeping the business running!

There is a lot of topics about it, but I think open source is off-topic around web 2.0, because it can be made with open or closed software.

]]> Comment on FOSS by Rafa http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-50 Rafa Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:16:00 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-50 I agree. I think many companies recognize the importance and growing impact of open source. And some of those companies are starting to use open source software massively. But think on many multinational companies: they still use Microsoft, mainly due to MSOffice and Outlook, paying a lot of money for licenses and support every year. Wouldn't be cheaper for a multinational company to have an IT expert group on GNU/Linux, and use GNU/Linux instead of Microsoft ? The key point is the technical support, and an internal expert group could provide it. I'm sure a lot of money can be saved. I agree. I think many companies recognize the importance and growing impact of open source. And some of those companies are starting to use open source software massively.
But think on many multinational companies: they still use Microsoft, mainly due to MSOffice and Outlook, paying a lot of money for licenses and support every year. Wouldn’t be cheaper for a multinational company to have an IT expert group on GNU/Linux, and use GNU/Linux instead of Microsoft ? The key point is the technical support, and an internal expert group could provide it. I’m sure a lot of money can be saved.

]]> Comment on FOSS by iljitsch http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-49 iljitsch Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:06:36 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/foss/#comment-49 I've been thinking about these issues before, especially in relationship with Apple. Apple builds computers, the operating system and application software. Most of their software is "closed source" but they also have a lot of open source software in their operating system. I think it makes sense for a company like Apple to use open source building blocks for aspects that are important, but won't give them an advantage in the market place. For instance, as part of their software development environment, they need a good compiler, but it won't hurt Apple if others have a compiler that is just as good as theirs. So they can save a lot of money by using the open source GCC compiler and adding improvements to that rather than develop their own closed source compiler. But for things that really differentiate Apple from its competitors, like their graphical user interface, it makes more sense to keep them proprietary. I’ve been thinking about these issues before, especially in relationship with Apple. Apple builds computers, the operating system and application software. Most of their software is “closed source” but they also have a lot of open source software in their operating system.

I think it makes sense for a company like Apple to use open source building blocks for aspects that are important, but won’t give them an advantage in the market place. For instance, as part of their software development environment, they need a good compiler, but it won’t hurt Apple if others have a compiler that is just as good as theirs. So they can save a lot of money by using the open source GCC compiler and adding improvements to that rather than develop their own closed source compiler.

But for things that really differentiate Apple from its competitors, like their graphical user interface, it makes more sense to keep them proprietary.

]]> Comment on I, Cyborg? by Tíscar http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/what-is-a-cyborg/#comment-48 Tíscar Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:15:37 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/what-is-a-cyborg/#comment-48 Talking about women and technology, you might find this <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/womenintech/2007/09/07/interview-with-danah-boyd.html" rel="nofollow">interview with Danah Boyd</a> interesting. Talking about women and technology, you might find this interview with Danah Boyd interesting.

]]> Comment on CC needs support by iljitsch http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/cc-needs-support/#comment-47 iljitsch Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:18:03 +0000 http://web20evolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/cc-needs-support/#comment-47 I wrote a book that was published by O'Reilly. If I remember correctly, I had to turn over the copyright to the publisher, but when the book goes out of print, I can get it back. Today, copyright extends well beyond the death of the creator of the work. However, in the United States, the original copyright term was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years. At some point, Tim O'Reilly decided to <a href="http://press.oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042" rel="nofollow">embrace the Founer's Copyright</a>, which is a voluntary limitation to the original 14+14 year copyright term. So I got a letter in the mail asking me to go along with this. However, I'm not sure if I agree this is the best thing to do. Suppose that for some strange reason, 40 years from now this book is very popular and lots of people want to read it. If paper books are still in use, the book sellers, the distributors and the publishers will be making money by selling the book. So why shouldn't I make some money as well? After all, I wrote the thing. On the other hand, it would be a real shame if the book went out of print and it wouldn't be available anywhere anymore. In that case, I'd prefer to make it available online for free. What do you guys think? I wrote a book that was published by O’Reilly. If I remember correctly, I had to turn over the copyright to the publisher, but when the book goes out of print, I can get it back. Today, copyright extends well beyond the death of the creator of the work. However, in the United States, the original copyright term was 14 years, with an optional extension for another 14 years.

At some point, Tim O’Reilly decided to embrace the Founer’s Copyright, which is a voluntary limitation to the original 14+14 year copyright term. So I got a letter in the mail asking me to go along with this.

However, I’m not sure if I agree this is the best thing to do. Suppose that for some strange reason, 40 years from now this book is very popular and lots of people want to read it. If paper books are still in use, the book sellers, the distributors and the publishers will be making money by selling the book. So why shouldn’t I make some money as well? After all, I wrote the thing.

On the other hand, it would be a real shame if the book went out of print and it wouldn’t be available anywhere anymore. In that case, I’d prefer to make it available online for free.

What do you guys think?

]]>