What Was Old Is New Again

A number of old projects I worked on have begun to stir up interest. On Tuesday I got email from some folks who are interested in creating a German translation of the C# vs. Java article I wrote in college. Yesterday I got email from Vladimir Bossicard requesting links to my old code because he wanted to begin implementing SiXDML for Xindice 1.1. Of course, all the code is available from Sanjay's SourceForge project so he really doesn't need anything from me.

This reminds me of my New Year resolution to write more about about my personal technology interests instead of just about XML stuff for the B0rg. Hopefully things will look up schedule-wise in the next few months and I'll find some free time to write about cool non-XML technology completed unrelated goings on in the Belly of the Beast.

Speaking of schedules, it is quote likely I'll be at in Dallas, TX in June for TechEd 2003 which would be nice since I haven't been to Dallas since I interned at i2 in 2000.

#

RSS Bandit Taking On A Life Of It's Own

There are currently 16 developers signed up as co-developers for the RSS Bandit workspace. Using typical Open Source community math this still means I can at least look forward to one primary developer working fulltime on it in their spare time and two or three secondary developers who'll be active with patches and the like. It looks like Torsten will be a primary developer on the project based on the work he's doing in his spare time.

The RSSComponents workspace only has 7 co-developers signed up but it also looks like primary developer is already being revealed. I hope I have enough time to keep track of both projects along with all the other stuff I juggle.

I hope there'll be as much interest in my EXSLT implementation whenever I get around to finishing it.

#

Release Early, Release Often vs. Better Together

In David Stutz's farewell email to Microsoft which eventually made headlines in all the usual places he mentions

but open source software in general, running especially on the Windows operating system, is a much bigger threat. As the quality of this software improves, there will be less and less reason to pay for core software-only assets that have become stylized categories over the years: Microsoft sells OFFICE (the suite) while people may only need a small part of Word or a bit of Access. Microsoft sells WINDOWS (the platform) but a small org might just need a website, or a fileserver. It no longer fits Microsoft's business model to have many individual offerings and to innovate with new application software.

the corporate delusion that goes by many names: "better together," "unified platform," and "integrated software."

There is another perspective to the above quotes I've been thinking about for the past weeks ever since David initially forwarded me the email. Spurred by development at "Internet time" epitomized where companies like Netscape during the Dot Bomb boom and the Open Source community the software industry for the most part is embracing the practice of releasing early and releasing often. However a business model that is based on your various components working "better together" and being a "unified platform" is essentially stating that this software will not released often when compared to the rest of the software industry.

I am of two minds about such a strategy. On the one hand software users don't like the rapid upgrade cycles enforced on them by software vendors and appreciate it when applications are well integrated (who doesn't love cut & paste between Office apps and IE)? On the other hand the more you tie components together the less rapidly you can innovate in the constituent software pieces and the more dependencies you have.

I really need to stop futzing around with XML and go back to school to work on getting an MBA so I can actually get paid to have these conversations with myself. :)

#


--
Get yourself a News Aggregator and subscribe to my RSSfeed

Disclaimer: The above comments do not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my employer. They are solely my opinion.