Matt Loney's Blog
What it says on the box
Thursday 25 October 2007, 1:33 PM
ZDNet.co.uk scoops another award
On Tuesday night the UK tech industry's press and PR gathered in London's Piccadilly for an inaugural awards event (I hesitate to use a word that might give the impression it was terribly ceremonious - the tone was very much about having fun and networking).
The Flackenhacks, dreamt up by Peter Kirwan of Fullrun fame, certainly get points for kicking off in style. And of course for awarding ZDNet the title of Best Business Tech Publication 2007.
This is ZDNet's second award in as many months, and it means that in addition to being judged the best business tech website by the AOP, who represent the publishing industry old and new, ZDNet.co.uk is also the best business tech publication (online or off) according to the UK tech industry - or at least those sections of the UK tech industry who like a tipple.
And kudos to our competition in the short list - I have nothing but respect for IT Week and The Register, and the people who work on them despite my tongue-in-cheek acceptance speech on the night.
The Flackenhacks, dreamt up by Peter Kirwan of Fullrun fame, certainly get points for kicking off in style. And of course for awarding ZDNet the title of Best Business Tech Publication 2007.
This is ZDNet's second award in as many months, and it means that in addition to being judged the best business tech website by the AOP, who represent the publishing industry old and new, ZDNet.co.uk is also the best business tech publication (online or off) according to the UK tech industry - or at least those sections of the UK tech industry who like a tipple.
And kudos to our competition in the short list - I have nothing but respect for IT Week and The Register, and the people who work on them despite my tongue-in-cheek acceptance speech on the night.
Sunday 21 October 2007, 11:26 PM
Why I've moved from Vista to Ubuntu 7.10
I've been using Windows since it was battling for desktop supremacy with GEM in the early 90s. In the mid 90s I spent several years producing newspapers on Apple Macs. Since the late 90s I've dabbled with Linux, but there have always been compelling reasons to return to, or stick with, Windows. No more, for two reasons: Vista, and Ubuntu 7.10 (ala Gutsy Gibbon).
Through all this time I have looked forward to each new version of Windows either because I expected it to be more stable, add better hardware support, or correct problems in some other way. Several weeks ago I took delivery of a brand, spanking, £1300-worth of notebook in the form of an Asus V1S desktop replacement. It's a lovely machine, if unwieldy. A quick tour of the stickers next to the keyboard reveals such delights as a SATA hard drive, GeForce 8600 GT graphics card with 512MB of video RAM, Core 2 duo processor and 1GB RAM. It also came with Vista which, after several weeks of concentrated use, has left me with numerous questions.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 1)? On a brand new £1300 notebook built (one would think) with Vista in mind, the operating system should fly, especially when no applications are running. Not so; it's a complete dog. It's so slow that applications often won't register that I've hit the space bar until I'm halfway through the next word. I'm a fast typer, but not that fast.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 2)? After tracking the ever increasing speeds of processors and computers for the past 15 years I'm left somewhat dismayed to see menu bar so sluggish, and finding myself waiting around for the OS to do the most simple of tasks.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 3)? I know, I know, I should by an extra 1GB. I would but for two reasons: First, I would have to buy a 2GB to upgrade to 2GB, and while I may contemplate doing so should I discover I *really* need that much memory for some application, I resent the thought of doing so just for the operating system. Operating systems should be light, run in the background and do everything they can to keep out of my way.
* Why does the screen blank out every time I try to run a program? I appreciate the need for security, but when it comes to user experience I, like many other users, will try everything to bypass such security features.
* Why did Microsoft ignore the first rule of usability and ditch all familiar methods of doing stuff that I'd spent 15 years getting used to?
* Why, after five years waiting for the most important product from one of the biggest companies on the planet, was I left feeling with such an overwhelming feeling of "Is that it?".
And now onto Ubuntu.
I've been through dozens of Linux distros over the years and while I have wanted to like them, I've always found myself a little disappointed in some respect or other. No more.
Ubuntu has the slickest installation I have yet found in any OS.
Ubuntu makes it supremely easy to install extra software packages.
Ubuntu has a wonderfully useful and responsive 3D desktop, in the shape of Compiz Fusion. Ubuntu is fast, and is like a fresh breeze blowing through after my weeks of gazing at Vista, waiting for something to happen.
Ubuntu generally works just fine on my Santa Rosa laptop. I had to spend some time figuring out how to get Compiz Fusion working, but even that is relatively easy.
Sure, I have yet to find drivers for the built-in webcam and HSDPA data card (Asus, are you listening?), but these sacrifices I'm willing to make.
The other reason that Ubuntu does it for me is that over the past 12 months I've found myself increasingly using non-Microsoft products. Google Docs is usually open in a browser Window, OpenOffice.org has been on my home and work machines for some time now, and while I still use Outlook, I find Evolution quite useable. Even for those applications I use that are not available on Linux - such as Mindjet's mind-mapping software - I find there are often quite suitable alternatives with some degree of file compatibility.
Of course this is just my experience, and this is just Ubuntu. Yet I have had a look at SuSE 10.3 which seems to be equally able, and this is not to even mention Apple's Leopard OS which is due later this week and which can be relied upon to deliver a 'wow' factor that people have simply failed to see in Vista.
Have we reached the beginning of the tipping point? I think we may just have.
Funnily enough my colleague Rupert Goodwins documented his - very similar - experiences and thoughts on Vista and Ubuntu late last night, just hours after I posted mine. Of course his write-up is far more eloquent and well worth the read.
Through all this time I have looked forward to each new version of Windows either because I expected it to be more stable, add better hardware support, or correct problems in some other way. Several weeks ago I took delivery of a brand, spanking, £1300-worth of notebook in the form of an Asus V1S desktop replacement. It's a lovely machine, if unwieldy. A quick tour of the stickers next to the keyboard reveals such delights as a SATA hard drive, GeForce 8600 GT graphics card with 512MB of video RAM, Core 2 duo processor and 1GB RAM. It also came with Vista which, after several weeks of concentrated use, has left me with numerous questions.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 1)? On a brand new £1300 notebook built (one would think) with Vista in mind, the operating system should fly, especially when no applications are running. Not so; it's a complete dog. It's so slow that applications often won't register that I've hit the space bar until I'm halfway through the next word. I'm a fast typer, but not that fast.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 2)? After tracking the ever increasing speeds of processors and computers for the past 15 years I'm left somewhat dismayed to see menu bar so sluggish, and finding myself waiting around for the OS to do the most simple of tasks.
* Why is Vista so slow (part 3)? I know, I know, I should by an extra 1GB. I would but for two reasons: First, I would have to buy a 2GB to upgrade to 2GB, and while I may contemplate doing so should I discover I *really* need that much memory for some application, I resent the thought of doing so just for the operating system. Operating systems should be light, run in the background and do everything they can to keep out of my way.
* Why does the screen blank out every time I try to run a program? I appreciate the need for security, but when it comes to user experience I, like many other users, will try everything to bypass such security features.
* Why did Microsoft ignore the first rule of usability and ditch all familiar methods of doing stuff that I'd spent 15 years getting used to?
* Why, after five years waiting for the most important product from one of the biggest companies on the planet, was I left feeling with such an overwhelming feeling of "Is that it?".
And now onto Ubuntu.
I've been through dozens of Linux distros over the years and while I have wanted to like them, I've always found myself a little disappointed in some respect or other. No more.
Ubuntu has the slickest installation I have yet found in any OS.
Ubuntu makes it supremely easy to install extra software packages.
Ubuntu has a wonderfully useful and responsive 3D desktop, in the shape of Compiz Fusion. Ubuntu is fast, and is like a fresh breeze blowing through after my weeks of gazing at Vista, waiting for something to happen.
Ubuntu generally works just fine on my Santa Rosa laptop. I had to spend some time figuring out how to get Compiz Fusion working, but even that is relatively easy.
Sure, I have yet to find drivers for the built-in webcam and HSDPA data card (Asus, are you listening?), but these sacrifices I'm willing to make.
The other reason that Ubuntu does it for me is that over the past 12 months I've found myself increasingly using non-Microsoft products. Google Docs is usually open in a browser Window, OpenOffice.org has been on my home and work machines for some time now, and while I still use Outlook, I find Evolution quite useable. Even for those applications I use that are not available on Linux - such as Mindjet's mind-mapping software - I find there are often quite suitable alternatives with some degree of file compatibility.
Of course this is just my experience, and this is just Ubuntu. Yet I have had a look at SuSE 10.3 which seems to be equally able, and this is not to even mention Apple's Leopard OS which is due later this week and which can be relied upon to deliver a 'wow' factor that people have simply failed to see in Vista.
Have we reached the beginning of the tipping point? I think we may just have.
Funnily enough my colleague Rupert Goodwins documented his - very similar - experiences and thoughts on Vista and Ubuntu late last night, just hours after I posted mine. Of course his write-up is far more eloquent and well worth the read.
Friday 19 October 2007, 11:42 AM
Is it easier to hire open source developers?
Chatting to Steve Raby, UK country manager for open source ECM vendor Nuxeo yesterday, an interesting point was raised around the issue of motivation of open source developers versus developers on proprietary poducts, and hiring them.
Namely: what are the benefits of hiring open source developers, and what are the benefits of developing open source software if you're looking to get hired.
Naturaly Steve, who hails from JBoss, will have a biased view of such matters - after all it is his job to sell the idea of open source software to enterprises.
But his thesis made sense and is based on his experience so I shall repeat it here.
Before I do, a note about Nuxeo. Nuxeo develops the open source, eponymous enterprise content management system. It makes money by selling services on the back of the product, which of course is free for anyone to download, and in the manner pioneered by JBoss it seeks to control development of the project by employing the core developers.
And now to the thesis, in two nutshells:
1) It is much easier to hire the right developers in the open source workd than in the proprietary world, because in the open source world everybody knows who has done what - they have their name on the code or will be otherwise associated with it. That is a much more intimate association than the proprietary software world.
2) Many open source developers do their work as an adjunct to their day jobs. When it gets to the point where the company can say there's enough momentum to hire the developer, they are incredibly motivitated - much mor so than someone 'going for a job'.
This obviously ties into the notion, held by some, that people will produce better quality work if they're doing it for the love, rather than for the money. Some don't buy that - Steve Ballmer for instance. So, would you rather learn to love something that you're paid to do, or be paid to do something you love?
Namely: what are the benefits of hiring open source developers, and what are the benefits of developing open source software if you're looking to get hired.
Naturaly Steve, who hails from JBoss, will have a biased view of such matters - after all it is his job to sell the idea of open source software to enterprises.
But his thesis made sense and is based on his experience so I shall repeat it here.
Before I do, a note about Nuxeo. Nuxeo develops the open source, eponymous enterprise content management system. It makes money by selling services on the back of the product, which of course is free for anyone to download, and in the manner pioneered by JBoss it seeks to control development of the project by employing the core developers.
And now to the thesis, in two nutshells:
1) It is much easier to hire the right developers in the open source workd than in the proprietary world, because in the open source world everybody knows who has done what - they have their name on the code or will be otherwise associated with it. That is a much more intimate association than the proprietary software world.
2) Many open source developers do their work as an adjunct to their day jobs. When it gets to the point where the company can say there's enough momentum to hire the developer, they are incredibly motivitated - much mor so than someone 'going for a job'.
This obviously ties into the notion, held by some, that people will produce better quality work if they're doing it for the love, rather than for the money. Some don't buy that - Steve Ballmer for instance. So, would you rather learn to love something that you're paid to do, or be paid to do something you love?
