porkrind writes: Given its roots in the GNU project, free software and the four freedoms, Open Source has always had an element of social advocacy and the betterment of humankind. Should open source communities be expected to bear some responsibility for related causes? Our communities have traditionally advocated for social issues like information rights, but what about things like gender and racial equality in high tech? Given that the hippies were right about freedom all along, maybe it's time to take their cue on other issues, as well, eg. the Ada Initiative and other efforts to address under-represented minorities in the tech industry.
porkrind writes: This is a restrospective to mark the 10th anniversary of what has remained the biggest IPO of all time — in terms of largest first day gain. It looks at the legacy of VA and puts the IPO day in context. I tried to capture just how surreal the whole thing felt. I felt then, and feel now, that VA was on the cusp of something really great, but just... couldn't... get... there. Read the post here.
porkrind writes: "In light of recent events, it's time to re-examine the role of the Open Source Initiative. The current Open Source leadership is simply too inflexible, rigid and incapable of taking in new information. The result is what I describe as an echo chamber-induced myopia. [insert Bush comparisons here] In this article, I advocate moving away from the OSI and creating a new system of governance based on the Creative Commons model."
porkrind writes: "Nick Carr, of 'Does IT Matter?' fame, has penned an article asking the question whether Google is a model for other companies to emulate or whether it's too much of an anomaly to be useful in a cross-industry sense. He also asks the question of whether Google's approach to management and innovation (much ballyhooed in many circles) is a cause or result of its success. The answer to whether your company should emulate Google is, perhaps unsurprisingly, "it depends." His analysis and logic leading to that conclusion are definitely a thought-provoking read. His ultimate conclusion is that Google's success is much more attributable to its leading-edge IT operations than any of the hype you may read about in glossy journals."
porkrind writes: "Nick Carr, of 'Does IT Matter?' fame, has penned an article asking the question of whether Google is a model for other companies to emulate or whether it's too much of an anomaly to be useful in a cross-industry sense. He also asks the question of whether Google's approach to management and innovation (much ballyhooed in many circles) is a cause or result of its success. The answer to whether your company should emulate Google is, perhaps unsurprisingly, "it depends." His analysis and logic leading to that conclusion are definitely a thought-provoking read. His ultimate conclusion is that Google's success is much more attributable to its leading-edge IT operations than any of the hype you may read about in glossy journals."
porkrind writes: "What sorts of personality traits do you look for when you hire employees in IT? Or do you feel that judging a potential new hire on personality is ethically wrong? This blog post suggests a system that looks for 2 archetypes to fill IT roles: the "hows" who only focus on 'making it go' with whatever they've been given and the "whys" who question every methodology and are responsible for building new stuff, which the "hows" will then deploy. TFBP implies that these traits can be detected in an interview process, even though all of them may possess very similar resumes. Is this even possible? Or is "hows" vs "whys" a false dichotomy?"
cyrusmack writes: "During the rise and fall of AB 1668, California's open formats bill, the media misrepresented the struggle in the simplistic form of industry goliaths engaging in market warfare — without giving proper due to the — some would say obvious — moral issues at play. In this open letter, I have taken them to task for their piss-poor efforts and lack of basic critical thinking skills. Some would say we cannot expect better, but I say we have to expect better and yell about it when they don't meet expectations; otherwise nothing will change.
Read the full text here"
porkrind writes: "David Herron has a great post on his blog at java.net. David uncovered an old CNET article listing 10 technologies that "don't stand a chance" with Java, of course, being one. It would seem that the death of Java has been foretold multiple times for at least 10 years now. One wonders how long it needs to survive before someone admits, "well, perhaps this Java thing will make it after all.""
porkrind writes: "Hyperic HQ 3.1, the GPL'd software released early this week, was named the Best Systems Management Tool in the Product Excellence Awards at LinuxWorld Expo, beating out OpenNMS and Splunk 3.0. This marked the first time that Hyperic HQ was entered into the contest, which featured products from exhibitors at LinuxWorld Expo and NGDC in San Francisco."
Cyrus Mack writes: "I've written a paper on why access to information should be recognized explicitly as a basic human right. Laws should protect citizens from oppressive governments that wish to restrict these rights. If we don't do this, we risk scores of disenfranchised people with no means to fully participate in our digital society. This puts them at a severe disadvantage. Legislation such as California's AB 1668 must be supported and rights protected."
Cyrus Mack writes: "Watch MS lobbyists and their friends in all their disengenuous glory as they explain to this California assembly committee why open standards are bad. Their arguments?
* Sun is doing this to give themselves a competitive advantage
* proponents of ODF have stifled Microsoft's efforts with standards bodies
* The market is addressing the issue anyway, so legislation is unnecessary
Never mind the fact that OOXML, should it be approved by the ISO, would most likely qualify under AB 1668, the bill under discussion. Why does Microsoft fight for standards acceptance on one hand, and then against it with the other?"
Cyrus Mack writes: "Microsoft has raised its ugly head once again in the battle over California AB 1668. The Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy debated AB 1668 for a full hour on Tuesday, with lengthy arguments on both sides. Due to some fierce opposition, AB 1668 has now been reduced in scope to a pilot project involving a few state agencies, including the state CIO. See bytesfree.org for details. Sun was in full voice supporting the bill while Microsoft brought out the usual suspects. Please, for the love of God, California residents, write your state assembly member."