Archive for May, 2008

Is Dia an adequate replacement for Visio?


Over the last 18 months or so I’ve been moving slowly and steadily towards using exclusively open source software.  I’ve replaced Windows with Ubuntu, abandoned Internet Explorer for Firefox, Microsoft Outlook for Thunderbird, etcetera.  However there have been a few proprietary programs that have been exceptionally difficult to locate equivalents for in the open source realm - and Visio is one of them.

I’m hoping the discovery I just uncovered will resolve that long-standing hole in my suite of programs.  Known as Dia, the program:

“…is roughly inspired by the commercial Windows program ‘Visio’, though more geared towards informal diagrams for casual use. It can be used to draw many different kinds of diagrams. It currently has special objects to help draw entity relationship diagrams, UML diagrams, flowcharts, network diagrams, and many other diagrams. It is also possible to add support for new shapes by writing simple XML files, using a subset of SVG to draw the shape.”

I’ve only just downloaded and installed the software within the last 5 minutes and therefore haven’t come to any firm conclusions as of yet; but as soon as I have I’ll post my thoughts here.

I’m not a hardcore Visio user, so even a basic replacement should be more than enough for me.  The main consideration though will be the option to import and export documents in the native Visio file format.  I’m well and truly open source oriented, however many of my colleagues are not and I need to be able to work within the constraints of the proprietary crowd.

Update: I’ve had more of a play with the software and have experienced mixed results.  By and large the program does everything I need it to in terms of functionality, however the options for exporting Visio-compatible file formats seems to yield somewhat rudimentary results.

I created a basic flowchart in Dia using very basic shapes, saved the file, and then exported it as a VDX file (Visio XML format).  The file was recognised as a Visio file and defaulted to Visio, however before displaying the document a warning message appeared indicating “There is some XML data in the document that Visio does not understand.”

After clicking through the message the document was displayed and contained noticeable formatting changes, some of which rendered the text (such as the first step in the workflow) unreadable.

The implications: From the standpoint of individual usage I can see myself using Dia instead of Visio.  The program’s tool conventions are quite similar to Visio and easy to pick up quickly.  Functionality-wise it’s more than sufficient for my basic needs.

However from the standpoint of collaboration I’ll have to continue using Visio for now.   My colleagues are well and truly Visio users, and any alternative to Visio will need to facilitate complete interchangeability with no degradation or compatibility problems.  Based on what I’ve seen with Dia so far the program isn’t there just yet.  I do think it will be in time though.



References:

Saturday, May 31st, 2008

computers, open source 3 Comments

Virtual Machines vs Parallel Installations


I spent the entire day today in the realm of proprietary software setting up my MacBook laptop to run Windows XP Professional via Bootcamp. Having now used Virtual Machines and Parallel/Dual-Boot installations on a couple of machines I wanted to take a few minutes to share my experiences and thoughts on the subject.

For those of you not familiar with the concepts, Virtual Machines or vmware and parallel installations are two different methods of running multiple operating systems from a single computer. This can be done either on a desktop or on a laptop and has both open source or proprietary options.

The ultimate decision of which option to go with will depend greatly on the individual’s usage habits and preferences. In my case I’ve grown to appreciate the advantages offered by parallel installations over vmware.

VIRTUMac OS 10.4 running Ubuntu and Windows XPAL MACHINES

Virtual machines, or vmware, are an innovation that enables you to run one operating system within another. This process relies on the presence of a vmware program, such as VMware Fusion for Mac, or VirtualBox for Linux, and creates an instance of a “guest” OS that can be booted from within the “host” OS.

In the case of both proprietary and open source options, you begin by first installing the virtual machine software. Once this has been done you create a new virtual machine within the Vmware program. The steps to add the guest OS will depend on the Vmware software, but generally speaking there will be a few steps involved in which you identify what the host machine will be (Linux, Mac, or Windows) and designate how much RAM you wish to make available.

Once this has been done the the bulk of the process is extremely similar to that of a standard installation on a brand-new machine..

When you want to login to the guest OS, it’s just a matter of loading the Vmware program and selecting the operating system from the list of available options.

Advantages: Virtual machines give you access to two operating systems at once, and therefore expand the available functionality you have access to. Often times software is not available for all platforms, so use of virtual machines would enable Mac Users to run Microsoft Outlook for example; or Linux users to run Adobe Photoshop, or RPG games.

Virtual machines can also be moved or deleted exceptionally quickly because from the perspective of the host machine they are just one large file. The Instance of Windows XP I had previously installed on my MacBook was a single 25 GB file for example.

Ubuntu running Adobe Photoshop via WINEA Note on WINE: In the case of Linux there is a third option that I haven’t discussed here, and that is WINE. To the best of my knowledge WINE stands for “Wine Is Not an Emulator” and enables you to run Windows software without actually installing the operating system itself. Like virtual machines use of WINE requires the installation and configuration of the software, but once this has been done you can run a variety of different software packages from within Linux.

VMware for evaluating new systems: One of the key benefits of virtual machines - which I continue to use - is as a quick way to evaluate new operating systems and Linux distributions.  I am constantly tinkering and test driving new distributions in a never ending quest for new and interesting features.  By installing new OS test beds as virtual machines I’m able to quickly and easily explore them without making any fundamental changes to my system.

If I decide I don’t like the OS, I can delete the virtual instance without any adverse impact to the host machine.

Disadvantages: Due to the nature of the technology, use of Vmware represents extra burdens on your system than exist normally because you are using the same limited resources to run two operating systems. As a result programs on the host machine will not run as quickly.

Drivers are another big issue - particularly for Linux/Windows installations. Many hardware manufacturers do not produce drivers that support Linux-based operating systems the open source community has had to develop them themselves. In some cases - particularly webcameras - drivers are still being developed; and the versions that are currently available require more advanced computer skills to get running.

In my case the expertise required to implement the drivers is above my skillset, so I’m not able to use my Logitech Webcamera while logged into Ubuntu.

In the context of the discussion on VMWare, guest machines get their drivers and hardware information from the host. So despite the fact drivers are widely available for Windows, if you’re running XP as a virtual machine within Ubuntu you’re not going to be able to use the webcamera. This isn’t the case with parallel installations because the extra layer of the host-guest relationship doesn’t exist.

PARALLEL INSTALLATIONS

With Parallel Installations or Dual-Booting, you are running two completely separate operating systems on one box. In this case when you first power-up the computer you are prompted to select which system you wish to log into. Once logged in you will only have access to the software components that you’ve installed on that specific OS, and not both (as is the case with virtual machines).

Historically setting up a dual-booting system has been fairly complicated - especially for new users. However increasingly software companies have begun to ease the process.

Mac’s new Leopard release for example (OS 10.5) comes with a utility known as Bootcamp, which vastly simplifies the set-up process for installing Windows machines in parallel. The set-up is largely wizard based and takes you through the process of re-partitioning the harddrive to make way for the new Windows instantiation, and then rebooting into the Windows install process.

Additionally Ubuntu has gone one step further by enabling insterested parties to test drive the OS without actually installing it, to install an instance within Windows, or dual-boot the machine.

Advantages: One of the main advantage of parallel installations is the fact you can dedicate 100% of your system resources to the host machine. As a result programs and the operating system in general run much more quickly.

Secondly, and equally importantly, is the fact that you don’t face the same driver issues in dual-booting that you do in vmware.  For example, if Linux is your OS of choice you can use Ubuntu as your primary default OS, but revert to Windows XP for web conferencing.  (That said there are of course existing open source options for Linux users; this option is just one possibility.)

Finally though perhaps trivially, you won’t face issues of keyboard shortcuts with nearly the same frequency as virtual machines.

Disadvantages: Unlike virtual machines which are housed within single large files within the host machines folder heirarchy, parallel installations require dedicated partitions to function.  So the process of setting up a dual-boot machine requires additional steps that change the landscape of your harddrive rather than working within the pre-existing conditions.

These changes can be undone later to a degree; but re-partitioning of a harddrive is never to be taken lightly.  So this factor should be borne in mind (e.g. back-up first!)

Secondly you are restricted to the software and functionality of one operating system at a time.

MY OPINION

Having used both options on a few different machines I personally prefer dual-boot systems over virtual machines for general usage (as I said there is just no beating vmware for testbed installations).  While it is nice to have the ability to quickly access PC software from the Mac without having to do a full restart, I found it cognitively difficult to work between the two operating systems within one environment.

For one, while in XP the key-board shortcuts were a hybrid - not quite PC, and definitely not Mac.  So I was constantly making mistakes when typing that resulted in a loss of efficiency over time.  I’ve heard that you can remap keys; but to be honest I wasn’t in love with vmware enough to bother.

Having set-up the same laptop with XP dualbooting through Bootcamp on the other hand, I’m much more pleased with the set-up.  On my home machine I’ve got Ubuntu dual-booting with Windows XP Media edition AND a virtual instance of XP running within Ubuntu and have found that I never use the virtual machine.  To me there’s nothing quite like logging into the full operating system.

But as I said, it all comes down to user preferences.

Previous Posts @ TechTicker:

Software Sites:

Friday, May 30th, 2008

computers 2 Comments

Installfest to help schools and combat e-Waste


In a post entitled “Linux green activisits unite!” ZDNet discusses the upcoming Installfest for Schools initiative being held by LinuxWorld and Untangle this August 4-7.

As ZDNet explains:

Volunteers at the tradeshow will install Linux and open source software (including Ubuntu 8.04, Firefox, OpenOFfice and more) on donated and recycled computers from the Alameda County Computer Resource Center. Most of the models will be Pentium III systems with 256 megabytes of RAM and a 20-gigabyte hard drive. The whole shebang, which could be up to 1,000 systems at the end of the fest, will be donated to local schools. Here are more details on how you can get involved if you’re going to be at the show. Hack away! If you WON’T be there, here’s a link where you can look into planning an event in your own neighborhood.”

This is a fantastic initiative that deserves as much publicity as possible. Not only does this provide needy schools with valuable computer resources, it helps keep working hardware from leeching their toxic chemicals into waste dumps.

I elaborated on this notion a few years ago on my other blog in a post called e-Waste (27 June 2006). Rather than reiterate what I’ve already said there, I’ll just republish the post in its entirety:

e-Waste

In many ways the computer age has done a lot for the environment. Innovative technologies and tools that have enabled the digitisation of information - including word processing, financial record keeping and mail correspondence - have largely reduced our reliance on paper as a storage and transportation medium. You can bank and send mail online, store and view photographs, and even read the newspaper - all without printing a single page. Handwriting has become almost a novelty.

Furthermore these points just highlight traditional day-to-day activities. The medical benefits realised through technological innovation have enabled doctors and physicians to conduct extremely complicated procedures, process complex biomedical experiments and pharmaceutical tests, and monitor minute fluctuations in the condition of a very ill person; all of which would have very difficult in the past - if not impossible.

e-Waste

However this age is not without its issues. So-called e-waste dumps are now growing at an exponential rate, and the amassing of these towering heaps of corroding hardware is becoming a huge problem. Aside from being both eyesores and harddrive graveyards, discarded computers are creating environmental issues of their own.

With technological advances occurring at an incredible rate, what was once a top-of-the-line motherboard, graphics card or monitor is now an old clunker. And increasingly these old jalopies are being hucked onto the scrap heap. The shear mountain of discarded computer hardware is no small figure either.

As a BBC article discussed yesterday (”PC users ‘want greener machines’“, Monday, 26 June 2006): “30 million PCs [are] being dumped each year in the US alone.” That’s one computer for every 10 people - every year. These dumps have to go somewhere, and that unfortunate role has been increasingly assigned to China and India.

Furthermore, the presence of all this corroding hardware in one place has begun to present additional problems in the form of toxic waste. As a UN University report discussed: “making the average PC required 10 times the weight of the machine in chemicals and fossil fuels.” This includes Lead, Arsenic, and Mercury. When you consider the volume of these chemicals leaching out from 30 million corroding computers every year, their implications for local public and environmental health are worrying.

As the article mentions, there an increasing demand for greener PC’s coming from both consumers and IT companies alike who are willing to pay extra for a more environmentally-friendly machine. Dell, Hewlett Packard, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson have all made commitments to either remove completely or phase out hazardous chemicals.

I am personally glad to hear about this trend; yet I also propose that more is required.

‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’ in the Computer Age

We have reached a staged in the computer age in which technology for most is an integral component of our daily existence. Computers are everywhere; so too are the chemicals used to create them. And while some consumers may be willing to pay a little extra for a greener PC, many will not. Some PC makers may begin to adopt greener practices in their manufacturing, many will not. Furthermore, even if every computer manufacturer decided to immediately elminate hazardous chemicals from their computers and computer hardware there would still be literally ten’s of millions of existing machines that contain them.

So the dilemma is both in the present and future tense. What do we do with our existing machines, and how can we can we make the transition to a Green Computer Age?

In terms of the future tense it appears as though we’re moving in the right direction. Consumer demand does a lot in the business world, so the more buyers voice their interest in green technology the more likely it is that we’ll begin to see it. This leaves the present tense.

What needs to be done here is the implementation of wide-scale Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle programs for computers and other IT components. We have been well and truly taught to Reduce our reliance on petrol and fossil fuels by car pooling, taking public transportation and even riding our bicycles; Reuse or re-purpose materials that aren’t necessarily broken, but don’t serve their original purpose anymore; and Recycle our aluminum cans, plastic and glass bottles and newspapers. Why could the same campaign not be implemented for computers?

We could in fact kills two birds with one stone, and help to combat the growing chasm between computer have’s and have-not’s that characterises the Digital Divide.

Combating the Digital Divide

The Digital Divide is a trend in which poorer demographics are increasingly being left behind in the endless race to build bigger, better and faster hardware. Schools are being forced to use hardware that has long been obsolete (some don’t have any at all); students are being left behind in the trend towards eLearning and other online educational projects; and jobseekers are being placed at an obvious disadvantage when they can’t upskill on technology that is becoming a required ability in the workforce.

If it’s not broken, don’t replace it; if you have to replace it, give it so someone who needs it, don’t throw it away. Your old computer can help a child to learn, a jobseeker to gain valuable skills to make them more employable, or it can contribute to a growing public health and environmental problem. Which would you prefer?

Relevant Links:

References:

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

computers, education, open source 3 Comments

Leaving Time for Reflection


I’m still processing the implications of Michael Arrington’s Twitter post TechCrunch today; or perhaps more accurately the reader response to it.  The post features a single word - Twitter! - with no other content to speak of whatsoever.  Despite this the post has received 345 comments (as of this post) and what appears to be a series of interwoven discussion threads.

I’m in two minds about all this - one part curious, the other concerned.

The Curiosity

The curiosity stems from the fundamental question why a post that offers no substance whatsoever can allegedly earn the title of TechCrunch’s most commented entry.  Certainly TechCrunch has the reader-base to drive this sort of response, but what is it that motivates the impassioned participation in the first place?

Is this a reaction to the flood of Twitter posts - many of them critical - that have emerged over the last few days?  Is it a rally cry of support for the battered application by its remaining allies?  Is it the novelty of an extraordinarily minimalistic offering from the influential A-list tech blog?  Or is it perhaps one of those strange idiosyncrasies of new media popular culture that defies explanation, in which the masses converge upon a unified focal point for a brief glimpse of time for no apparent reason and then disappear just as quickly?

The Concerns

The concerns I mentioned are not about this post specifically, but rather the notion of the wider relationship between discussions and the ideas which inspire and drive them.

There is little doubt that users of new media share a passionate propensity for discussion, however my fear is that undercurrents in usage habits are driving the online community to shorter and less in-depth trains of thought.  The response to Arrington’s post seems to reflect this theory, as does the increasing popularity of Twitter, and aggregation-commenting services like FriendFeed.

Certainly discussion is important, but so too is letting ideas adequately solidify and taking the time to explore them to their fullest potential.

This is why I continue to blog.  Twitter and blog commenting are both fantastic for interactivity and the dynamic exchange of ideas, but at the end of the day it’s crucial that users take the time to process the fruits of their discussions and the information they’ve amassed.

My concern is that, if current rapid discursive trends in internet usage continue, and discussions via comments or posts of no more than 140 characters become the norm, in-depth reflective contemplation and slow, considered expression of thought will never take place.

By all means discuss, comment and chat; but remember it should be combined with time for personal reflection.  If we are to personally benefit from the collective mind and/or input of our fellows we must give ourselves adequate time to come to our own conclusions.

One thing is clear in all this: Twitter is firmly entrenched in the forefront front of the tech-sector’s consciousness.  As to whether this reflects positive or negative perceptions is another matter though.

References:

  • “Twitter!“, Michael Arrington, TechCrunch, 25 May 2008

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

Internet, social networks, social software No Comments

Twitter issues mea culpa


I have to say I admire the folks at Twitter for the transparency they’re trying to provide into the nature of the ongoing outage debacles that have befallen the application of late.

According to a recent post on the Twitter Blog released Wednesday, May 21, 2008:

“We’ve gone through our various databases, caches, web servers, daemons, and despite some increased traffic activity across the board, all systems are running nominally. The truth is we’re not sure what’s happening. It seems to be occurring in-between these parts.

We’re busy working on instrumenting and adding meters to provide visibility into what’s slowing Twitter down. We’ll use this data both to alleviate the current woes and to help inform our long-term architecture work to make Twitter a utility service people can count on. We’ve definitely failed that aim this week.”

To me the wording of this entry reveals some very interesting insight into what’s going on at Twitter behind the scenes - and it reeks of desperation.  This post comes from a company that is absolutely panicking about the downward spiral of discontent in which they’ve found themselves and are frantically trying to stop the slide.

First there is frustration - massive frustration - over what appears to be a completely mysterious, and equally high-profile problem.   For despite the knowledge that users are demanding answers - now bordering on outright revolt and exodus - they have none to give.  As a result Twitter is being forced to do the unthinkable, and publicly declare they have no idea what is going wrong.

In saying this the second theme of this post becomes clear: Damage Control.  They know full well they are getting hammered from all sides about the ongoing outages and sluggish performance.  They desperately need some good press, or indeed a reprieve of any kind in which users start to act a bit more understanding about what’s going on.

So they’ve been reduced to pleading for patience and are now effectively saying: “we know we’ve completely stuffed up, but we’re trying to fix it.”

Unfortunately for Twitter, the fact remains that, with each Twitter outage, the user feedback and tech coverage grows more and more viscerally damning.  Despite its phenomenal usage and adoption rate, Twitter has got to be the toughest gig to be a part of in the online services market today.

It remains to be seen whether their pleads will be heard by the masses.  Somehow, I doubt it.

Update: A perusal of many blog entries discussing Twitter’s post reveals that - contrary to my initial suspicions - people do appreciate the honesty coming out of the company.  I must say I’m inclined to agree with them.  It’s a hard thing to admit you’re still at square one with a big problem like this, but in doing just that Twitter seems to have earned back a degree of trust and understanding from some members of the community.

It’s a step in the right direction - even in the face of the ongoing problems.

References:

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

social software, web communication No Comments

Internet Noise and The Delphi Effect


There’s been a lot of discussion in the tech sector recently - most notably depicted on TechMeme - regarding the concept of Internet “noise.”

Robert Scoble is among those who argue the noise is incredibly valuable and should be embraced. His logic is to the effect that mainstream media (MSM) sites - and even aggregated collections of MSM sites, such as those appearing on Google News - focus on conveying polished, easily digested sources of information which are designed for quick consumption, but are not wholly representative of the complexities and realities of user opinion.

New forms of mass communication such as Twitter on the other hand are the exact opposite. When taken piece-meal you gain an interesting sense of insight into the thoughts and opinions of each individual user. However, when aggregated in bulk the threads merge into a cacophony of voices that is truly overwhelming initially.

As overwhelming as this is on the surface, Scoble and others argue that the noise is indicative of trends - whether established or emerging - however you have to know how to listen, filter, and as importantly, interpret.

For a long time I didn’t understand what they were driving at by saying the noise is good, however in my continued reading of Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and The Bazaar“, I think I’m starting to understand.

In the section titled “Release Early, Release Often“, Raymond describes the logic behind the Linux philosophy of early and frequent release cycles. Notably this section quips the now famous saying: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” However it also discusses the concept of the Delphi Effect:

“Sociologists years ago discovered that the averaged opinion of a mass of equally expert (or equally ignorant) observers is quite a bit more reliable a predictor than the opinion of a single randomly-chosen one of the observers. They called this the Delphi effect.”

It would seem therefore that the trends inherent in the noise, which Scoble et al are listening to, are in fact a contemporary, publicly visible instantiation of the Delphi Effect - and on a mass scale.

If this is the case it also immediately highlights the value inherent in what Duncan Riley recently anointed the “Blogging 2.0” era. Here conversation and discussion have taken centre stage; and ideas, not content, reign supreme.

The conversations presently occurring on Twitter, FriendFeed, Disqus and the like provide an amazing insight into not just popular culture trends, but the myriad of opinions, and ultimately people that underpin them.

From a sociological standpoint the research potential is truly remarkable - the key question is how to harness this opportunity.

References:

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

Internet, social networks, web communication 5 Comments

Blogging 2.0 - It’s about conversation, not content


In a post yesterday, Duncan Riley stated “Blogging 2.0: It’s All About The User“, arguing that in many ways blogging has reaching a paradigm shift in which the nature of the technology - and the communication it facilitates - has changed.

“If blogging 1.0 was about enabling the conversation on each blog, blogging 2.0 is about enabling the conversation across many blogs and supporting sites and services. The conversation has matured and no longer is it acceptable to believe that as a content owner you hold exclusive domain over conversations you have started. Users/ readers today demand more than a conversation on one site, and blogging 2.0 facilitates this.”

This is a powerful statement with profound implications for the nature of what blogging is, as well as what it will become. Duncan isn’t the first person to argue this point, however for me personally his logic is the most clear and compelling thus far.

Duncan cites the example of a debate with Robert Scoble about full versus partial RSS feeds, saying he had argued two points:

“…one that it limited the ability of spammers to republish your content, secondly because a part feed drove traffic back to the main site if people wanted to read all the content.”

The fear in including full feeds, Riley argued, was that blogs would be circumvented and readers would not ever visit the site to view the original content. Similarly, he continues, in the context of Blogging 1.0 vs. 2.0, the key threat perceived by bloggers when considering applications like FriendFeed is the loss of control. I have argued the same point myself many times, such as the post I wrote on Shyftr in April.

However having read and re-read his post several times now I’ve begun to question my position. In fact I’m beginning to wonder if there is in fact an inverse relationship between the level of control held by an individual and the vibrancy of the community and depth of discussion that surrounds the content they produce.

An example of this theory in practice might be the Linux community.

The Empowered Community

In 1997, in the now famous work “The Cathedral and The Bazaar“, Eric Raymond discussed the stark contrasts between the long-standing, orderly development style of Unix with the relatively newer, seemingly anarchic style of Linux development.

Describing Unix software, Raymond said:

“I believed (before discovering Linux) that the most important software…needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation…”

In striking contrast, the Linux development style adopted by Linus Torvalds came as quite a surprise and “overturned much of what [he] thought [he] knew.”

“…the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches…out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.”

The significance of this example is that in devolving Linux development to the community mind, Torvald facilitated the gathering of a populous of extraordinarily passionate and empowered individuals. Over time the contributions of each individual were aggregated into a single writhing mass of discussion-driven and cooperative productivity and a body of knowledge and experience that continues to expand today.

The result of this has culminated not only in the GNU/Linux we know today, but as importantly a community of people who have arguably accomplished more together than they could have separately.

In establishing Linux development as a meritocracy, Torvalds empowered the community and arguably inspired a greater sense of ownership in the project than exists in similar proprietary products. In return user/developer contributions exploded, as did their dedication to the community.

In the context of Duncan’s Blogging 2.0 post, Blogging 1.0 saw authors and editors as the kings of their castles and conversations/comments relegated to a secondary position at the bottom of the post. To a fair degree this prevented the knowledge from escaping the confines of the site. Discussion was retained in the comments area, and readers were obliged to return there for updates. It was not, and is not, a level playing field that inspires a great sense of ownership in the discussion; conversations occur on the author’s terms, not the readers.

In the realm of Blogging 2.0 content takes on an entirely new role as fuel for conversations.  Applications like FriendFeed and Disqus restore community interactivity back to where it should have been all along - a forum for discussions on IDEAS not just comments on content.

You do not own conversations - you merely contribute to them.  Making a name for yourself in the Blogging 2.0 world is therefore about how you participate.

So it would seem the question for bloggers going forward is: How will you participate in the conversation?

References:

Monday, May 19th, 2008

social software, web communication No Comments

Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and Allen on Seesmic


As we speak Seesmic’s servers are getting absolutely hammered by traffic - but holding up - as news quickly circulates of a series of Q&A-based discussions that took place tonight involving Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, George Lucas and Karen Allen.  Based on emerging reports it appears that the series of posted videos relates to the upcoming release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Jemima Kiss at PDA (”Spielberg pops up on Seesmic“) was involved in the discussions and had the opportunity to send several question, later saying:

“I asked Spielberg if he had any plans for the small screen, if he’d thought of playing the narrative possibilities of geo-location on mobile or the interactivity of the web. He replied that he is working on a web project he can’t talk about (he might have been referring to the rumoured paranormal social network! He also worked with a games company recently.) but then went on to describe several new TV projects. The mini-series, he said, is where he gets creatively inspired, and he’s working on one about the Mayflower and one about the Pacific during the war.”

Kiss’ post at PDA features 5 embedded responses from the discussions and is worth a look - especially given her first hand participation in the event.  With the clips displaying post times of less than 4 hours ago (as of the time of this post) I suspect more information will emerge on the background of this as time progresses.

From what I’ve gathered so far there was a gap of nearly a day in some cases between when questions were submitted and when replies were posted.

For example in the case of a question for Harrison Ford regarding maturity, elmundoes submitted the question 22 hours ago and the reply from Harrison Ford was posted 3 to 4 hours ago.

For Seesmic this is huge press.  I hope they’re prepared for it.

In the wake of this news the web will undoubtedly be set alight with analysis about the event, what was said, or perhaps not said, and in particular what the implications may be for what appears to be the next wave in internet communication and online video.

I recently did a write up of Seesmic, covering the user experience, technical side, and initial observations ["Seesmic: Initial Impressions and Use Case Proposal", 12 May 2008] beginning:

“…My early impression: Seesmic does for video communication what Twitter does for text chat.

While not restricting users to 140 characters in the same way Twitter does (the video constraints are yet to be investigated), the goal of Seesmic seems to be much the same; and that is to facilitate rapid, large-scale, publicly visibly, asynchronous discussions.”

The realm of online video continues to explode, with online hosting and streaming sites like YouTube maturing into the largest trafficked sites on the web today.  However in addition to this we’ve also begun to see a new generation of activity in the form of web casting sites - like UStream, Yahoo! Live and Justin.TV - and now sites like Seesmic that are geared more towards rapid posting and heavy interaction between multiple users.

What we’ve seen tonight on Seesmic seems to point to a clear distinction between the more polished, one-direction flows of information we see on sites like YouTube, and the substantial levels of interactivity and rapid-fire multi-user communication that occurs on Seesmic.  YouTube does support similar reply functionality as well as text commenting (which Seesmic notably lacks), but having used both applications Seesmic is far faster in the response time in terms of post replies.

Certainly there is a place for both on the web, however for Q&A sessions Seesmic may start to become the application of choice for events that rely on community outreach.

As Jemima Kiss says:

“Beneath the froth, though, there’s a directness and energy about this that really works, though lord knows how much engineering (both technical and bureaucratic) must have gone into this.

The best thing about it is that it bypasses the Hollywooid/Cannes schmaltz and gets straight into a conversation.”

More on Seesmic @TechTicker:

References:

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

digital media, web communication No Comments

Running Ubuntu from a Flash Drive


Here’s a really interesting idea courtesy of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes at ZDNet (”How to … install Ubuntu 8.04 on a USB flash drive“).  In the post he outlines the process of how you would go about preparing a USB flash drive to run Ubuntu Hardy Heron.

What this means is you’d have the ability to carry a portable operating system with you wherever you went.  All you’d need to use it is a physical computer to plug in to that would recognise the USB Flash drive and whose BIOS supported booting by USB devices.  Effectively you could then use any computer and yet still have immediate access to all your favourites, settings, and programs.

Furthermore, the increasing utility of suites of web applications like those provided by Zoho and Google (not to mention blogs and wikis) enable you to greatly reduce the storage demands of your system.  If most of your images, documents, spreadsheets, and other files were stored online there would be far less of a burden on your HDD.  So barring any unique file formats that required specialised software to run them you could theoretically house most of your information online and rely on the USB flash drive to provide you with access to your favourite programs.

In Adrian’s example the hardware requirements are a copy of the Hardy Heron ISO file (for installation) and a Flash Drive with minimimum of 4 GB space.

Unfortunately the drive I just got is 2 GB’s, so I can’t test this process.  If any of you feel curious and can get it working I’d love to hear your thoughts on things.

References:

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

computers, open source 2 Comments

Online Video Discussion and Social Context Cues


Seesmic seems to be gaining more and more ground in the realm of online video discussion these days, and as I mentioned previously I’ve begun to look into these developments with interest. Significantly Seesmic’s entrance to the market is occurring not only on the main site, but through the introduction of video commenting as well.

Through the use of a Wordpress plugin, bloggers and web masters can now avail their readers to video commenting functionality in addition to that of text.  The tool is unobtrusively located beneath the text comment field.  When clicked, the tool spawns, replacing the text field and enabling the commenter to use their web camera to record their comment. When this process is complete their message appears in ascending chronological order along side the text comments.

To my knowledge, TechCrunch was the very first site to capitalise on this innovation, however there seems to be some disagreement on its value, with many people viewing the introduction as at best a flashy ploy for attention, or at worst an addition to the ever-growing sources of information overload.

Initially I fell into the camp of individuals who really didn’t see much value in the development, however over the last few days I’ve begun to question this stance.  Just this morning in fact, during my ongoing reading of  “Opensource: Technology and Policy” I had an epiphany:

Perhaps video commenting can facilitate far more civilised discussions than text commenting - particularly in terms of tempering disagreements.  Let me elaborate on that.

As Deek and McHugh discuss in Open Source (pg. 176 - 177):

“It has long been contended that computer-mediated groups tend to exhibit “more uninhibited behaviour - using strong and inflammatory expressions in interpersonal interaction” (Siegel et al., 1986, p. 157). Sproul and Kiesler (1986) attributed the tendency toward “more extreme, more impulsive, and less socially differentiated” (p. 1496) behaviour than in a face to-face context, as due to the lack of adequate social context cues in information-poor media.”

This could be interpreted to suggest that the greater the absence of a human presence, the greater the possibility of uncivilised behaviour.  It would seem logical to suggest then that the introduction of a greater human presence might have the opposite effect - more civilised behaviour and a greater adherence to social norms.

For example, two years ago I facilitated a web conference between local Australian students and their counterparts in Japan.  In the session that followed the social norms and graces inherent to Japanese culture were clearly present.  Students bowed to one another at the beginning of the session and then again at the end.  Throughout the event they appeared to be quite in-tune to one another’s non-verbal communication signals, pausing when someone else wanted to speak, and acknowledging their contributions to the discussion.

In the context of Seesmic, and indeed online video discussion in general, despite its asynchronous nature my theory is that the visual human element would go a long way to introducing “social context cues” to a traditionally text-oriented sphere of activity.

These social cues might also help minimise the confusion that arises from the misinterpretation of meaning that can occur with text in the form of spelling or grammatical errors, or lack of clarity.

Furthermore, unlike text commenting, in which it is all too easy to quickly fire off an ill considered uninhibited remark, the incorporation of video requires a bit of preparation - both technical and mental - and as such might serve to further temper the delivery of the message, particularly during heated exchanges.

Having said that, all this is purely speculative at this stage.  This is all the more reason to pursue adequate exploration of online video discussion within a group context.  You cannot replicate the complexities of social-context cues as an individual. If you’re interested in participating in this research please let me know.

In the meantime I’ll continue to explore the main Seesmic site as well as monitor the interaction that is taking place on blogs like TechCrunch and The Inquisitr, which have introduced the Seesmic video commenting plugin.

References:

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

digital media, web communication 3 Comments

Previous Entries