I received a letter in response to a request by myself to Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) on the topic of software radios. I pointed out that Open Source is often more secure than closed source, that a ban on open source would be a-priori restraint of trade that would probably be detrimental to the deployment and usefulness of such devices, and that the FCC's position on the matter did not appear to be justified by the facts. I tried to avoid the whole freedom argument, on the grounds that politicians are generally not elected by intellectuals. Over-priced, crippled technology that would probably be made elsewhere... that's an argument politicians can hear better.

(No insult intended to Senator Wyden, he may very well be extremely smart, but since I don't know him, the most logical thing for me to do is to insinuate all the areas that could dent his popularity and fund-raising potential.)

His response is interesting. Firstly, he agreed that Open Source can be more secure. A fair enough position to take, given the level of closed-source IT industry in Oregon, and far more generous than I'd have expected for that same reason.

His second comment - that many in the software industry have made identical - or near-identical - objections was fascinating. Politicians are extremely adept at saying what you want to hear - they have to be, it's their only way to survive in their line of work - but to the extent that IT industry leaders have complained, the Senate is apparently taking notice. They would appear to be aware now of Open Source - for good or bad - and are adjusting their thinking accordingly.

He goes on to say that he is not satisfied that the FCC's claims that closed-source will make the software more secure are correct and that banning open-source may be counter-productive to the FCC's objectives. Again, that's good. Whether he believes it or not, I don't know, but there's clearly enough doubt in his mind as to the wisdom of the FCC's course that he's willing to be in writing in saying that he believes Open Source could make for a more secure product and that the FCC's actions could backfire.

The last part is the part that unnerves me slightly. He says that if legislation comes before the Senate, he will keep my views in mind. He did NOT say he would oppose legislation that would ban Open Source software radios, only that he would keep in mind that I - and others - oppose such a ban. Nor did he say that he would make any effort to bring forward any legislation requiring the FCC to re-examine the issue or explain themselves.

Why is that unnerving? Because although he expresses disquiet, he won't commit himself to any actual action over it. Maybe I'm being too hard on him, but it bothers me intensely that he acknowledges my concerns are widespread in the industry but promises nothing. Not even so much as to ask the FCC why they're being so shirty on the issue. The letter is good, I appreciate his taking the time to, well, ask his secretary to probably print out a standard form letter, but that's not going to achieve results. Why should the FCC care how many form letters have been printed? Well, unless they have shares in the company making the envelopes.

A response that shows some sympathy is better than no response at all, but only if it is accompanied by action. I hope it does. I hope my mail to him made some useful contribution to the debate. I also hope that someday I'll win the lottery. I am curious as to which has the greater odds of success.

A person I designed an online store for didn't want to pay for it. That happens. They also turned out to be a gun and knife fanatic. No big deal, right? That depends on how you interpret the phrase "you'd better watch your back, if I were you". May this be a lesson to you all - never do software consulting work for a latent psychotic.

One thing that has often puzzled me, when working in places that use Open Source software, is how many people know of Slashdot (I'd say 75% or more read it daily) but how few were even aware Freshmeat existed. The same was true of an announcement service that tracked Open Source and shareware products. Yet those projects I track on Freshmeat (I own something like 150 records and am subscribed to something like twice that) show hundreds - sometimes thousands - of accesses after a new release. If the corporate sector is totally blind to Freshmeat, who is doing the accessing?

Looking at the numbers, I think I can hazard some guesses. Educational and Government places probably rank high in the user charts, as clustering and scientific software are often moderately or highly subscribed and show moderate to high activity after an update. The stats are also skewed towards servers and other administrative or maintenance software, so I'm guessing it's more used by admins than users, which is somewhat foolish as users should be the ones driving updates as they're the ones who know what functions they need and what bugs they experience.

The popularity of MPlayer is an odd one, as most users will get this from their distro and it's unlikely to be used for system maintenance. Nonetheless, it is more popular than any other package, including the Linux kernel. Even the Linux kernel is oddly placed, at second, as this is announced in so many different places, from LWN and Slashdot to the Linux Kernel Mailing List and LinuxHQ. Most software is only ever announced on its homepage and on Freshmeat only if someone has made a record for it and is keeping it up-to-date. The dilution of the Linux kernel announcements is so staggering that it is amazing that a single service would get so much attention.

I guess if we assume a heavy Government/Educational userbase, it's more understandable. Those are going to be places where heavy-duty mailing lists are not going to be an option, and where surfing websites on the off-chance of an announcement would be frowned upon.

If I'm correct, how do we interpret the numbers? The usage won't be a random sample of a complete cross-section of the population, it'll be a self-selecting group with relatively narrow interests that is largely built up from a relatively small segment of the Open Source userbase.

Well, why should we interpret the numbers? That's an easy one. Corporations resist software they consider "unpopular" or "unused", no matter how useful or productive it would be. They are staggeringly blind to reality. If you can produce meaningful usage estimates, and can defend them, it sometimes (not always) weakens resistance to vitally-needed updates and changes. If you can show that some project has been downloaded by tens of thousands of probable competitors, you can be damn sure that project will be on the server by the next morning, come hell or high water.

Some would argue that it doesn't matter - we get paid to do what we're told to do and to make the managers look good. That entire discussion could - and does - fill vast volumes, with no real answer. I've got my own thoughts, but that';s not really this discussion and I'd probably run Slashdot's servers out of disk space if I were to put them all down here.

Here, I am far more interested in knowing why the userbase for any announcement service should be self-limiting. I've seen places be utterly ignorant of what software exists or where it can be found. I've had people ask me how to search for programs or how I know about updates before the distros push the packages out. On the flip-side, as I've already pointed out, there are packages whose records show far greater levels of access than you would expect, given the availability of the same (or better) information elsewhere, sometimes much sooner.

Based on what I've seen, I am going to say that the records for "mission-critical" software and software of specific interest to one of the niches inhabiting Freshmeat will be relatively close to the actual levels of active interest. Passive interest (eg: users of a desktop Linux system are probably not actively interested in new kernel or glibc releases, but still use those updates) is probably a lot higher, but I don't think it's easily calculable. I'm going to guess that the number of people who actually download the source code is somewhere between two and five times the number who visit the site via Freshmeat.

For commercial and industrial software, I'm going to guess that Freshmeat numbers are way too low, that people discover packages by accident or media rumor, or outsource the updates to some group that use a commercial tracking/monitoring service. For this type of software, I'm guessing that the actual number of people impacted by announcements might be anywhere from five to fifty times the number given in the stats. There is no simple way of finding out who knows what, though, because there is nowhere to look.

However, when giving a presentation to managers on why product A is the one to go for, you can't be vague, you can't be hesitant and you absolutely can't be technical. That's why having a bit more certainty would be a good thing. Lacking any means of being certain, though, anyone in that position has to give some number that managers can use. I would take the URL access value from Freshmeat (the number who actually visited the site, not just the record) and scale it by the midpoint of the numbers I've suggested. It's not perfect, but it's almost certainly the best number you are going to be able to get as things stand.

Yeah, yeah, GIGO. But managers don't generally care about GIGO. They care that they have plausible and defendable numbers to work with. That is what they are getting. If you wait to give them something precise and accurate, you'll certainly be waiting until long after any decision has been made, and probably be waiting forever in many cases.

What if you're a home user? Plenty of those exist. Well, to home users, I would argue that updates from distros are typically slow in coming, that library version clashes are far too frequent, that permutations of configuration that may be interesting or useful usually won't be provided, and that even distros that build locally (Gentoo, for example) have massive problems with keeping current and avoiding unnecessary collisions.

If you're not specifically the sort of user served by the distro of your choice, you WILL find yourself building your own binaries, and you would be very strongly advised to be aware of all updates to those packages when they happen.

Some intrepid geek has found a tiny photo of three guys in the hologram on the surface of the Windows Vista DVD. How widespread is this? (Is it on your copy of the DVD?) Who are these men?

There are plenty of online social networking sites - LinkedIn is the one I'm most familiar with. They seem to be designed around the notion of the Good Old Boys Club, the gentrified country clubs and the stratified societies of the Victorian era, where who you knew mattered more than what you knew.

But are they really so bad? So far, my experience has given me a resounding "maybe". People collect associations the way others collect baseball cards or antiques - to be looked at and prized, but not necessarily valued (prized and valued are not the same thing), and certainly not to be used. But this defeats the idea of social networking, which attempts to break down the walls and raise awareness. Well, that and make a handsome profit in the deal. Nothing wrong with making money, except when it's at the expense of what you are trying to achieve.

So why the "maybe", if my experience thus far has been largely negative? Because it has also been partially positive, and because I know perfectly well that "country club" attitudes can work for those who work them. The catch is that it has to be the right club and the right attitude. That matters, in such mindsets. It matter a lot.

So, I ask the question: Is there an online social networking site that has the "right" stuff?

This is a serious question. I'm not talking about the complexity of the software, per se - if you stuffed any more macros or features into existing products, they'd undergo gravitational collapse. Rather, I'm talking about the whole notion on which word-processors, desktop publishing packages and even typesetting programs such as TeX are based.

What notion is that? That each and every type of writing is somehow magical, special and so utterly distinct from any other type of writing that special templates, special rules and special fonts are absolutely required.

Of course, anyone who has actually written anything in their entire life - from a grocery list onwards - knows that this is nonsense. We freely mix graphics, characters, designators, determinatives and other markings, from scribblings through to published texts. If word-processing is to have maximum usefulness, it must reflect how we actually process words, not some artificial restraint that reflects hardware limitations that ceased to exist about twenty years ago.

The simplest case is adorning the character with notation above it, below it, or as subscript or superscript to either the left or right. With almost no exceptions, this adornment will consist of one or more symbols that already exist in the font you are using. Having one special symbol for every permutation you feel like using is a waste of resources and limits you to the pitiful handful of permutations programmed in.

The next simplest case is any alphabet derived from the Phoenician alphabet (which includes all the Roman, Cyrillic and even Greek alphabets). So long as the program knows the language you want to work in, the translation rules are trivial. The German esset is merely a character that replaces a double s when typing in that language. A simple lookup table - hardly a difficult problem.

Iconographic and Ideographic languages are just an extension to this. You specify a source language and a destination language, and provided you have such a mapping, one word gets substituted with one symbol. You could leave the text underneath and use it as a collection of filenames for grabbing the images, if you wanted to make it easy to edit and easy to program. As before, you already have all the symbols you're ever likely to want to overlay, so you're not talking about having every possible image in a distinct file. Anything not provided can be synthesized.

Other languages can be more of a bugbear, but only marginally. A historical writing style like Cuneiform requires two sizes of line, two sizes of circle, a wedge shape and a half-moon shape. Everything else is a placement problem and can be handled with a combination of lookup tables, rotations and offsets. Computationally, this is trivial stuff.

If the underlying engine, then, has a concept of overlaying characters with different offsets and scales, rotating characters, using lookup tables on regular expressions, and doing simple substitutions as needed, you have an engine that can do all of the atomic operations needed for word-processing or desktop publishing.

This method has been used countless times in the past, but past computers didn't have the horsepower to do a very good job of it. Word-processing has also been stifled in general by the idea that it's a glorified typewriter and that it operates on the character as the atomic unit. What I'm talking about is a fully compositional system. Each end-result character may be produced by a single source symbol, but that would be entirely by chance, as would any connection between any given source symbol and what would be considered a character by the user.

If it's so good, why isn't it used now? Because it's slow. Composing every single character from fundamental components is not a simple process. Because it's not totally repeatable. Two nominally identical characters could potentially differ, because the floating-point arithmetic used is like that. That's why you don't use equalities much in floating-point arithmetic. Because it puts a crimp on the font market. Most fonts are simple derivatives of a basic font, and the whole idea of composition is that simple derivatives are nothing more than a lookup table or macro.

If it's all that, then why want it? Because it makes writing any ancient or modern alphabet trivial, because you can do more in 20 fonts than you can do on existing systems with 2,000, and because it would bugger up the whole Unicode system which can't correctly handle the systems it is currently trying to represent. (The concept behind Unicode is good, but the implementation is a disaster. It needs replacing, but it won't be until someone has a provably superior method - which is the correct approach. It just means that a superior method needs to be found.)

We went through this a few years back when it first started, and I'm already linked to about 20 or 30 of you, but I thought I'd check if there's anyone I missed. You should be able to figure out my "real" email address from my slashdot profile.

There is a new science/geek website out there, called Null Hypothesis, that covers highly unlikely but totally real science. The headline story at the moment is about the sounds of protein molecules. The BBC's coverage of this attempt to out-geek the geeks reports that there are only 60,000 readers - something like a hundredth of what I believe Slashdot's readership is. Even if nobody actually joins the site, it is our clear moral duty to our fellow nerds (and an interesting science experiment they can report on) to attempt to melt the server under a severe Slashdotting.

Q. What's orange and sounds like a parrot?

A. A carrot!

(Try it out on a seven-year-old)

turg's rule of computing #42: Don't partition your hard drive at one o'clock in the morning.

(sigh)

So I thought I'd make an Ubuntu partition on the new hard laptop -- just to play around with it a bit.

So I pop in the CD and boot it up, choose install and start answering the questionnaire. The question about what size to make the partition is confusing (e.g. is it asking what size to resize the existing partition or what size for the new partition) and after I answer it I realize I've answered it wrong and hit the back button (got an "Are you sure?" and said yes) and gave the right answer. I didn't realize that it had started partitioning immediately -- I thought it wasn't doing anything until I finished the whole questionnaire.

So what I wanted was 45 GB for the WinXP partition and 15 for Ubuntu.

What I got is:
-Windows thinks it has a 15 GB hard disk
-Ubuntu thinks it has a 60 GB hard disk with a 15 GB Ubuntu partition and a 45 GB WinXP partition -- except it shows the WinXP partition as 5 GB used and 10 GB available.

Presumably there's some tool I can use in Ubuntu to fix this? I haven't done anything more with it so I haven't tried connecting Ubuntu to the intarwebs yet.

Also, How do I tell Grub to make WinXP the default?

Though, now that I'm thinking about it, I have since decided to make the laptop the primary home of the music collection so maybe I just want to blow away the Ubuntu partition and give the whole 60 GB back to WinXP. I can find someplace else to play with Linux on the desktop.

Yes, back to the grumbling again. I do not enjoy this. If I could write about stuff I liked, I would vastly prefer it. However, that will have to wait until there's stuff I like happening.

This rant has to do with software announcements. I covered this to a degree in a previous journal entry on the secrecy of some open source projects. This time, I will be more concerned with neglect (the known version is truly ancient, compared to the published version), quality (compare the Slashdot description with the Freshmeat one for the same piece of software) and reaction.

Neglect is a big one. I own 113 project records on Freshmeat and have bookmarked an additional 303. Why so many? 303 bookmarks is a lot - can't I just look to see when the project updates are announced? I would, if they ever were. The bookmarks are reminders of correctly-assigned records that the author can't be bothered to maintain. If they get updated at all, it's because I updated them. With the sheer volume of projects involved, you're damn right if I sometimes think some of the bigger Open Source consortia that develop these packages should be paying me for my time. Globus is no small concern, it's a friggin' international collaboration of multinational corporations. Why are they depending on volunteers to take on the unpaid, thankless, tedious task of fixing their neglect?

Ok, what about those 113? How many do you think I actually created? I'd say maybe half, the others I picked up usually because the owner no longer existed. In a few cases, the records were so stale and decayed that the last update predated the owner field, yet the software has been continuing just fine. Again, that's not good. At best, it means that inaccuracies or other reports will fail - nobody to send to.

Freshmeat is not the only software inventory out there, although it's the only one I make any effort to assist. I've assisted a few paid sites as a consultant, and frankly the stagnation there was even worse. It would be so easy to spend every waking moment just bringing these databases up to speed. We're talking extreme neglect not in the hundreds of records but in the tens of thousands. These are professional sites, paid by customers who want accurate information. They aren't getting it. What they get is something that could be anywhere from a few days to a few years behind reality. Frankly, those customers would be infinitely better off buying a giant disk array and using Harvest to index every site that Google reports has at least one page with the word "download" on it. It would work out cheaper very quickly, and you can be sure of how fresh the information is.

Ok, what about quality? If there's no freshness, then quality is automatically suspect, as projects are evolving entities. They're not fixed for all time, except in rare cases. Ignoring that, though, how accurate are announcements as a rule? Not very. The quality of information is generally fairly poor - sometimes because the person providing it doesn't really understand what is being communicated ("Chinese Whispers") and sometimes because the information simply doesn't exist and has to be inferred from the meager clues that have been left. Sherlock Holmes may be a great detective, but he is also a work of fiction. And if anyone did have those skills, do you think they'd be spending them on correcting project records? Where it's good, it can be truly excellent, but since it would also take someone of the power of Holmes to tell you when the information is good, it's not that useful. If the only way to tell is if you already know the answer, you have no need to be able to tell.

What about reaction? Well, let me put it this way. Atlas' official version is 3.7.29. Fedora Core 7 beta 1 uses version 3.6.0. The official version of Geant is 8.2 patch-level 1, but Fedora Core 7 beta 1 uses version 3.21. I've done some experiments with my own Open Source projects and have found that updates and patches follow the laws of Brownian motion. It is simply not possible to predict if/when/how updates will ever occur within a single distribution, but across all variations of all distributions, the net rate of pickup and refinement is more-or-less constant. This is, of course, completely useless to most users - even those with subatomic vector plotters.

Overall, it's a nightmare to find what you want, a bigger nightmare to determine if it is actually what you want, and a total and utter diabolical nightmare from the 666th plane of hell to determine if what is actually available in any way reflects what it was that you thought you were getting.

One of my (oft repeated) complaints about standard distributions such as Gentoo, Debian or Fedora Core, is that I slaughter their package managers very quickly. I don't know if it's the combination of packages, the number of packages, the phase of the moon, or what, but I have yet to get even three months without having to do some serious manual remodelling of the package database to keep things going. By "keep things going", I literally mean just that. I have routinely pushed Gentoo (by doing nothing more than enabling some standard options and adding a few USE flags) to the point where it is completely incapable of building so much as a "Hello World" program, and have reduced Fedora Core to tears. That this is even possible on a modern distribution is shocking. Half the reason for moving away from the SLS and Slackware models is to eliminate conflicts and interdependency issues. Otherwise, there is zero advantage in an RPM over a binary tarfile. If anything, the tarfile has fewer overheads.

Next on my list of things to savagely maul is the content of distributions. People complain about distributions being too big, but that's because they're not organized. In the SLS days, if you didn't want a certain set of packages, you didn't download that set. It was really that simple. Slackware is still that way today and it's a good system. If Fedora Core was the baseline system and nothing more, it would take one CD, not one DVD. If every trove category took one or two more CDs each, you could very easily pick and choose the sets that applied to your personal needs, rather than some totally generic set.

My mood is not helped by the fact that my Freshmeat account shows me to have bookmarked close to three hundred fairly common programs that (glancing at their records) appear to be extremely popular that do not exist on any of the three distributions I typically use. This is not good. Three hundred obscure programs I could understand. Three hundred extremely recent programs I could also understand - nobody would have had time to add them to the package collection. Some of these are almost as old as Freshmeat itself. In my books, that is more than enough time.

And what of the packages I have bookmarked that are in the distros? The distros can sometimes be many years out-of-date. When dependencies are often as tightly-coupled to particular versions as they generally are, a few weeks can be a long time. Four to five years is just not acceptable. In this line of work, four to five years is two entire generations of machine, an almost total re-write of the OS and possibly an entire iteration of the programming language. Nobody can seriously believe that letting a package stagnate that long is remotely sensible, can they?

I'll finish up with my favorite gripe - tuning - but this time I'm going to attack kernel tuning. There almost isn't any. Linux supports all kinds of mechanisms for auto-tuning - either built-in or as third-party patches. And if you look at Fedora Core's SRPM for the kernel, it becomes very very obvious almost immediately that those guys are not afraid of patches or of playing with the configuration file. So why do I end up invariably adding patches to the set for network and process tuning, and re-crafting the config file to eliminate impossible options, debug/trace code that should absolutely never be enabled on a production system (and should be reserved solely for the debug kernels they also provide), and clean up stuff that they could just as easily have probed for? (lspci isn't there as art deco. If a roll-your-own-kernel script isn't going to make use of the system information the kernel provides, what the hell is?)

So I've got my new (that is, new to me -- refurbished lease return) laptop.

Last time I was in this position, the first thing I did was go online to download all the Windows updates. Even with the Windows Firewall turned on, I had several worms, etc., by the time the updates were complete. This time I want to avoid this. Though that was with the original WinXP (home) and this is SP2 (pro).

So:

1) What's the simplest procedure for getting the updates safely?

2) It's possible that this machine already has the updates. How do I find out if it does?

Been a while. I wrote this quick article for Martin and it can be found at 2007FEB020931 & 2007FEB031726 on my flickr site, bootload & repeated it here for anyone who's interested. The title is a play on the term, 'fog of war'. As much as we try, we just cannot get a full grasp of what the future or near tech future holds. Just outside our reach, is something we just haven't forseen ...

The fog of tech - web 2.0

'... sorry for offtopic i just don't know how all this 2.0 stuff works. ...'

Me neither. But I've been thinking about what are the good bits to look at for a while. Web 2.0 is pretty much a created collective term coined by Tim O'Reilly & Dale Dougherty in a brain storming session. You can read the original article, What Is Web 2.0 [1]. In the brain storming session, O'Reilly & Dougherty looked at the differences between the old Web companies & the new ones popping up after the crash in 2001 & summarised them into a diagram called the Web2MemeMap which became the template of what consititues Web 2.0.

But is this really what is happening? Web 2 is after all a made up term describing an set of observations by some book & information publishers. Well yes and no. I'll start with the no because it highlights some shortcomings of the Web2 description.

No

Web 2 these days is a money making machine for information companies. Protected, loosely defined, describing whole slabs of technologies & methodologies that companies have used and can use to build what is essentially just another itteration of the first round web development. This is why it's so difficult to know what Web 2.0 really stands for.

The Web 2 meme also ignores visionaries like Dave Winer who created the technology for and demonstrated blogging and feeds with RSS. What you have here is the top down big business defining its view of the world to better its profitline (O`Reilly as an organisation are constantly looking out for emerging technology to sell to the Alpha geeks)

More than anything Web2.0 is a 'top down' view of what is happening, complete with self interests. Want to know what Web2.0 is? Well come to Web2 Summit where we tell you what Web 2.0 really is (with the attendent costs) as opposed to the lets hack what technology we find after looking at interesting problems & ideas, then organise a really cheap venue where anybody can just turn up as Winer recently demonstrated. The 'Big business Vs Hippy' approach is good in a way as it serves the fragmented market at different levels.

Yes

But supprisingly the original diagram really does describe some tech trends that where simply not as well exploited pre 2000 crash. For example in no particular order

* data: rss, atom and apis is available for a lot of sites

* rights to remix: with the Creative Commons license(s)

* components: using delicious to grab links, images from flickr, rss from your favourite news site

* perpetual beta: on the web nothing is ever finished & always in incremental development mode

* long tail: markets are fragmented into small groups of interested parties (ie: itunes, amazon)

* hackability: with an api and/or rss you can extract data with a bit of code rebuild it into something else on your own site

* mashing: with data via rss or api rebuild something unique like crime over google maps (chicagocrime.org)

* granular access: extract data on delicious by tag by person and topic.

* emergent behaviour: small companies or individuals building things & experimenting instead of a topdown big business plan

So if you have read this far and looked at the links I hope you can see Web2 a bit more clearly. But where are the good bits too look at?

Data

The area I'm increasingly focusing on is Data. For instance, "Who owns you?" If you don't own your own data or at least a copy of it, who does? To me it's data that really matters. Don't be distracted by the AJAX stuff too much. It's important but data is the key. Applications may change but your important data is what matters the most. This is why RSS, service API's matter.

You enter all your data into these fancy websites only to repeat the process over & over again. In the poorly designed or deliberately hobbled sites (Roach motels like the google reversal of the SOAP search api) you can never get your data back. Flickr, Delicious, Stickit are examples of sites that honour your data allowing you to extract it, reuse it and re-program the application via code not the keyboard.

One last concept thats not on the Web2MemeMap but explained in What is Web 2? is the concept of 'software written above the level of the single device'. This idea can be found in section 6 of Tims, "What is Web 2?" and expands on Dave Stutz's advice to Microsoft in his article, Advice to Microsoft regarding commodity software. Anyone who harnesses the Web as a computing platform can expect to gain considerable financial gain through control of that platform. This is useful to understand as key bits of infrastructure (Links via Delicious, Images via Flickr, etc) are snapped up to build that API.

Takeaways

* web 2.0 is a top down emperical description of new business & user models & technology created by O'Reilly for O'Reilly & information consumers

* the descritions of technology & models of both users & businesses who create them have basis in reality

* web 2 is top down. there is a bottom up description that tends to get drowned out or under reported by other developers not the 'oinioted ones'.

* web 2 as an idea is just as much an ideal as a description of a new approach

With that in mind a caution. Like all misunderstood or new technology, Web2 is also hyped a bit too seriously as a silver bullet to all problems and is really a small piece of an evolving technology.

Reference

[1] Its full title is a bit of a mouth full, What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.

I just discovered a relatively new cafe in my neighbourhood. I haven't eaten there yet but it might be my favourite place already: they have free wifi and offer a gluten-free menu.