Safe as Milk

Save Sun jobs, let Oracle finalise acquisition

December 14, 2009 community, freesoftware, gnome 6 Comments

I’ve stayed quiet on this, but listened on the sidelines, for a while now. But the blogs I read today from Monty and Mneptok lead me to reply.

I was a long-time Sun shareholder (don’t laugh) but sold my shares as soon as the Oracle acquisition was announced. I was pretty ambivalent about the deal at the time, not really taking position on either side of the fence, and happy just to think about possibilities.

But the latest lobbying of the EU to try to stymie the deal has ticked me off.

MySQL, through their choice of licensing and business model, set the rules of the game. Sun bought MySQL for lots of money. It’s their property now. It is, as Michael Meeks said, very bad form for the guy who set up the rules to complain that they’re not fair now.

So what will the effect of Oracle’s purchase of Sun Microsystems be?

First, Oracle offered $7.4bn for Sun, while Sun (over)paid $1bn for MySQL at the beginning of 2008. That means, being generous, that MySQL makes up under 13% of Sun. And the other 87% no-one is worried about, apparently.

Second, Sun is haemorraging money. This is not surprising; any time a company offers to buy another company, all the existing customers who were planning purchases wait until the acquisition is finished. They want to know what product lines are being maintained, whether licensing, support or pricing conditions change. In short, it is expected that the revenues for a company between the moment an acquiqition is announced and the moment it is finalised go into the toilet.

Third, friends of mine work at Sun. I’m seeing them be miserable because they don’t know what role they have to play in the company. They don’t know if they’re going to have a job in a few months. And the chances of them having a job in a few months are inversely related to the amount of time until this acquisition is completed. Low employee morale during uncertainty is another inevitable consequence of the delay in the acquisition, and it’s one with longer term consequences for the health of the company than any short-term delayed purchase decisions.

The uncertainty is killing Sun, and it’s killing the projects that Sun owns – MySQL among them. One possible outcome of all of this is that Oracle come back with a lower offer price after this all shakes out, because frankly Sun is worth less, the deal falls through, and Sun as a company will be on life support.

I have read RMS’s letter to Neelie Kroes, and I respectfully disagree. The entire letter reads as an advocacy of dual licensing as the way to make money from a free software project – an astounding position given the signatories. To quote: “As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.”

I had to check twice to ensure that the thing was indeed signed by Richard Matthew Stallman, and not someone else with the same initials.

MySQL is available under the GPL v2, a well understood licence. Oracle will be free to take it closed-source only. They will be free to change the licence (perhaps even to GPL v3). They will even be free to kill development of the project altogether. Does this put companies like Monty Program at a disadvantage compared to Oracle? Perhaps. Is that disadvantage insurmountable? Not at all. MariaDB and Drizzle have a great chance of succeeding in the same way MySQL did – by disrupting the database market.

The whole thing smells to me like a double standard – it’s OK to have certain licensing policies if you’re friendly, but not if you aren’t. Luis Villa set me straight on this point a few years back, and it has stuck with me: “what if the corporate winds change? […] At that point, all the community has is the license, and [the company’s] licensing choices”. You trust the license, and the licensing choices. And at this point, I’m more concerned about the jobs of the people working at Sun, and the future of Sun owned projects, than I am about what Oracle will or won’t do with/to MySQL.

Ubuntu Karmic and external displays

November 24, 2009 community, freesoftware, gnome 11 Comments

It was with some trepidation that I plugged in an external monitor into my laptop today to test how Ubuntu 9.10 handles external displays. In my last three upgrades the behaviour has changed and l’ve ended up on more than one occasion in front of a group telling them I’d get started in just a minute…

But yesterday, when I plugged in an external CRT monitor to see how things would react ahead of a training course I was giving this morning, I was pleasantly surprised! The new screen was automatically added to the right side of my existing screen to make a large virtual desktop. When I opened display preferences, mirroring the screens worked perfectly. When I unplugged the CRT, the desktop degraded gracefully – nothing froze or crashed, I didn’t get a reboot, and all the applications which were displaying on the external screen were seamlessly displayed on my laptop display. Bliss! Everything worked just as I expected it to.

So kudos to the Ubuntu integrators, and the Xorg and GNOME developers, and especially to the developers working on the Intel X drivers, for making me smile yesterday. You have given me hope that this year I will attend at least one tech conference where no Linux user has trouble with the overhead projector.

Update: I meant Karmic Koala, Ubuntu 9.10, not Jaunty. Thanks to Marius Gedimas for pointing that out.

Running advice

November 23, 2009 General, home 2 Comments

Coincidentally, I was running a 10km race this weekend in Vénissieux, and Chris Blizzard replied to an email about running I sent him months ago. At the time, I gave him a few tips on getting started in running without getting injured, and reading back, I think they are worth sharing.

Advice from a recent beginner

When you start running regularly, take it very easy before you start upping the distance. Your heart & muscles will tell you to go further & faster before your joints are ready for it. Trainers say that you can up your total weekly distance no more than 10% per week. And running more regularly is worth more than running long in fewer sessions. Four three mile runs is better than two six mile runs.

When you do decide to start running further, start doing it in fractions – run 1 mile, walk 1 minute, run 1 mile, walk 1 minute. If you’re on 10 minute per mile pace, that’ll drop you to 11 minutes per mile, but you’ll be able to run 7 or 8 miles easily.

Vary fast & long runs. If you’re starting to stretch out runs & regularly going more than 5 miles in a run, try swapping out one of those 5 mile runs for something like:

Warm up 2 miles
4x800m at a faster pace (if you jog 10 minute miles, then try to run your half-mile split in 4 minutes) with 2 minutes break between splits.
Warm down 1 mile

If you always run long & slow, you’ll stay a slow runner. If you start training your body to run a little faster, you’ll improve the entire system – cardio & muscular. And you sweat more too.

To lose weight, do that 5 or 6 mile run on a Saturday morning – don’t starve yourself the night before, and drink water or tea before your run by all means, but running in the morning on an empty stomach will help you drop those pounds. Once you go over about 30 to 40 minutes running time, you’re eating fat. If you’re diabetic, this might not be advised.

And don’t forget that every body is different, no one scheme or training plan works for everyone. Your body’s a machine, and it’s one which can be made very efficient with maintenance.

Once you get to the stage where you’re running that speed work, you might consider adding some shorter sprints & really start getting faster

The trough of disillusionment for Ubuntu?

November 5, 2009 community, freesoftware 13 Comments

Reading this blog entry on Linux Magazine, the thought occurred to me that Ubuntu is making its way nicely along the path that new projects have travelled for many years. It is around the same place that Red Hat used to be around the time of Red Hat 7.

The Hype Cycle describes the way that new technologies and projects are perceived over time, if they do a good job of handling themselves, going from a technology trigger, inflated expectations, disillusionment, enlightenment, before arriving at “the plateau of productivity” – a state where there is no more hype and the new technology is simply a normal part of our lives.

Ubuntu arrived with a bang, and certainly has had inflated expectations over the past couple of years. And yet due to quality issues, it has recently been failing to meet those expectations, especially around upgrading from previous versions (by no means an easy problem to get right, don’t get me wrong). Many long-time Ubuntu users appear to be getting upset.

But then, you don’t get upset about things you don’t care about.

This disillusionment, if it doesn’t turn into resignation, could be a sign of health in the Ubuntu project and community – on condition that the lessons of quality are learned and put into practice. Certainly this is a drum that Mark Shuttleworth has been beating for some time now – but unfortunately it’s not as easy as asking upstream to get their act together in a Tom Sawyer community model. QA seems like an ideal opportunity for collaboration between distributions and upstream projects, as well as being the core activity of each individual distribution. Supplying quality is, after all, the market opportunity which Linux distributions base their business models on.

In any case, I for one am looking forward to the deflated expectations being met and exceeded in future releases, allowing us Ubuntu users to make it to the Plateau of Productivity as soon as possible.

Code:Free – a reminder that our software is for doing stuff

October 15, 2009 community, freesoftware, gimp, inkscape, scribus 5 Comments

I recently came across Code:Free, a webzine (made with Scribus) which showcases some great examples of art created with free software tools, and tutorials on how to achieve some nice effects – it’s kind of a compilation of the best of Deviantart made with Free tools. After seeing Ton Roosendaal keynote the Maemo Summit last weekend, it was a reminder that the goal behind creating software is to have your users take it & do cool stuff with it.

The webzine itself is gorgeously laid out and the art in it is very good indeed. Congratulations to Chrisdesign (of gimpforums.de fame) in this great initiative, long may it continue!

Giving Great Presentations – speaker notes

October 10, 2009 community, freesoftware, General, maemo 5 Comments

Earlier today I gave a lightning talk on giving great presentations at the Maemo Summit. The response has been great, and here are the notes I wrote for the presentation, so that people can refer back tol the advice when the time comes.

Giving Great Presentations

It was said that when Cicero finished speaking, people turned to each other and said “that was a great speech”. But when Demosthenes finished speaking, people said “we must march”.

Throughout history, great orators have changed the world. Entire movements can grow from the powerful communication of an idea.

Yet most technical presentations are horrible. Slides filled with bullet points, and monotone delivery. How many people here have asked themselves at one stage or another during a presentation, “why am I here?”

You might not be Obama, but you can still give better presentations. Here are some basic tips for improving. Nothing I’m going to say here is difficult, but there are no easy fixes either.

Think of your audience

The first tip is for when you are considering giving a presentation, and when you start writing your content. Think of what your audience will get from your presentation. What’s in it for them?

If your point is “to talk about…” you’re off track. You will put your audience to sleep. Seriously.
If you want to share some information, why not just write a blog entry? Why do you need to be in the room?

People don’t care about you. They care about themselves. So make your presentation about them.

A presentation is a sales pitch. You are there to convince people of something. Maybe it’s an idea you want them to believe. Maybe it’s a product you want them to use. If you’re not *selling* something, why are you giving a presentation? You may as well write a blog entry, and stay at home.

So cut to the chase. When you’re thinking about your presentation, think about one core question: What do I want audience members to do once they’ve seen my presentation? And then make sure everything in your presentation is driving towards that goal.

Tell a story

The best way to convince someone of something is to entertain them. And stories are entertaining. Some people are funny, and can use humour to entertain. I’m not funny. But everyone can tell a story.

Human beings are natural storytellers. And stories are a wonderful way to get a point across, especially if you structure your narrative well.

One possible narrative you could use is this:

Problem statement
Proposed solution
Supporting evidence
Conclusion

It’s important to finish your presentation will a call to action. Make people march. The action can be small. Integrate the key lesson of your presentation into their work. Download an SDK and try out some sample apps. Write a letter to a local politician. Donate to your cause.

But make it clear to people what you want from them.

Presentation design

The third suggestion is to design slides to compliment what you say, rather than repeat it.

Don’t write everything you’re going to say on the slide. Otherwise people will just read it, and won’t concentrate on you. You might as well just write a document and stay at home. Bullet points are especially bad for this – avoid them. Slides should be sparse. Pictures work better. Use images that reinforce your point – show, then tell.

Let’s say I wanted to convince you that Ethiopia was once again on the brink of famine. I could show you charts of crop yields, child mortality, and displaced populations. Or I could show you a photo and tell you the rest.

It’s emotional. It’s cheating. It works.

Practice

The biggest sin that people make when giving presentations is not to say what they want to say out loud before getting on stage.

Runners train. Football players practice. Musicians and actors spend hours getting performances right. So shouldn’t you too? How do you know how long it will take you to get through your content? How do you know what’s useful and what’s superfluous? Does your presentation have a good flow? Practice will tell you.

Doing all this takes time. It’s not as easy as throwing bullet points together the day before your presentation and hoping for the best.

But think of how many man-hours people will spend watching your presentation. How much of your time is it worth to ensure that your audience isn’t wasting theirs?

So go do it. Concentrate on your audience’s interests. Tell stories and entertain people. Make slides sparse. And prepare beforehand by practising. This is harder than what you do now. The pay-off is huge.

The best part is that your audiences will thank you.

Garmin Forerunner 405 ANT+ protocol

October 6, 2009 freesoftware, General, running 1 Comment

Anyone anywhere know anyone working for Garmin who might be able to put me in touch with someone who can tell me what the ANT+ communication protocol is, so that I can give it to the good people developing gant, so that they can fix their driver to not crash in the middle of a transfer please? It seems to break for me for any transfer with more than one track.

I can see absolutely no competitive reason to keep the protocol private, it’s almost completely reverse engineered already, and this would cost Garmin essentially nothing, and allow us poor Linux users a way to get our tracks off our watches. The problem is there’s an inertia in keeping this stuff private. It’s hard to get the person with the knowledge (the engineer) and the person with signing power to publish the protocol (a VP probably) in the same place with the person who wants the information (little ol’ me) – it can take hours of justifications & emails & meetings… Can anyone help short-curcuit the problem by helping me get the name of the engineer & the manager involved?

Thanks!

Estimating merge costs

September 28, 2009 community, freesoftware, General, maemo 2 Comments

After commenting on Mal Minhas’s “cost of non-participation” paper (PDF), I’ve been thinking about the cost of performing a merge back to a baseline, and I think I have something to work with.

First, this might be obvious, but worth stating: Merging a branch which has changed and a branch which has not changed is trivial, and has zero cost.

So merging only has a cost if we have a situation where the two trees concerned with the merge have changed.

We can also make another observation: If we are only adding new function points to a branch, and the mainline branch does not change the API, there is a very small cost to merging (almost zero). There may be some cost if functions with similar names, performing similar functions, have been added to the mainline branch, but we can trivially merge even a large diff if we are not touching any of the baseline code, and only adding new files, objects, or functions.

With that said, let’s get to the nuts & bolts of the analysis:

Let’s say that a code tree has n function points. A vendor takes a branch and makes a series of modifications which affects x function points in the program. The community develops the mainline, and changes y function points in the original program. Both vendor and community add new function points to extend functionality, but we’re assuming that merging these is an almost zero cost.

The probability of conflicts is obviously greater the bigger x and y are. This probability increases very fast the bigger the numbers. Let’s assume that every time that a given function point has been modified by both the vendor and the community that there is a conflict which must be manually resolved (1). If we assume that changes are independently distributed across the codebase (2), we can work out that the probability of at least one conflict is 1 – (n-x)!(n-y)!/n!(n-x-y)! if I haven’t messed up my maths (thanks to derf on #maemo for the help!).

So if we have 20 functions, and one function gets modified on the mainline and another on the vendor branch, we have a 5% chance of a conflict, but if we modify 5 each, the probability goes up to over 80%. This is the same phenomenon which lets you show that if you have 23 people in a room, chances are that at least two of them will share a birthday.

We can also calculate the expected number of conflicts, and thus the expected cost of the merge, if we assume the cost of each of these conflicts is a constant cost C (3). However, the maths to do that is outside the scope of my skillz right now Anyone else care to give it a go & put it in the comments?

We have a bunch of data we can analyse to calculate the cost of merges in quantitative terms (for example, Nokia’s merge of Hildon work from GTK+ 2.6 to 2.10), to estimate C, and of course we can quite easily measure n and y over time from the database of source code we have available to us, so it should be possible to give a very basic estimate metric for cost of merge with the public data.

Footnotes:

(1) It’s entirely possible to have automatic merges happen within a single function, and the longer the function, the more likely this is to happen if the patches are short.

(2) A poor assumption, since changes tend to be disproportionately concentrated in a few key functions.

(3) I would guess that the cost is usually proportional to the number of lines in the function, perhaps by the square of the number of lines – resolving a conflict in a 40 line function os probably more than twice as easy as resolving a conflict in an 80 line function. This is slightly at odds with footnote (1), so overall the assumption of constant cost seems reasonable to me.

The value of engagement

September 17, 2009 community, freesoftware, General, gimp, gnome, maemo, work 5 Comments

(Reposted from Neary Consulting)

Mal Minhas of the LiMo Foundation announced and presented a white paper at OSiM World called “Mobile Open Source Economic Analysis” (PDF link). Mal argues that by forking off a version of a free software component to adjust it to your needs, run intensive QA, and ship it in a device (a process which can take up to 2 years), you are leaving money on the table, by way of what he calls “unleveraged potential” – you don’t benefit from all of the features and bug fixes which have gone into the software since you forked off it.

While this is true, it is also not the whole story. Trying to build a rock-solid software platform on shifting sands is not easy. Many projects do not commit to regular stable releases of their software. In the not too distant past, the FFMpeg project, universally shipped in Linux distributions, had never had a stable or unstable release. The GIMP went from version 1.2.0 in December 1999 to 2.0.0 in March 2004 in unstable mode, with only bug-fix releases on the 1.2 series.

In these circumstances, getting both the stability your customers need, and the latest & greatest features, is not easy. Time-based releases, pioneered by the GNOME project in 2001, and now almost universally followed by major free software projects, mitigate this. They give you periodic sync points where you can get software which meets a certain standard of feature stability and robustness. But no software release is bug-free, and this is true for both free and proprietary software. In the Mythical Man-Month, Fred Brooks described the difficulties of system integration, and estimated that 25% of the time in a project would be spent integrating and testing relationships between components which had already been planned, written and debugged. Building a system or a Linux distribution, then, takes a lot longer than just throwing the latest stable version of every project together and hoping it all works.

By participating actively in the QA process of the project leading up to the release, and by maintaining automated test suites and continuous integration, you can mitigate the effects of both the shifting sands of unstable development versions and reduce the integration overhead once you have a stable release. At some stage, you must draw a line in the sand, and start preparing for a release. In the GNOME project, we have a progressive freezing of modules, progressively freezing the API & ABI of the platform, the features to be included in existing modules, new module proposals, strings and user interface changes, before finally we have a complete code freeze pre-release. Similarly, distributors decide early what versions of components they will include on their platforms, and while occasional slippages may be tolerated, moving to a new major version of a major component of the platform would cause integration testing to return more or less to zero – the overhead is enormous.

The difficulty, then, is what to do once this line is drawn. Serious bugs will be fixed in the stable branch, and they can be merged into your platform easily. But what about features you develop to solve problems specific to your device? Typically, free software projects expect new features to be built and tested on the unstable branch, but you are building your platform on the stable version. You have three choices at this point, none pleasant – never merge, merge later, or merge now:

Develop the feature you want on your copy of the stable branch, resulting in a delta which will be unique to your code-base, which you will have to maintain separately forever. In addition, if you want to benefit from the features and bug fixes added to later versions of the component, you will incur the cost of merging your changes into the latest version, a non-negigible amount of time.
Once you have released your product and your team has more time, propose the features you have worked on piecemeal to the upstream project, for inclusion in the next stable version. This solution has many issues:
- If the period is long enough, your feature additions will be long removed from the codebase as it has evolved, and merging your changes into the latest unstable tree will be a major task
- You may be redundantly solving problems that the community has already addressed, in a different or incompatible way.
- Feature requests may need substantial re-writing to meet community standards. This problem is doubly so if you have not consulted the community before developing the feature, to see how it might best be integrated.
- In the worst case, you may have built a lot of software on an API which is only present in your copy of the component’s source tree, and if your features are rejected, you are stuck maintaining the component, or re-writing substantial amounts of code to work with upstream.
Develop your feature on the unstable branch of the project, submit it for inclusion (with the overhead that implies), and back-port the feature to your stable branch once included. This guarantees a smaller delta from the next stable version to your branch, and ensures you work gets upstream as soon as possible, but adds a time & labour overhead to the creation of your software platform

In all of these situations there is a cost. The time & effort of developing software within the community and back-porting, the maintenance cost (and related unleveraged potential) to maintaining your own branch of a major component, and the huge cost of integrating a large delta back to the community-maintained version many months after the code has been written.

Intuitively, it feels like the long-term cheapest solution is to develop, where possible, features in the community-maintained unstable branch, and back-port them to your stable tree when you are finished. While this might be nice in an ideal world, feature proposals have taken literally years to get to the point where they have been accepted into the Linux kernel, and you have a product to ship – sometimes the only choice you have is to maintain the feature yourself out-of-tree, as Robert Love did for over a year with inotify.

While addressing the raw value of the code produced by the community in the interim, Mal does not quantify the costs associated with these options. Indeed, it is difficult to do so. In some cases, there is not only a cost in terms of time & effort, but also in terms of goodwill and standing of your engineers within the community – this is the type of cost which it is very hard to put a dollar value on. I would like to see a way to do so, though, and I think that it would be possible to quantify, for example, the community overhead (as a mean) by looking at the average time for patch acceptance and/or number of lines modified from intial proposal to final mainline merge.

Anyone have any other thoughts on ways you could measure the cost of maintaining a big diff, or the cost of merging a lot of code?

Frustration

September 10, 2009 community, maemo 16 Comments

I wonder if it was a mistake to adopt the “evaluate as they come in” method for Maemo Summit presentations. As we received proposals, for each proposal on its merits we said yes, no or maybe. If you were a yes, you were added to the schedule. A no got a nice email. A maybe stayed in the queue.

We set a deadline for submissions of September 13th, but this was a deadline for us to finish the schedule, not for people who wanted to give presentations to submit. I said as much in the call for content: “The final deadline for submissions will be September 13th but the sooner you submit your proposal the better chances you will have to get a slot”.

After Nokia World, a bunch of people came out of the woodwork to propose quality presentations, and after reviewing pending proposals last week, we now have an agenda which is almost full – there are 5 open slots and about 8 open lightning talk slots, about half of which are potentially taken already.

So it’s slightly frustrating to see 16 new submissions come in over the past 2 days as people saw the deadline arriving and the schedule filling up. If they were all there before, our choices might have been different, but now we will unfortunately be obliged to reject otherwise great presentations, simply because the proposers waited too long to ask for a slot.

It’s a tough problem to solve, though – if we had set an earlier deadline, we would not have received many of those presentations, or they would have been vague proposals like “can’t say much yet, but this’ll be a cool presentation about something related to Fremantle”. Approving presentations early allowed the council to have better information for travel subsidies and allowed people to book travel earlier and thus cheaper. But we’re going to miss out on some presentations I think would be pretty good. Pity.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »