If you've struggled with this, check this
Sorry for the gender mishap there
July 14, 2008
IE png transparency fix
Okay, so after spending a few hours trying to fix this bug, I ran across this blog post which had the cleanest & best working fix I've found.
If you've struggled with this, check thisguy gal out!
Sorry for the gender mishap there
If you've struggled with this, check this
Sorry for the gender mishap there
July 8, 2008
Political Validation & if it means anything
So I was surfing whitehouse.gov and i figured I'd check out how well it does on validation. Here are some of my findings.
Whitehouse.gov - 160 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
johnmccain.com - 132 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
barackobama.com - 197 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Wow! I know many people can consider standards a joke but still, I wonder what else we can find...
nsa.gov - 26 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
cia.gov - 22 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
ed.gov - 10 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
army.mil - 0 Errors - Valid XHTML Transitional
navy.mil - 20 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
marines.mil - 110 Errors - No Doctype
af.mil - 87 Errors - No Doctype
//Since I'm from GA lets check out my state's page
georgia.gov - 148 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
//And my school
georgiasouthern.edu - 38 Errors - No Doctype
//Finally my own silly page
prxi.net - 0 Errors - Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict
//Not much to be proud of here. There's virtually nothing to the site! :D
Most of these sites at least looked nice, except for the NSA, whose site looked like it was designed in the 90's. (Note! I did not look at the flash version of their site)
What does this prove? It depends on what you get out of error validation checking and doctype declaration
Whitehouse.gov - 160 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
johnmccain.com - 132 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
barackobama.com - 197 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Wow! I know many people can consider standards a joke but still, I wonder what else we can find...
nsa.gov - 26 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
cia.gov - 22 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
ed.gov - 10 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
army.mil - 0 Errors - Valid XHTML Transitional
navy.mil - 20 Errors - HTML 4.01 Transitional
marines.mil - 110 Errors - No Doctype
af.mil - 87 Errors - No Doctype
//Since I'm from GA lets check out my state's page
georgia.gov - 148 Errors - XHTML 1.0 Transitional
//And my school
georgiasouthern.edu - 38 Errors - No Doctype
//Finally my own silly page
prxi.net - 0 Errors - Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict
//Not much to be proud of here. There's virtually nothing to the site! :D
Most of these sites at least looked nice, except for the NSA, whose site looked like it was designed in the 90's. (Note! I did not look at the flash version of their site)
What does this prove? It depends on what you get out of error validation checking and doctype declaration
June 16, 2008
Moblie Device Programming
I haven't posted reacently or been on the IRC for a while, but I hope to be back soon! Between this mobile class and work I dont have much time for IRC lurking, because when I'm not coding homework problems, I'm either as far away from the computer as possible, or gaming :D. Anyway
So with the end of my Mobile App class coming this Friday, I thought I might post one of the programs I've been working on.
It's a kinda cheesy falling blocks game :) but I like it.
Just ask me and I can hook you up with the jar so you can play it on your phone! If your phone supports java programs that is!
I'll also post the source if anyone wants (though it's pretty craptastic so I don't know why anyone would.)
Anyway, I hope to see yall again soon!
So with the end of my Mobile App class coming this Friday, I thought I might post one of the programs I've been working on.
It's a kinda cheesy falling blocks game :) but I like it.
Just ask me and I can hook you up with the jar so you can play it on your phone! If your phone supports java programs that is!
I'll also post the source if anyone wants (though it's pretty craptastic so I don't know why anyone would.)
Anyway, I hope to see yall again soon!
May 13, 2008
May 2, 2008
Developing software ethically. To code using proprietary or free and open source liscenses
Abstract – Software development has evolved over the past few centuries. Typically the development consisted of working for companies or institutions. Many times, it was impossible for a software developer to create software, and release it for public use, while maintaining an income. With alternative licenses, such as the General Public License, the standard mechanism of software distribution has changed, due to a disruptive GPL license. In an effort to preserve their business models, these companies have cited criticisms of open source licenses and how they stifle people from being able to use the code, in addition to FOSS licensing being incapable of being a sustainable business. Most of these views, when compared to the facts, do not hold as true and instead the reverse trend is observable. The evidence points towards a conclusion stating that software developers can develop software ethically, releasing it for public use, and maintain a reliable paycheck.
Software development has been for the past 20-30 years in the hands of large scale proprietary vendors, whose philosophy is to license their software as to maintain profits to produce more software and conduct research. However in the past 19 years a new methodology has gained momentum, known as Free and Open Source software (FOSS). This philosophy dictates that software, which is essential to our use of computers and carrying out the activities of our daily lives, should be free and available to all. Some critics of FOSS is incapable of maintaining a profit and thus staying in business in today's economy.
Many proprietary vendors share the belief that software is the property of development house in which it originated from, and that it must remain closed in order to “[protect] the intellectual property rights in software and [ensure] the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development.” [1] This philosophy argues that in order to maintain a profitable business, a software company must maintain their code under a copyright that allows them to keep their source internal, no matter it's use in the private or public sector.
Under such strict proprietary licenses, it is argued that software is licensed to the consumer, in such a way that “you don't buy proprietary software, you rent it, and that rental can be rescinded at any time.” [2] Through such a licensing scheme, companies are able to maintain control over their software and their profits. It is through these profits that new software is written and distributed to the consumer.
Most of these restrictions on use are upheld via laws regarding software patents, end user license agreements (EULAs), trade secrets, and copyright regulations. Each of these methods of protection are different in their own regard and have benefits that are used not only by proprietary software, but free/open source as well.
While the other mechanisms of protecting software development are critical, the main mechanism controlling how software is distributed is copyright law. It is important to note that copyright is the driving force behind more than just software, but it also governs many expressions of ideas, automatically. “This also applies to diary entries, letters, song lyrics, and drawings, even if they are only done 'off the cuff,' in the most casual of circumstances.” [3] It is through this powerful and robust scheme that proprietary and FOSS companies maintain their control over their software.
Among the traditional methods of copyright, several others exist that allow a developer to release his code in such a way that it can be used and distributed as the user pleases. One such copyright scheme came into existence in 1989. Known as the GNU General Public License, or GPL, this scheme of copyright allows a user to copy, modify and distribute source code at their leisure, so long as any released software, through commercial or non commercial outlets, also is licensed via the GPL. Richard M. Stallman, who states that the GPL exists as it does in an effort to disallow and prevent middlemen from stripping away the freedom that the original author intended, put this method of copyright into place. [4]
Criticisms of this form of copyright have emerged from prominent proprietary software vendors. Some, such as Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, have stated that software released in such a manner is “... not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.”[5] This however is far from the truth, in that you must only release the product that uses GPLed code under the GPL, not all of your products. Several companies who maintain proprietary software in addition to FOSS have done similar.
This argument has had some strong evidence in its favor. Microsoft's Senior Vice President, Craig Mundie, stated that “open source software based on the GPL mirrors the .com business models that proved the least successful during the past year ... But as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers.” [1]
The ability to turn a profit is not the only thing in which Mundie has stated is a problem with FOSS development, but also “... it puts at risk the continued vitality of the independent software sector.” [1]
The ability to take free code, modify it, and then resell without providing the source code, is exactly what the GPL was designed to eliminate. A misinterpretation of this rule is that the program must be given away for free, which is contrary to what the GPL reads. “The intention was that nobody would have to pay for permission to use the GNU system... Free software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and charge.”[6]
The idea of giving away the source code with your product has come under fire, when it comes to commercial methods of gaining capital. “They ask software developers to give away for free the very thing they create that is of greatest value in the hope that somehow they'll make money selling something else.”[1] Yet despite these criticisms, many start ups have formed, with the vision of creating FOSS and turn a profit doing so. [7]
Venture Capital Funding Invested in FOSS Development.
They are not alone in this endeavor, not only have more businesses been adopting FOSS business models but they have been raising venture capital finance money in doing so. The first quarter of 2008 saw the most investment in companies with open source models with investments reaching 203.75 million dollars. [8] These FOSS companies, as they've matured, are becoming ever more attractive towards large corporations increasingly.
Not only are these companies being invested in, but they are also succeeding in maintaining a lucrative business. Wired magazine states that the month of January, 2008 saw the acquisition of FOSS companies reach upwards of over one billion dollars, mostly due to SUNs acquisition of MySQL and other sales. This figure topples last year's previous value, valued at just over one billion. [9]
Despite increased acquisitions and investment in the market, many proprietary vendors claim that turning a profit from FOSS is virtually impossible. However, this is a misconception, Red Hat Inc., the largest Linux vendor, saw a 64% rise in profits during the 4th quarter of 2007 [10] and now currently trades at $21.21 [11] on the stock market. The number one contender in the operating system business, Microsoft trades for $29.21. [12]
For much of software developments history, programming has been kept under lock and key of proprietary licenses. While this may have been a necessity of early software development, this has changed with more companies investing in FOSS development and increased knowledge of how to maintain a profitable and free, as in speech, business.
As software developers we are in an atmosphere where it is no longer a question of whether or not a developer can maintain a salary developing free code, but whether that developer chooses to work for a company that supports FOSS development or to keep his code locked behind NDAs and proprietary licenses.
Software Copyrights
Software development has been for the past 20-30 years in the hands of large scale proprietary vendors, whose philosophy is to license their software as to maintain profits to produce more software and conduct research. However in the past 19 years a new methodology has gained momentum, known as Free and Open Source software (FOSS). This philosophy dictates that software, which is essential to our use of computers and carrying out the activities of our daily lives, should be free and available to all. Some critics of FOSS is incapable of maintaining a profit and thus staying in business in today's economy.
Proprietary Software
Many proprietary vendors share the belief that software is the property of development house in which it originated from, and that it must remain closed in order to “[protect] the intellectual property rights in software and [ensure] the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development.” [1] This philosophy argues that in order to maintain a profitable business, a software company must maintain their code under a copyright that allows them to keep their source internal, no matter it's use in the private or public sector.
Under such strict proprietary licenses, it is argued that software is licensed to the consumer, in such a way that “you don't buy proprietary software, you rent it, and that rental can be rescinded at any time.” [2] Through such a licensing scheme, companies are able to maintain control over their software and their profits. It is through these profits that new software is written and distributed to the consumer.
Most of these restrictions on use are upheld via laws regarding software patents, end user license agreements (EULAs), trade secrets, and copyright regulations. Each of these methods of protection are different in their own regard and have benefits that are used not only by proprietary software, but free/open source as well.
While the other mechanisms of protecting software development are critical, the main mechanism controlling how software is distributed is copyright law. It is important to note that copyright is the driving force behind more than just software, but it also governs many expressions of ideas, automatically. “This also applies to diary entries, letters, song lyrics, and drawings, even if they are only done 'off the cuff,' in the most casual of circumstances.” [3] It is through this powerful and robust scheme that proprietary and FOSS companies maintain their control over their software.
Free and Open Source Software
Among the traditional methods of copyright, several others exist that allow a developer to release his code in such a way that it can be used and distributed as the user pleases. One such copyright scheme came into existence in 1989. Known as the GNU General Public License, or GPL, this scheme of copyright allows a user to copy, modify and distribute source code at their leisure, so long as any released software, through commercial or non commercial outlets, also is licensed via the GPL. Richard M. Stallman, who states that the GPL exists as it does in an effort to disallow and prevent middlemen from stripping away the freedom that the original author intended, put this method of copyright into place. [4]
Criticism of FOSS Licenses
Criticisms of this form of copyright have emerged from prominent proprietary software vendors. Some, such as Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, have stated that software released in such a manner is “... not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.”[5] This however is far from the truth, in that you must only release the product that uses GPLed code under the GPL, not all of your products. Several companies who maintain proprietary software in addition to FOSS have done similar.
This argument has had some strong evidence in its favor. Microsoft's Senior Vice President, Craig Mundie, stated that “open source software based on the GPL mirrors the .com business models that proved the least successful during the past year ... But as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers.” [1]
The ability to turn a profit is not the only thing in which Mundie has stated is a problem with FOSS development, but also “... it puts at risk the continued vitality of the independent software sector.” [1]
Misconceptions of FOSS Development
The ability to take free code, modify it, and then resell without providing the source code, is exactly what the GPL was designed to eliminate. A misinterpretation of this rule is that the program must be given away for free, which is contrary to what the GPL reads. “The intention was that nobody would have to pay for permission to use the GNU system... Free software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and charge.”[6]
FOSS Business
The idea of giving away the source code with your product has come under fire, when it comes to commercial methods of gaining capital. “They ask software developers to give away for free the very thing they create that is of greatest value in the hope that somehow they'll make money selling something else.”[1] Yet despite these criticisms, many start ups have formed, with the vision of creating FOSS and turn a profit doing so. [7]
Venture Capital Funding Invested in FOSS Development.They are not alone in this endeavor, not only have more businesses been adopting FOSS business models but they have been raising venture capital finance money in doing so. The first quarter of 2008 saw the most investment in companies with open source models with investments reaching 203.75 million dollars. [8] These FOSS companies, as they've matured, are becoming ever more attractive towards large corporations increasingly.
Money Spent to Acquire FOSS Companies and Software
Not only are these companies being invested in, but they are also succeeding in maintaining a lucrative business. Wired magazine states that the month of January, 2008 saw the acquisition of FOSS companies reach upwards of over one billion dollars, mostly due to SUNs acquisition of MySQL and other sales. This figure topples last year's previous value, valued at just over one billion. [9]
Latest Trading Value for Microsoft and Red Hat Inc Respectively.
Despite increased acquisitions and investment in the market, many proprietary vendors claim that turning a profit from FOSS is virtually impossible. However, this is a misconception, Red Hat Inc., the largest Linux vendor, saw a 64% rise in profits during the 4th quarter of 2007 [10] and now currently trades at $21.21 [11] on the stock market. The number one contender in the operating system business, Microsoft trades for $29.21. [12]
Developing Ethically Today
For much of software developments history, programming has been kept under lock and key of proprietary licenses. While this may have been a necessity of early software development, this has changed with more companies investing in FOSS development and increased knowledge of how to maintain a profitable and free, as in speech, business.
As software developers we are in an atmosphere where it is no longer a question of whether or not a developer can maintain a salary developing free code, but whether that developer chooses to work for a company that supports FOSS development or to keep his code locked behind NDAs and proprietary licenses.
References
- Mundie, C, “Shared Source” Microsoft, 05/03/01 -
- DiBona, C, “Open Source and Proprietary Software Development”, Open Sources 2.0, 05/02/08, pp 21.
- St. Laurent, A, M, “Basic Principles of Copyright Law”, Open Source & Free Software Liscensing, 05/02/08, pp. 01
- Stallman, R, M, “What is Copyleft?”, Free Software Free Society, 05/02/08, pp 89.
- Stallman, R, M, “The GNU Manifesto” Free Software Free Society 05/02/08, pp 31.
- Greene, T, C, “Ballmer: Linux is a cancer”, The Register, 06/02/01 - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/
- Special Report, “Open Source: Now It’s an Ecosystem”, Business Week, 10/03/05 -
- Dean, S, “Record Numbers for Open Source Venture Capital Funding”, OSTATIC, 04/01/08 -
- Roth, D, “Open Source Software Made Developers Cool. Now It Can Make Them Rich”, WIRED, 03/24/08 -
- Bass, D, “Red Hat Profit Rises on Sales of New Linux Products (Update5)”, Bloomberg, 09/25/07 -
- “Red Hat Inc Stock”, Google, 05/02/08 -
- “Microsoft Stock”, Google, 05/02/08 - http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:MSFT
After doing more research on the topic at hand, it's quite clear that I need to rethink my stock information analysis. That said : This was written for my Computer Ethics class. That said, there are a few things I wish I could have included, but wasn't able to. Most of the arguments need to be better reinforced by more empirical data. Also the some of the quotes are somewhat old, however I used them because afaik that is still the attitude of many of the mentioned vendors.
I would improve this by finding more information from other proprietary vendors, in addition to researching companies which have both FOSS and Proprietary licences.
While I tried to remain unbiased during my research, this paper illustrates quite clearly my bias towards open source. I believe there much room for more study, as this is a vast field. Much better phrasing of many of my points can be found in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".
--Justin B.
April 2, 2008
Research Abstract - WIP
I've began work on a research topic, for my ethics in computing class.
After examining a wide range of topics, I believe I've managed to narrow down my choice to one involving open source software. Here's the current abstract I have going. As I do more research I'll post any information I find relevant to this topic.
However, criticism emerged that by making the software free, as in speech, he was hurting the industry's ability to grow, due to decreased pay for developers and the concept of software released under the GPL as being unable to be used in a real world business environment. In addition to this criticism, open source software has also been said to lack innovation, in that it simply copies existing commercial software, instead of breaking new ground.
The aim of my research and paper is to discover whether or not these criticisms stand upon solid ground, and to determine how open source development has impacted the software industry, in either a more negative or positive way, and how the GPL has either freed software developers or further restricted them."
------------------------
This information is in a beta form and will be updated and edited. If you have any suggestions of ways to expand/improve, feel free to notify me.
After examining a wide range of topics, I believe I've managed to narrow down my choice to one involving open source software. Here's the current abstract I have going. As I do more research I'll post any information I find relevant to this topic.
The Effect of Open Source Development on the Computing Industry
"Richard Stallman has described GNU and the GPL as tools to liberate developers and development of software. He described the troubles he faced, before the creation of GNU and GPL when he worked at the MIT AI lab. His description tells of the emergence of a new licensing agreement, and how it restricted him from sharing his code with fellow developers and reading the code that made the tools he used, run. Seeing this as fundamentally wrong he began development on GNU, along with other developers, to ensure such a thing would not happen again.However, criticism emerged that by making the software free, as in speech, he was hurting the industry's ability to grow, due to decreased pay for developers and the concept of software released under the GPL as being unable to be used in a real world business environment. In addition to this criticism, open source software has also been said to lack innovation, in that it simply copies existing commercial software, instead of breaking new ground.
The aim of my research and paper is to discover whether or not these criticisms stand upon solid ground, and to determine how open source development has impacted the software industry, in either a more negative or positive way, and how the GPL has either freed software developers or further restricted them."
------------------------
This information is in a beta form and will be updated and edited. If you have any suggestions of ways to expand/improve, feel free to notify me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)