With the release of IE7 Release Candidate 1, it is interesting to read this article that suggests Microsoft is going to be helping with FireFox development to help both FireFox and Thunderbird run on Windows Vista. Apparently, the head of Microsoft’s Open Source Software Lab has extended the offer of help. It’s not clear to me if Microsoft is ‘paying the social rent’, trying to assimilate FireFox developers into the collective or hatching some other devious plot, or whether the attitude to open source software is shifting. Whatever the motive, any way you spin it, this is an interesting turn of events. The lab runs through December and offers developers desk space in the Redmond campus and access to Microsoft engineers. Having recently argued that Open Source (free) software may be ultimately harmful to the software industry, I will be watching developments with interest.
Let me open by saying that when I refer to Open Source Software, what I really mean is free software. The term ‘free software’ has a specific connotation as defined by the Free Software Foundation and doesn’t necessarily mean free-of-charge, but what I mean is software that costs nothing. I use the term ‘open source’ perhaps incorrectly but it is a convenient label that for most people is synonymous with free (no cost) software.
The problem with open source software is that there is a wide expectation that it will be free. Most open source software is free and that fuels the expectation that all open source is free but, worse, it contributes to a growing attitude towards software that all software should be free and is essentially worth nothing. I found the following amazing passage on Scott Hanselman’s blog while I was looking into a new developer tool from Microsoft named ‘Sandcastle’:
Recently Kevin Downs, the leader of NDoc, emailed a NDoc folks announcing that NDoc is dead. I was shocked to get this email, but sadly, not surprised. Here's an important part of his email:
Unfortunately, despite the almost ubiquitous use of NDoc, there has been no support for the project from the .Net developer community either financially or by development contributions. Since 1.3 was released, there have been the grand total of eleven donations to the project. In fact, were it not for Oleg Tkachenko’s kind donation of a MS MVP MSDN subscription, I would not even have a copy of VS2005 to work with!
To put this into perspective, if only roughly 1-in-10 of the those who downloaded NDoc had donated the minimum allowable amount of $5 then I could have worked on NDoc 2.0 full-time and it could have been released months ago! Now, I am not suggesting that this should have occurred, or that anyone owes me anything for the work I have done, rather I am trying to demonstrate that if the community values open-source projects then it should do *something* to support them. MS has for years acknowledged community contributions via the MVP program but there is absolutely no support for community projects.
Apparently Kevin started getting threats - yes, you heard right, threats - about a .NET 2.0 version and has been email-bombed. He's rightfully decided to bow out after a successful run.
NDoc has been used by many a developer to churn out documentation for class libraries, both in HTML for use on the web and in CHM help file format for use within visual studio. I’ve used NDoc myself for a few projects (see here for example output). All that documentation is produced largely automatically, directly from the code. It’s a very powerful idea and encourages forward-push documentation, a great idea started by Microsoft that was left to third party developers to make really useful.
NDoc was a great product, so I was amazed when I read the above and realised there would be no version for .NET 2.0 and beyond. I’m sad that Kevin didn’t get the support he needed to continue, particularly from the very developers who are the so-called advocates for open source. The relevance to Sandcastle is that Microsoft is now stepping up to fill the void left by NDoc with this new offering, but there will be some time before Sandcastle fully fills NDoc’s shoes.
It’s very sad, but I suspect this echoes a recurring pattern for open source software. It relies on the passion of a few individuals whose enthusiasm cannot be sustained by kudos alone and they eventually burn out and give up or simply become bored with the project. With a few important exceptions, there is never adequate documentation and it always feels like you’re using beta software, never a finished product.
Those are the obvious disadvantages of open source software, but I think the real damage is much deeper and much more subtle. Open Source Software makes it harder for professional developers to make a living. Ultimately, that is harmful to the software industry which in turn hurts end users. Some open source software is produced by professionals who usually can’t devote the same time and effort to it as something they get paid for. At worst, open source is written by amateur ‘have-a-go heroes’ who tend to be less accomplished in the arts of software engineering and produce unreliable, badly documented and unsupported monsters. An extreme view perhaps, but I believe that overall, software quality is reduced. Far from being free, open source software carries a heavy cost.
In the arena of astronomy, a hobby of mine, I have seen several people develop something and give it away for free, then ask for donations and be disappointed with the response, then make a donation mandatory then finally move to selling the software at a commercial rate. Anyone wanting to produce sustainable software needs to derive benefits from it, to build a customer base and to have an incentive to support and evolve the software. There are a few people out there who produce free software just for the joy of it – they give it away free because they don’t need the money. In some cases they even produce a quality product. Their aims are probably laudible, but I wish they’d stop to consider the wider implications. I wish they would at least charge a token fee for their software. They don’t seem to realise that by giving it away scot free, they are helping to perpetuate the perception that all software is free and erode respect for intellectual property rights. This makes it harder for professional developers to make their living and is ultimately harmful to everyone.
It doesn’t have to be difficult to make money from software; the licenses don’t have to be draconian and the prices don’t need to be sky-high. Software can be produced commercially at a price that is good for everyone. I’ve produced a set of tools for software developers that make it really easy, two lines of code at minimum, to add shareware registration to any .NET managed code. In the .Net 2.0 era there is a better solution in the form of the Shareware Starter Kit, but my solution is a lot easier to implement. Literally anyone can do it. The system can be extended to vary the evaluation period in terms of a time period, number of launches, it can vary the strength of ‘nagging’ reminders, it can help the author disable advanced features until a registration fee is paid (‘crippleware’) or it can simply display a gentle reminder screen and allow the product to be used without registering. A very flexible system with emphasis on ease of use for the developer rather than on defending against hackers (because if someone wants to crack it, they will – but most people would rather pay a modest registration fee that waste their time). I use this software in some of my own products and I’ve also sold it to a few third parties. The point is, it doesn’t have to be difficult or expensive to do this.
My nugget of wisdom to would-be open software developers is this:
The evidence is there for everyone to see in cases such as NDoc. Giving away free software is not sustainable and in doing so, you make it harder for those who produce software professionally, ultimately harming the industry. Newsflash: most people don’t part with their money unless they have to. Voluntary schemes are all very well, but wake up and take a whiff of human nature. Go to your local supermarket and see if paying for the goods and services is voluntary!
Kevin should have charged a fee for NDoc. It didn’t have to be an exorbitant fee, but the product was good enough and people would have paid for it. Some people would have paid a lot for it. The product would have been sustainable and we would now still have a wonderful tool at our disposal. If a fee had been charged, everyone would have won. By giving people the option not to pay, of course the majority took the default option of not paying and as a result, this product is now lost to us. Ultimately, did it really benefit anyone that this was a free product? No. Everyone is a loser.
If you’re a software developer who laments the demise of NDoc as I do, then fear not! There is a new kid on the block by the name of Sandcastle. Microsoft is finally finishing the job they started in Visual Studio by polishing up the tool they used to produce the documentation for the .Net Framework. It’s not a finished product yet, but it will be a very welcome addition to the developer arsenal. Let's hope it can fill the NDoc void.
Ping Wales just published a story of the same title, but due to the format of the publication they weren;t able to use the full text or the photos I sent them, so I thought I’d upload my version of the article here.
TiGra Networks in the Search for Planet X
No, not the title of an episode of Star Trek; this is real science. Over the past 18 months TiGra Networks has worked with Space Exploration Limited, based in County Roscommon, Ireland on an ambitious project to set up and automate two astronomical observatories (left). One of the goals of the project will be to carry out asteroid surveys and, using the power of the large custom built telescope, to discover new minor planets known as EKBOs after their location in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Ultimately, the plan is to search for a theoretical tenth planet, known as Planet X which could lie at the outermost reaches of the solar system. Astronomers may be divided on whether a tenth planet really exists, but there is some evidence that something may be out there. One thing’s for certain – the only way to find out is to look for it, and the giant 36-inch Newtonian reflector at Kingsland Observatory might just be the only instrument (certainly in the British Isles) capable of finding it. A second goal is to hire out telescope time to guest astronomers so that the best use can be made of the instruments and the observing time available.
About Space Exploration Limited and Kingsland Observatory
(photos: Kingsland Observatory 36" and 16" telescopes)
-
Located near Boyle, County Roscommon, Republic of Ireland.
-
Directors: Eamonn and Catherine Ansbro
-
Has several observatories, the two primary instruments are:
-
36-inch Newtonian reflector, custom designed and built by Eamonn Ansbro, housed in a building with a roll-off roof.
-
16-inch Schmidt Cassegrain on a German Equatorial Mount, housed in an observatory dome.
-
The 36-inch telescope (according to Eamonn) is the largest operational optical telescope in the British Isles.
-
Both instruments are robotic, capable of operating autonomously and will be controlled by advanced scheduling software. The telescopes also have a web interface and can be controlled over the Internet using just a web browser.
TiGra Networks’ role
As an enthusiastic amateur astronomer and someone who develops and sells software for the astronomy community, TiGra Network’s technical lead Tim Long was an natural choice for this project, which demanded skills across several disciplines including Information Technology, astronomy, electronics, software development and business analysis. Tim has experience with robotic observatories and has built his own internet-enabled observatory in Llantwit Fardre, South Wales, equipped with a 12” Schmidt cassegrain telescope and specialist CCD camera (photo left).
The first priority was to commission the instruments and ensure they could safely work robotically (that is, unattended). This has involved working on the mechanics of the telescope mounts to ensure they have the required pointing and tracking accuracy, adding safety interlocks to protect the equipment from damaging itself and to monitor weather conditions, designing and installing electronics to control the observatory roof along with driver software to enable it to be PC-controlled. This also involved identifying and configuring software to control the instruments, provide the web interface for remote access and perform scheduling of the telescope time.
Another part of the project was software development, which has included drivers for interfacing to the telescope and roof controller electronics, some scripts to customise the observatory automation software and various file format conversions for getting data in and out of the scheduler database. Further work in this area is anticipated as the observatory moves towards renting telescope time to external astronomers.
The third phase of the project was to set up an IT infrastructure based on Windows PCs to provide networking between the observatories and offices, storage and backup for the images obtained from the specialist CCD cameras plus internet access for the remote control of the instruments.
A final yet-to-be-completed phase will look at the business logic of hiring out telescope time to third parties and to implement software and web applications to simplify the task.
Science Objectives
Both Kingsland Observatory and Brynllefrith Observatory have recently been recognised by the International Astronomical Union and have received official designations “J62” and “J58” respectively from the IAU’s Minor Planet Center based at Harvard. These uninspiring reference numbers recognise that the observatories have proven their ability to image minor planets (asteroids) and measure their positions with sufficient accuracy to make useful contributions to solar system science. This is an important first step into making sky surveys with a view to discovering new solar system objects.
Kingsland Observatory is particularly concerned with Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects (EKBOs) one of which could turn out to be the fabled ‘Planet X’. A number of interesting objects have been discovered in recent years, including Sedna which at the time of discovery in 2003 was the most distant observed solar system object. Sedna is an interesting object with an unusual highly-elliptical orbit and its origins are unclear, but one explanation involves the presence of a distant planet, ‘Planet X’. There is also some evidence based on observed groupings of comets that might suggest the presence of a distant planetary object.
M51 "The Whirlpool Galaxy", in the constellation Ursa Major (the plough). This image was taken by Tim Long at Brynllefrith Observatory in 2003 using the 12" telescope and a specialised CCD camera. The total exposure duration is several hours.
About TiGra Networks
TiGra Networks (http://www.tigranetworks.co.uk) was formed in November 2005 and is a small but progressive family-run business based in Llantwit Fardre. Tim Long (owner and technology consultant) has 20 years experience working in software development and IT with companies such as Nortel Networks and Cisco Systems. We are passionate about the benefits of Information Technology for the smaller business and helping people get the most from their IT investment. Our speciality is setting up and maintaining networks based on Windows Small Business Server, but we also undertake software development projects and Tim develops astronomy software under the brand Software-y-Ddraig (http://syd.tigranetworks.co.uk). We are one of a small handful of qualified Microsoft Small Business Specialists in South Wales and in November we led the formation of South Wales Small Business Specialist Group.
Further Information
Space Exploration Limited / Kingsland Observatory:Eamonn Ansbro, Director. +353 (94) 98 70974 eansbro@eircom.net
SBS R2 beta testers today received communication from Microsoft about the details and impact of the SBS R2 recall. Regrettably, the email message reminds us that we are bound by the non-disclosure agreement and we are forbidden to discuss the content of the message. That's a shame, because I would have liked to blogged some portions of the message.
I can't really understand that decision because Microsoft can only come up smelling of roses from this situation. There is nothing damaging to Microsoft in any of this. Everyone already knows that the mistake happened but Microsoft has acted with integrity to set things right. Some people will be critical but you can't please all of the people all of the time, as a wise man once said. It is particularly pleasing that Microsoft has done the right thing now that we know details of the problems - it would have been so easy for Microsoft to just try to sweep it under the rug. Beta testers received the RTM bits very soon after RTM and presumably began installing the product way before any boxed product was shipped, so it is likely that it is the beta testers who will be mostly affected. I would have thought that this was a great time for transparency. I'm not sure whether the intent was to prevent us from discussing the details of the problem, but that's effectively what we have been told. The entire message is covered by NDA. Why not release us from NDA so we can talk about the issue openly?