The Force of Open Source

2010-06-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome (back) to my blog!
This post is the last in a sequence of posts that will be written (partly) for educational purposes. My word count was high enough already, but I realised that I yet have to write one more post.
Well, this is it. If I will continue this blog, I will add "fun stuff" as well. Games that are F/OSS, for example, could be a nice topic. But that did not suit the course well enough so I could not pick topics like that.
What I didn't realise is that the latter made things less easy than they seemed. I mean, taking a business perspective made it a bit harder to write for this blog. I experienced quite a lot of writer's blocks as it seemed, but now the pressure is gone a bit things might change in a positive manner.

Until later

___________

A Future Changed by Google: Old Steps in a new Dance?

2010-06-05T17:15:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome (back) to my blog!
According to an article on Cnet.com that was published last Monday, Steve Jobs stated that we are, at least according to him, approaching the “post-PC era”. Even though smart phones and tablet devices like the Apple iPad might support this statement, Google may have a more lasting impact.

Matt Asay, who is currently COO at Canonical Ltd. (the company behind the Linux distribution Ubuntu) wrote the following about that on his blog recently (June 2, 2010):

Given the fact that so much of Google's development is in open source, and all of their line of business apps are cloud-based, it stands to reason that given the bleeding edge levels of open source adoption which the company enjoys, they can very easily transition its internal desktop users to both Mac and Linux.
(...)
While open-source software has outpaced and perhaps helped to fuel a general technology recovery, Google's adoption of open source is unique and unparalleled. No one uses and creates more open-source software than Google. The company even manages its highly proprietary Macs with an open-source configuration management tool called Puppet.

Let me state that Google likely can't change the answer on the question "What should a desktop OS look like?". However, it is defining the future of that desktop in a way that may have a stronger influence than the iPad from Apple. Key words: Android and Chrome. Both are open-source initiatives by Google that will be a more significant factor in many people's computing experience. On smart phones, those customers will use Android to check their Gmail in-boxes, do searches with Google's search engine, and whatever else people may do on smart phones (and in this case I don't mean calling someone). On their PCs, a growing number of people use Chrome as their web browser, with which they (as you probably already guessed) use Gmail as their web-mail service, use the aforementioned search engine to find the web content they are looking for, share their pictures with Picassa, blog on Blogger, etcetera.
Google has probably got the success it has got, by using the same trick as it's rival from Redmond: bring a product on the market, get users comfortable with it and release another product with which the same is done. Repeat this several times and it is almost guaranteed that the customers are being locked-in.
So this may be a rather new dance, but I can recognise some old steps. I suppose that certain things might never change.

But now, if you don't mind it, I will do just one more thing before I close Firefox: that is checking my web-mail on GMX.

2010-05-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome back to my blog! Today I will continue with the subject I had last time. This particular part will probably the last one, I will change my subject afterwards.

What kinds of things could you use RFID technology for? This could be:
paying electronically and fully automatic when leaving a store
giving your children the opportunity to playback children's videos without an assisting adult; each RFID chip (e.g. put on a small card) being associated to a particular video file in a script running the necessary commands natively in a Linux environment (hiding the keyboard and mouse may be advisable in this case).
The registration of the book circulation of a library. The books being returned, for example, are being detected by an RFID reader that is receiving an unique number from the RFID chip. The computer system in use will detect in this way, what particular book is being returned by what particular individual.
De opening of doors can be RFID controlled as well. The first video linked to in this post shows a professional solution, while the other shows a do-it-yourself variety.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kdpi_mykey-2300-rfid-pin-door-lock_tech (my apologies for the advertisment before the start of the video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXpCk26O6WA

I hope that the link wit F/OSS is clear: there exist certain applications of RFID that have “native support” for them in Linux environments (though that does not necessarily imply that no other software needs to bee installed, e.g. see the keystroke simulation / workspace switch in the previous post).

RFID (part 1)

2010-05-23T08:49:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome (back) to my blog! Today I will start to (superficially) discuss RFID technology and link this technology to Free/Open Source Software (F/OSS).

First, I will give some attention to what RFID is. RFID, or Radio Frequency Identification, is a sytem used for tagging and identifying objects to enable identifying them. By using such an identification technology, it is possible to for example register which products are leaving a warehouse or store, open doors for certain people or tracking pets.
There are generally three types of RFID tags: active RFID tags, which contain a battery and can transmit signals autonomously, passive RFID tags, which have no battery and require an external source to provoke signal transmission, and battery assisted passive (BAP) RFID tags, which require an external source to wake up but have significant higher forward link capability providing greater range (retrieved 23 may 2010, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID).

The RFID tags can be “read” by a RFID reader, which is connected to a (personal) computer or microcontroller. By programming the latter, all kinds of actions can be linked to certain particular signals.

As an example of such a script, I wish to give this simple example of a script that is able to run natively on a Linux OS. The script makes sure that when a particular RFID signal is “picked up” by the reader connected to the computer, it will switch to another workspace (a Linux based operating system usually enables to spread open applications over several “desktops” (workspaces in jargon)).
This is the link to the script (pasted in a .doc file to make it accessible to everyone): http://bit.ly/9yEv7e. The workspaces are being switched by simulating the necessary keystrokes with a small program called XTE.

End of part 1

2010-04-20T09:07:00.001-07:00

Hello and welcome (back) to my weblog! This weblog is still focussing onto F/OSS within organisations, so I decided to give some attention to the subject of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) in organisations that make use of F/OSS in their daily activities.
In this blog post, I will sketch a scenario in which an organisation may be doing CRM while using free or Open Source software. Imagine yourself an environment in which employees use the web browser Firefox. No matter the operating system installed, the users are enabled to use Firefox (and thus F/OSS) to access CRM software that runs remotely on a server (retrieved 20 April, 2010 from http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/faq.html).
Employees can use Microsoft Windows, but for example also Linux distributions like Ubuntu, SUSE, Red Hat or Mandriva on their PCs or thin clients. Thus if the company decides to ditch proprietary software (or at least for a part), they should not think they can not step away from Windows for CRM-related activities within the organisation. However, if it has some reasons to keep using MS Office instead of switching to e.g. openOffice.org, then it remains advisable to keep using the operating system with the number one position on the desktop market on that particular computer.

Please keep in mind that I am not responsible for wrong (parts of) information. This blog post may only be capable of acting as a starting point for further research, by companies that wish to combine CRM with F/OSS. I am not an expert in this particular subject, so I suggest doing inquiries elsewhere as well..

Ubuntu 10.04 "Mini Release Party" in Tilburg

2010-04-16T08:14:00.000-07:00

(In Dutch, because the event only aims at residents of the Netherlands and Flanders and thus it does not serve a purpose to place an English announcement here)

Op 1 Mei a.s. zal er, in navolging van van de "hoofd" Release Party in Ede, een Mini Release Party in Tilburg worden gehouden in café "Little Devil". Dit ter ere van de nieuwste release van het Open Source besturingssysteem Ubuntu. Ubuntu 10.04 "Lucid Lynx" is een OS met als hart de zogenoemde Linux kernel. Het is een stabiel systeem dat vlot draait en geen zware eisen stelt aan de hardware. En toch is het een zeer modern systeem met vele gratis beschikbare applicaties en een prettige bediening.
Het is geen probleem om het naast Windows of Mac OS X (mits de iMac in kwestie met een Intel processor is uitgerust) te installeren.

Klik op het "thumbnail" hieronder voor de flyer. Tevens is er extra informatie te vinden op www.releaseparty.eu

N.B: De hierboven genoemde Release Parties zijn een initiatief van de Nederlandse "community" van Ubuntu gebruikers (Ubuntu NL). De organisatoren zijn dus geen werknemers van Canonical Ltd., maar vrijwilligers en gebruikers van het OS.

Some Thoughts About my Short Blogging History

2010-04-01T23:45:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome, I dare to say it has been a while since last post. Though I will make it right by intensifying my blogging activities in the next few weeks. Before I forget to do so, I would like to inform you that I will stop keeping a “storyline” in the blog. So you won't see any posts that can be regarded as something like chapters from a book from now on. Or at least, I have got the feeling that it was more like I was writing a book than that I was maintaining a blog. I started with a post describing free and open source software, started a next one about advantages, and then slowly but steadily started to realise that my set-up has a drawback. It may be just fine initially, but too soon it's loosing “power” as it seems.

You may think, “Why didn't he just write separate posts about anything related to F/OSS and organisations right from the start? Why on earth didn't he do so earlier?” Well, I thought that a short introduction on the matter would be nice for a part of my potential readers. If I hadn't written one, I would probably only have had readers already knowing (a bit) about F/OSS. That would be a matter of preaching in my own church, and thus a matter of not reaching people who are newbies* regarding the subject.

Anyway, from now on I will just write anything interesting that is (more or less) related to the subject F/OSS in organisations. And suggestions or questions are always welcome of course. You can put them in a comment, or e-mail* or tweet** them to me.

P.S.: possibly there will be one or more CRM related posts soon, which should be interesting. Though I am still doing some research into the matter, currently. :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Peter1986 @ gmx . com (the spaces are a spam prevention)
** @Chevalr1c

Some advantages of F/OSS for organisations

2010-02-25T04:01:00.000-08:00

Hello and welcome (back) to my blog!
Today I am going to write about the advantages for organisations to use F/OSS* instead of proprietary software. Well, some of them at least, because the main purpose of this piece of writing is to have a starting point for a more practice-oriented point of view on the matter later on. That should be more fun to read about, and if I will feel the need to add something “theoretical” I will probably do so in the blog post of that particular week.

Anyway, here we go:

1) Access to the source code and the rights to modify it, guarantees the possibility to lengthen the life cycle of a product that the organisation makes use of. Even if the publisher of the software does not officially support it any more. So for example file formats that are “End of Life” can still be used if it is necessary to do so (→ opening older, archived files).
For example the Open Document Format** will (theoretically speaking) always be usable, even if there are no office applications left that officially support it. Though unfortunately this is not always realised by companies and other institutes, thus resulting in the continued use of patented file formats. Thus when the owner of the technology decides to switch to a different format, the previous format might be “dropped”. This way organisations (and individuals) will sooner or later be “forced” to adopt the new file type, even when they actually have reasons to not do so (e.g. loosing the ability to open older files, technical flaws in the new format like unnecessarily large files, or interoperability issues).
2) The software is allowed to be modified, so it is possible for the organisation to add new features, solve bugs and do security fixes, as long as the requirements of the license are not violated. The latter usually means that the made changes are supposed to be published (including the source code!) or given to the development team that made the software. If the application (or other software technology, e.g. a file format) is officially discontinued, it can thus get a second life within the organisation (using it internally).
3) Individuals or companies other than the publisher are allowed to give technical support, that may be better or cheaper than support from the publisher of the software. So the organisations using the software are not dependent on one supplier.
4) License costs are often lower, because of the lower costs for the developers. This is not always the case though. Anyway, I will not discuss it now, because it may be better to write a separate blog post about such things.

Maybe I forgot to put certain things in the list, but at the moment of writing I care little. We have got a good starting point now, and all of you should have a clue for what I am writing about. I will try to get onto real life cases (or something similar) next time and after, because I will get way too boring if I will keep making blog posts like these.

Until next time!

------------------------------------------------------
* See my first post for a definition of this term.
** This “family” of formats should not be confused with Adobe PDF.

A little correction

2010-02-11T04:46:00.000-08:00

In the second section, I wrote "Open source software is software not being protected by copyrights". However, this is not true. The licenses used for non-proprietary software actually relies on copyright laws to guarantee the users' freedoms of use, redistribution etc. Because without partly relying on copyright, the software would become public domain, thus allowing everyone to change a copy or modification into proprietary software (retrieved 11 February, 2010 from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html).

Thus I changed it into "Open source software is software that is not proprietary". This may still seem far from perfect if read here, but the context makes sure things are set right this way.

Many thanks to "Vanadium" from the ubuntu-nl.org forum section, for pointing this mistake out.

2010-02-10T06:56:00.000-08:00

Welcome at my blog!

This this initial post, I will try to give a short introduction on the subject by giving a short description of the “open source” and “free software” ideologies. In the second post I will write in general about how it could be advantageous for (commercial) organisations. In General? Indeed, because it seems a less-than-perfect idea to me to start now already with real world cases in form of, say, the latest developments concerning (the use of) open source technology in either commercial or non-commercial organisations. That is not really something suitable for an introduction on the matter, is it?
Anyway, let us get started by taking a look at the open source ideology. It is used the most in software, but it is actually a possible point of view for other technology, documents and creative works as well (though in the latter cases, different terminology is usually used). I will focus on the software part, however and I will not discuss things like Creative Commons, GNU Free Documentation License or anything else that cannot be more or less directly related to software.

Open Source Software and Free Software: a distinction

Open source software is software that is not proprietary (1). Such software is provided a license, just like in case of closed source programs, though such licenses can at best be described as being “copyleft”: you are allowed to copy it, share it and study (and even alter) its source code, though your redistribution or derivative product must be open source software as well. For those readers that wish to volunteer for reading the full definition, here it is.
Besides open source software (OSS), there is also a different kind of non-proprietary software. To this is being referred as “free software”, which should not be confused with “freeware” (which is provided without a fee, but is copyrighted). The word “free” is like in “free speech” or “freedom”, not like in “free beer”.
Free software makes use of the same principles as open source software, though there exist open source licenses that are too restrictive to be regarded as free. In addition, free software is made by people who have ethical reasons to release the software as being free. So for free software advocates, it is more than just the practical advantages of non-copyrighted programmes.
This can be illustrated by the following quote from Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (2007):

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
(retrieved 9 February, 2010 from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

Thus it can be said that “free software” is more or less a political movement, while “open source” is purely a development model.

Umbrella term

But how to refer to free and open source software, if the distinction will be quite hard notice in practice? Both may look the same, but they are not and thus we need a decent “umbrella term” to avoid using the name “open source” when we should not. The title of my blog is actually using it for both free and OSS, though that partly serves a purpose. People are most likely to search the web on “open source”, because that phrase is used the most by people who wish to present it as a development or business model (and besides that, a lot of people do not make a distinction between open source and free software).
So from this point, I will use the term “F/OSS” for all software that is not proprietary. That way we will avoid confusion.

Next time: how could F/OSS be of serve to (commercial) organisations?

----------------------------------------------

(1) Proprietary: Its use, redistribution or modification is either not allowed, or requires you to pay a fee or to get permission from the authors.