You can tell something is amiss when a company changes its opinion and sales pitch overnight. And unfortunately, Novell has done just that. Several days ago I spotted the following blog post.

Novell starts pulling down Anti-Microsoft messages from their site.

Do you remember the infamous “Get the facts” campaign. Microsoft put up adverts all over the place for people to “Get the facts”.

[...]

On their website (www.novell.com), Novell now displays a banner, “Microsoft endorses SuSE Linux”. Who needs Microsoft’s endorsement?

It didn’t take a long time for Pamela Jones of Groklaw to point this out as well.

I remember when Novell knew what Microsoft was all about. Remember their webpage, Unbending the Truth: Things Microsoft Hopes You Won’t Notice, answering Microsoft’s Get the Facts campaign? Try going there now. Poof. Redirects you to some pablum about Novell’s SUSE being better than all other Linux distributions

Let us take a closer look.

Jan 13 2006:

“Recently Microsoft has been challenging the suitability of Linux for the enterprise, bending the truth quite a bit to make it fit their view of the world. This site is dedicated to unbending the truth and setting the record straight. Take the time to explore the facts, and you’ll understand why Microsoft is challenging Linux, and why Linux is often a better choice than Windows for satisfying the business needs of enterprises”

http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/

Nov 20 2006:

Why Choose SUSE Linux from Novell?

“Linux* is about more than an operating system. It’s about applications and databases that run on Linux. It’s about technical support. It’s about consulting expertise. It’s about training. And most importantly, it’s about you. How will Linux help you run your business better? Not all Linux distributions are created equally. With SUSE® Linux Enterprise Server 9 from Novell®, you get the best-engineered Linux from a vendor that can deliver a global ecosystem to surround it”

http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/

Now, I suppose, Microsoft’s censors will approve.

Verfasst von Oencke has come up with some interesting insights. He highlights the parallels between a classic protection racket scenario and the Novell/Microsoft deal.

What does the wikipedia say about protection rackets? I’ll add my comments in brackets {..}. These may or may not be accurate:

“A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful organization {Microsoft?}, most often a criminal organization or gang, coerces individuals {you} or businesses {you} to pay protection money{ SUSE subscription fee} which allegedly serves to purchase the organization’s “protection” services {“patent peace of mind”, S. Ballmer*} against various external threats {patent lawyers}….

It would be reasonable to assume that Microsoft, being the ‘bully’ here, will use Novell to promote its own agenda and commercial interests. I opine that it is no longer necessary to draw any comparisons with SCO. This analogy has been used by various respectable editors who went overboard with the intention of sending loud warning signals.

While Novell remains committed to ODF, as indicated below, Novell may have also ‘contaminated’ OpenOffice in the process of development. The legal boundaries are vague, but Novell has little fear because it has struck a mutual protection deal while excluding all others. This could work to Novell’s benefit in the short term (shareholders would cheer), at the expense of the rest of the Linux community. In fact, since many of the projects at hand run under multiple platform, it is also a great threat, to be broader, to Free software. Harm can be due to inclusion of Microsoft code, visibility of Microsoft code, or collaboration. Richard Stallman realised this in the dawn of the Free Software movement, which is why Linux easily ensures/d SCO’s (Microsoft proxy) baseless accusations.

We will also continue to contribute as part of the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications Technical Committee to enhance ODF and ensure that ODF standards are the premier file format standards for office applications.

Let me take my tinfoil hat and confess that it would be overly presumptuous to jump to conclusions. However, I merely try to present some possibilities here. With regards to Mono or OpenOffice, no clear violation has been identified as there isn’t yet any concrete proof. I would like to close by quoting an item that grabbed my attention a few months ago.

The best part of the file Michael sent to me was that the data was formatted into a “Data Pilot,” which is OpenOffice’s analog to the Microsoft Excel “pivot table.” Data pilots, as well as support for xls pivot tables, is a whole new feature area in OpenOffice.org that I really ought to post something about, too. (So many features, so little time.)

Source: Ted Haeger, Novell

This writeup dates back to August. One wonders if a ‘bomb’ was planted in the code (deliberately by Microsoft while not deliberately by Novell), which sets a legal minefield that has percolated onto other distributions by now. If so, can patches be identified, retracted, or altogether rejected? Can anybody trust Novell at this stage? Their hand on this project, particularly at this stage, seems harmful because any element of FUD is worth a thousand lawsuits, to quote [H]omer.

[puts tinfoil hat back on head /]

Evolve or perish

love the Larry King show. I really do, I swear! I no longer get around to watching Larry King Live, but I have truly admired the guy for his eloquence and knowledge… until now. Have a look at the reason. While some people lag behind when it comes to understanding the Web (HTML), IBM celebrates the tenth anniversary of XML.

Got something to say? Then say it in satellite pictures.

It’s a nice idea with an implementation that delivers the output as you type.

Similar tools:

• Text to Church Sign Convertor
• ASCII Banner Generator
• Cyborg Name Generator
• Polaroid Images

Here is my first article in NewAssignment.net. The final version was polished and made more reader-friendly by David Cohn. Here is the initial essay (ramble-saturated draft as a matter of in fact) that was composed before further editing job.

On many levels, the process or collaboratively writing articles resembles the process of Open Source software development. Herein we investigate various aspects that demonstrate and exemplify the parallels between open-ended work on computer code, as well as on factual content which is controlled by a group.

1. Bug fixing in code equates to the process of peer review and fact checking in journalism

To use an example, Mozilla’s Bug-catching efforts are equivalent to fact checking. There are many similarities between these two processes. More eyeballs on the code (or articles) make bugs (or mistakes) shallow, to use Linus Torvalds’ famous statement.

2. Reuse and reproducibility of code versus exploration of content and public databases

With openness in mind, one is more interested in sharing. This leads to the idea of building upon prior or present work of others. That, as a matter of fact, is where the power of Open Source concepts and paradigms lies, particularly those which align with scientific motives (e.g. standing on the shoulders of giants to see further, to use Newton’s analogy). One of the strengths of Open Source-esque assemblage of information is that one can ‘massage’ content or code to better suit different purposes in different contexts.

3. Versioning, editions, fixes, patches, and corrections as spearate press releases

Open Source journalism opens the doors to, as well as encourages, versioning of content (revisions, changes, and rollbacks). Moreover, it can be passed among various minds, attracting more pairs of eyes which verify its validity. Consequently, material can be corrected before outrageous, inflammatory or errorenous information gets published. Once again, the argument revolves around peer moderation and review. Open Source is renowned for being a quick and reliable method for assessing work, thereby providing an almost-immediate quality assurance.

4. Expansion; no privatisation or ‘commoditisation’

Content which is open is available for extension since ownership becomes a ‘fluid’, so to speak, territory. Creative Commons licenses, for example, permit and accommodate derivative work with various defensive exceptions. It becomes a case where the “one-size-fits-all” myth is broken. Different authors and audiences seek accurate information with a different slant.

5. Code similarity, duplicability and linking

Popularisation and wealth of hyperlinks on the Web rids authors from this laborious need for dynamic references which are detailed, cluttered, and difficult to follow. Links obviate the need to repeat. With the vast size of the Web, however, concern also emerge with regards to reliability of information. On the other hand, the ability to follow links at ease makes it less necessary to reiterations that serve the reader the ‘leg work’. Similar information can be merged, inter/cross-linked and knowledge is thus forged to become more cohesive and centralised. Excess due to duplicability is the motivator to gathering information in a single place which—in turn—enables more eyes to view and correct mistakes. It is hardly surprising that collaboration and unification (much like standardisation) benefit all by improving the eventual outcome. These prevent waste, as well as reinventions and incarnations of the same wheel.

6. Monetised model — donate on investigations that appeal to you

Independence for the writer is analogous to the freedom of a freelance software developer. Financial interests can often be curtailed (albeit not necessarily so).

7. Recognition as motivator, money secondary factor

It is no secret that many reporters are overworked and underpaid. The reason for persistence, however, is often genuine interest, true personal involvement, and impact. The same can sometimes be said about software developers who seek to fulfil a goal, overcome perils, and address personal pet peeves. Satisfaction comes from a self-tailored product, be it an article or software. Eric Raymond calls this phenomenon “scratch-itching” software where each member of the development group addresses his/her own needed and desires. Ultimately, the requirements of the entire team provides the perfect software package which everyone is pleased with. Put differently, on average, its optimality corresponds to the involved group.

8. Audience judges and substantiates popularity, but quantity does not lead to higher cost of production

One of the key observation to make is that the cost of manufacturing an electronic code (text/information) are merely inexistent. They involve no physical raw material. Let us consider and set aside the exception: information is environment-friendly only if you neglect energy which only sometimes (e.g. random-access memory) persistently retains information and, in itself, requires combustion of material. A tiered Web (and the end of Net neutrality) could soon change this perception however.

Unlike the production of a paid of shoes, for example, replicating code (programs) is a money-independent process. It is only research and development that counts. Likewise, in electronic journalism, it is the effort of the group (e.g. time spent) that counts while no paper needs to be produced. Bandwidth limits aside, a successful story can reach a wide audience and received a lot of feedback (including corrections) without elevating any production/delivery costs.

9. Authorship/credit

It is a known fact that people’s own code (or product of composition) becomes their ‘baby’. With Open Source models, there remains an electronic trail which indicate who contributed which part of an article or program (e.g. SVN, CVS for version control). Thus, credit can be given to the rightful person or mistakes be traced back to the culprit — the one guilty of erroneous inclusions).

10. Editorial control, personal writing style/unification

Consistency is an important aspect of paper-based publications and code alike. It is important not to duplicate effort (e.g. similar/identical articles or multiple functions which achieve a similar goal). There needs to be supervision that relies on knowledge that is applied in a top-down direction.

In summary, there are several characteristics to Open Source software development which define and promote the concept of Open Source journalism. Key virtures that are sought by journalists can be backed by successful, established, and well-proven overlaps in software.

I have also put together a short bio for the site (mildly edited).

Bio: Roy Schestowitz is a Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics at Manchester University. While on the verge of completion he finds himself fascinated by endless possibilities which the World Wide Web offers; consequently, he often gets distracted and sidetracked. He advocates the use of Open Source technology in the public and private sector, as well as uses his background in computing to make personal contribution to the Free Software movement. In his spare time he engages in activities ranging from weights-related sports to easy-listening music.

Click to enlarge the image

Google Earth/Maps finally go back further into history. That’s right. There’s a notion of time now, according to various press releases.

Google added historic map overlays to its free interactive online globe of the world to provide views of how places have changed with time.

How long will it be before their rivals imitate (or ‘innovate’, as they call it)? To be fair, it’s all about data gathering, so there is no genuine thinking involved.

It has been long weeks since I promised that I would publish my short interview with a Wired Magazine reporter. So finally, here it is:

Opening Question

Are sites like Digg and Netscape threatening the job of editors the way blogs have threatened reporters?

These are most definitely a threat. Anyone who denies that is, well….. in denial. Academically-speaking, peer-reviewed content suffers in quite the same way, primarily due to CiteSeer et al (publication farms) and the “just Google it” culture. I have had elaborate discussions with colleagues about this…

Interview

First, can I get some background on you. How old are you, where do you live and what do you do? One thing I want to convey is the every-dayness of contributors. I want readers to understand that people in their 20′s are able to manipulate as much web traffic as the New York Times’ editor.

I am a 24-year-old Ph.D. student from Manchester University. I have been studying here since I was 18 and I am amidst graduation (the viva). My daily routine has changed significantly in the past year. From being a (or “just another”) blogger I soon became a highly involved contributer in forums (technical newsgroups and mailing lists in particular). As time went by I found myself infatuated. A new phenomenon emerged, which offered access to a large audience. That was the point when I joined Digg. I was soon heavily (albeit not always happily) entangled. The longer I was there, the more influence I had. I was able to drive traffic to articles that appealed to me. I was even contacted by people whose site I had ‘Dugg’. The loveaffair continued as the momentum was there; there was something charming and addictive about it.

I am going to talk to some people about how they approach Digging, but I wanted to ask you more about how you approach being a Netscape Navigator. I, of course, am unfamiliar with your duties. How is it different from when you were a free contributor to Digg? Does it feel different because you are getting paid?

So… I shall assume that your input from Diggers obviates the need for me to deliver information about that side of the fence.

In Netscape, our duties involve the delivery of at least 5 submissions per day (on average). I personally exceed that by a factor of ~6, which means that votes, owing to their distributions, get ‘diluted’. Beyond the contribution of content, there are no commitments or responsibilities that are mandated with an iron fist. In fact, the atmosphere is very nice as the bosses are lenient. The ambition comes from within rather than from above. Commitment for the site is a driving force. We have some lively mailing lists ‘at the back’ and we attempt to find and intercept spam submissions using some rudimentary tools. There is an increasing number of so-called ‘clans’ or ‘sock puppets’ that try to game the system.

More importantly — social bookmarking in total (digg, redit, netscape etc,): Do you feel your role as a “Top Digger” or “Netscape Navigator” give you a certain amount of power over web traffic? Is that a safe power for anyone to have? How do you think that relates to the control of a traditional newspaper editor?

As a Navigator, there is definitely a certain power that comes from the number and quality of one’s submissions. Recognition helps too and Navigators have the advantage of having their avatars appear in many places. And that certainly gives additional control over Web traffic. I hope this addresses your question.

The power is safe to have as long as the user/contributer (mind the subtle difference in terminology) can be trusted. Bear in mind that people’s submissions reflect on their passions and beliefs. In a political context this has led to some friction. I can’t attest to the experience of an editor in the press. However, be aware that there is no master mind (editor in chief), neither do we have real moderation or balancing mechanism (an ongoing issue to address). Supervisions appears to be minimal or very sporadic/selective.

Important point to add: social networks are driven by votes, so prominent content is being determined by the minds of the readers, whether it’s correct or not, whether it’s balanced or not. Social networks should always raise skepticism, so an outsider must never trust them. Social networks can be clannish and they can repel a certain crown while being a magnet to another. Digg, for example, is being transformed into an Apple turf, among other topics for which member have a passion.

Followup questions

1. Do you consider social bookmarking a new type of profesion? If so, how do you define it, what skills are involved?

Social bookmarking is, judging by my own perception, a contribution that enjoys a symbiotic relationship with one’s passion and interests. In many cases it can be a residue of one’s browsing habits; it has a (financial) reward bound to it as well.

The skills involved are few and the ‘entry barrier’ is, in general, very low. This does not necessarily indicate that there is motivation for dumbing-down of content. As short snippets bound to links are no longer a sin per se, there is this danger that journalism, attributions, and sources will be redefined.

2. Have you or anybody else ever recieved offers to get paid to submit a specific link? I’m getting the impression that this is not unheard of.

No, I was never approached with such an offer. I have, on the other, recently become aware of sites that encourage manipulation of content. This is worrisome.

3. Is this a good way for people to get their news: Is it as informative as a regular newspaper?

As I previously said, social networks and sites that represent a certain clique are bound to have bias. It’s seems inevitable that corruption and spamming will become more widespread and less detectable, too. That said, newspaper are no exception, albeit they are more closely regulated and artificially-balanced/moderated. Take the following as an example.

Bill Gates lends cash to buy newspapers

$350 million to MediaNews

Gates involvement has been very behind the scenes. In fact many of those involved in the deal didn’teven know he was one of the investors. It was carried out through the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy outfit.

Source