68 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
  2. Jan 2019
    1. Apart from the free and open source KNIME Analytics Platform, KNIME also has commercial offerings. The KNIME server provides a platform for sharing workflows. It has a web interface and is connected to a KNIME instance for executing workflows remotely on demand or according to a schedule. Also commercially available are the Big Data Extensions and the KNIME Spark executor.
    1. If the open source community really wants to make a difference, then the some focus should be directed toward back-end, e-commerce billing systems. The regulatory conditions of the market have reached a point where it is incredibly inefficient for them to be tracked and applied by hand.

      This is an incredibly important point.

  3. Dec 2018
    1. OSS contribution takes time; I don't think anyone would contest that. Getting familiar with a project, finding out where you can fit into it, reading and responding to issues, testing and submitting patches, writing documentation. All of that requires a good deal of time.

      I reached out to a prominent OSS company preferring a "history of open source contributions" and put forward the idea that people who code for a living don't always have the opportunity. The response was surprisingly hostile:

      It doesn't exclude anyone. Zero chance I'm going to have a debate about it.

  4. Nov 2018
    1. The Moodle project

      Moodle is one of the largest open source collaborative platform used in the development of curriculum.

      Moodle is an Australian company and has various levels of subscriptions including one level for free. Overall I have found the site to be user friendly rich with demos, documentation and support including community forums. This site supports multiple languages and has an easy to use drop down menu for that selection.

      RATING: 5/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)

  5. Aug 2018
    1. Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

      I look at this and think immediatly about the Git model of allowing people to not only fork and reuse/redistribute pieces, but what about the ability to do pull requests to take improvements and push them back up the the source so that everyone potentially benefits?

  6. Jun 2018
    1. Why are there poor in this world where technology has helped create sufficient abundance to provide for basic needs including food, homes and care for all?

      Innovations in Technology is more a proprietary community than open source.

  7. May 2018
    1. The video offers HAX as the future of online course development because it simplifies the technology requirements of users in exchange for quality content and ease of access. At a recent conference in Nashville, Ollendyke and Kaufman used Lego pieces to explain HAX as being like the gridplate of a Lego board that allow for Open Source modular content to work together to create easy, multimedia integration.

      Nice one! I wonder if this was maybe OLCInnovate 2018 in Nashville? Which I'd seen it!

  8. Nov 2017
  9. Sep 2017
    1. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s investments in Meta and bioRxiv are also said to carry with them a strong preference for open source solutions.


  10. May 2017
    1. Today, it would be hard to imagine the world without Wikipedia or Linux, and, yet, society has not recognized those as economic contributions.

      As a person who loves Microsoft, but uses open-source software including the ones mentioned, the ability to be rewarded for doing the right thing is an universal appeal.

    1. Interesting things are happening over at Mastodon. If you have had your ears tuned to the hacker grapevines, you will most likely have heard that Mastodon is an open source federated social network that works very much like Twitter but is, in fact, not Twitter, and thus poses a challenge to the venerable bird site.
    1. To augment collaborative human and ecosystem capacity to perceive and to wisely address complex local and global issues. In all deliberations, consider onto the 7th generation.

      The TopicQuests Mission

  11. Apr 2017
    1. À la fin des années 1990, c’est au nom de ce réalisme capitaliste, que les promoteurs de l’Open Source Initiative avaient compris l’importance de maintenir des codes sources ouverts pour faciliter un terreau commun permettant d’entretenir le marché. Ils voyaient un frein à l’innovation dans les contraintes des licences du logiciel libre tel que le proposaient Richard Stallman et la Free Software Foundation (par exemple, l’obligation de diffuser les améliorations d’un logiciel libre sous la même licence, comme l’exige la licence GNU GPL – General Public License). Pour eux, l’ouverture du code est une opportunité de création et d’innovation, ce qui n’implique pas forcément de placer dans le bien commun les résultats produits grâce à cette ouverture. Pas de fair play : on pioche dans le bien commun mais on ne redistribue pas, du moins, pas obligatoirement.

      Voilà la différence fondamentale (et originelle) entre libre et open source !

  12. Mar 2017
    1. his ongoing efforts show that it is possible to have a satisfying and safe user experience while using federated alternatives, this is only possible because, unlike any other XMPP client developers, he is in the position of working on this project full time. The problem has not been solved but shifted. If economically sustainable XMPP federation were to scale to the point of being as successful as the centralised solution offered by Signal, it would have to face the consequences of doing so in the context of a free market driven by competition. In that situation, each XMMP client's economic viability would depend heavily on its capacity to capture enough users that can provide income for their developers. The problem therefore is not so much a problem of the technical or economical sustainability of federation, but more a problem of the economic sustainability of open standards and protocols in a world saturated with solutionist business models

      The inconvenient reality of open source: hungry devs.

  13. Sep 2016
    1. Data sharing over open-source platforms can create ambiguous rules about data ownership and publication authorship, or raise concerns about data misuse by others, thus discouraging liberal sharing of data.

      Surprising mention of “open-source platforms”, here. Doesn’t sound like these issues are absent from proprietary platforms. Maybe they mean non-institutional platforms (say, social media), where these issues are really pressing. But the wording is quite strange if that is the case.

  14. Jun 2016
  15. Feb 2016
    1. REBUS Open Web Textbooks - A new project to build a collaborative system for open source textbooks.

      https://twitter.com/hughmcguire<br> https://twitter.com/Bopuc

    1. What makes this more difficult to resolve is that GitHub is — surprise! — not open source. GitHub is closed source, meaning that only GitHub staff is able to make improvements to its platform.The irony of using a proprietary tool to manage open source projects, much like BitKeeper and Linux, has not been lost on everyone. Some developers refuse to put their code on GitHub to retain their independence. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Git himself, refuses to accept pull requests (code changes) from GitHub.

      That's why I have advocated tools like Fossil to other members of our Hackerspace and other communities like Pharo or decentralized options to Mozilla Science (without much acceptation in the communities or even any reaction from Mozilla Science).

      Going with the de facto and popular defaults (without caring about freedom or diversity) seems the position of open source/science communities and even digital activist, which contrast sharply with their discourse for the building of tools/data/politics, but seems invisible in the building of community/metadata/metapolitics.

      The kind of disempowerment these communities are trying to fight, is the one they're suffering with GitHub, like showed here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjLddpvTW_3w8LyrU-

      So there is a tension between the convenience and wider awareness/participation of centralized privative platforms that is wanted by these open/activist communities and a growth in the (over)use of the commons that is bigger that the growth of its sustainability/ethos, as shown here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjfsTRvTW_3w8LyrqI . Sacrificing growth/convenience by choosing simpler and more coherent infrastructures aligned with the commons and its ethos seems a sensible approach then.

    2. Technically, if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them. And then that person’s code would potentially have a different license from the rest of your code.Your average hobbyist developer might not care about the rules, but many companies forbid employees from using Stack Overflow, partly for this reason.As we enter a post open source world, Stack Overflow has explored transitioning to a more permissive MIT license, but the conversation hasn’t been easy. Questions like what happens to legacy code, and dual licensing for code and non-code contributions, have generated confusion and strong reactions.
    3. The free software generation had to think about licenses because they were taking a stance on what they were not (that is, proprietary software). The GitHub generation takes this right for granted. They don’t care about permissions. They default to open.Open source is so popular today that we don’t think of it as exceptional anymore. We’re so open source, that maybe we’re post open source:But not is all groovy in the land of post open source.
  16. Jan 2016
    1. One thing that irritates me more than anything is the expectation people have to other people’s time, specifically open source project maintainers. They are not your tech support. They built a product you are using for free. You’re welcome.

      I think the vast majority of open source users don't need to be told this. But it only takes a few jerks to regularly annoy someone.

      Chris Patti added a good point. Even if you can't donate, you can send short thank-you emails. That should include anyone who makes something you find helpful or entertaining, whether it's software, open access books, MOOCs, tutorials, a blog, webcomics, videos, etc.

    1. So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.  To vote.  To speak out.

      Absolutely, but it's government's job at all levels--from our hometowns to Washington, DC--to make it easier for citizens to do that. Far too many Americans simply can't fulfill many of these "obligations as a citizen," due to work, or kids or fear or lack of information, or school, basically, life. Government has to lower those barriers, make it way more possible for citizens to do their civic duties. There's a tremendous opportunity to deploy free, open source tools--heck, even proprietary ones--here.

    2. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.  Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. 

      C'mon, civic technologists, government innovators, open data advocates: this can be a call to arms. Isn't the point of "open government" to bring people together to engage with their leaders, provide the facts, and allow more informed, engaged debate?

    3. how do we make technology work for us, and not against us

      This is a critical question for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and for every presidential candidate. But at least the President and Congressional leaders are talking about it--we've heard next to nothing from all the candidates for the White House, and next to nothing at all the debates.

      I wonder: what happens to 18F, USDS, each agency's online engagement staff, etc. the day after a GOP candidate wins? What happens if the White House stays with Democrats? Beats me, and that's incredibly problematic.

      Either way, Congress can and should also play a role in supporting--at least maintaining--the progress made on open source, adopting/creating better tech, outfits like 18F/USDS. Building out a Congressional-and-civil-society "tech transition survival" plan would be a great, bipartisan, bicameral project. I think it's also fully within the realm of possibility.

    1. Kent C. Dodds shares some ideas about making open source projects friendly to new contributors. He starts with the obvious things: provide guides and good documentation. He suggests adding labels that make beginner-friendly issues easy to find. One idea that was new to me: Write the specification and tests for a new feature, then let someone else implement it.

      How getting into open source has been awesome for me<br> What open source project should I contribute to?

  17. Dec 2015
    1. In addition to the improved performance, Big Sur is far more versatile and efficient than the off-the-shelf solutions in our previous generation. While many high-performance computing systems require special cooling and other unique infrastructure to operate, we have optimized these new servers for thermal and power efficiency, allowing us to operate them even in our own free-air cooled, Open Compute standard data centers.

      Facebook's Open Compute Project releases open-source hardware designs created with energy efficiency and ease of maintenance as priorities.

    1. if the group should decide to fork Moodle together

      Contrary to Free Software, Open Source has special affordances for forking, even if the forks become commercial.

    2. alliance of Moodle service providers that currently collaborate on Moodle-related projects of mutual interest
  18. Nov 2015
    1. The four freedoms don’t limit us as creators — they open possibilities for us as creators and consumers. When you apply them to software, you get Linux, Webkit/Chrome, and WordPress. When you apply them to medicine, you get the Open Genomics Engine, which is accelerating cancer research and bringing us closer to personalized treatment. When you apply them to companies, you get radically geographically distributed, results-based organizations like Automattic. When you apply them to events you get TEDx, Barcamp, and WordCamp. When you apply them to knowledge, you get Wikipedia.
    2. as of December 2013, 21% of websites are powered by WordPress. One-fifth of the web is built with a tool that anyone can use, change, or improve, whenever and however they want (even more when you count other open source projects
    3. B2 was ultimately abandoned by its creator. If I’d been using it under a proprietary license, that would have been the end — for me, and all its other users. But because we had freedoms 2 and 3, Mike Little and I were able to use the software as a foundation
    4. I’ve spent a third of my life building software based on Stallman’s four freedoms, and I’ve been astonished by the results. WordPress wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for those freedoms, and it couldn’t have evolved the way it has. WordPress was based on a program called B2/cafelog that predated it by two years. I was using B2 because it had freedoms 0 and 1
    1. The Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, originally expressed by Richard Stallman. It is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Software offered for a fee can still be free. A program is free software if the users have four essential freedoms:

      0. Run the program as you wish, for any purpose.<br> 1. Study the source code, and change it as you please.<br> 2. Copy and distribute the original program.<br> 3. Copy and distribute modified versions.

    1. Companies that open source a project and then abandon it need to publicly acclaim the people taking over the project and make a clear change in ownership.
    2. Companies need to have realistic expectations of the work-life balance of open source maintainers.

      When you hire an open source developer, you hire someone who works all the time--not just 8-5, not just at a desk, not just on that one pet project that management's currently excited about. They work on that, they work on the related libraries, they work on projects that use those libraries, they work on the next great version of the libraries the company will need in two more years.

      Plan for your own future by letting your developers explore it for you. They already are...even before you've hired them.

    3. effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects

      If anything is missing with regards to open source within companies (of all sizes), it's this situation.

      Teaching "companies" (or rather the entire management stack/chain) how to "effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects" could change the game for those companies, the projects they interface with, and certainly for the developers (inside and outside of the companies).

    4. They should be treated like adults though and allowed to spend what they see as an appropriate amount of time working on the project versus other projects for the company. Trying to quanitfy/limit the amount of time leads to conflict and strife and unhappy management and employees. It doesn't work and it's not a long term, maintainable solution.

      In the end, it's a quest of trust. Hire people who work on the open source projects your company depends on. Then, let them keep doing it--for pay...at last!--and expect them to continue to balance the worlds of open source and business...as they likely already were, but now with the needle tilted slightly (or more, one would hope) in favor of working on open source code.

      It's like picking flowers. If you pick them and bring them inside, they die. Plant them in some fertile ground, however, and let them keep doing their thing. (OK, that was a bit strained...but hopefully you see my point ^_^).

    5. Some projects work to actively alienate corporations trying to contribute because of ideology. This is not the path that will lead us to sustainable open source software development and companies that can contribute responsibly.


      /me pats IBM on the back one more time. :)

      There are (a very few) companies that balance these worlds of community and commerce well.

      If you know of another, please reply!

    6. The company refuses to expand the core development team with non-employees

      From what I've seen these projects are often licensed under the AGPL and essentially amount to "loss leader source." Community === "add on builders" and "consumers" in the minds of the product team not future "land owners."

      Be sure the project is community lead (or in transition that way at least!) before you sign that CLA...or even bother with that patch.

    7. TwitterOSS team (hint: their funding as a department was cut)

      Sad news.

    8. sometimes you find a bounty like this one where a company has added a significant amount to a bug

      Unsurprisingly (to me) that company is IBM.

      Keep up the greatness!

  19. Aug 2015
    1. The Training and Learning Architecture (TLA) encompasses a set of standardized Web service specifications and Open Source Software (OSS) designed to create a rich environment for connected training and learning.
  20. Jul 2015
    1. a chaotic way of managing a project as that project gets big

      Don't let it get big? Maybe.

    2. the nature of low-bandwidth communication on the internet probably just exposes you to misunderstandings and you end up stressing out over things vs being the friends you normally would.
  21. May 2015
    1. Engineers who worked on a lot of open source projects had high levels of creativity
    2. Developers felt more ownership over their work, and pride in it
    3. Open source developers work well together because of their similar ways of thinking
    4. Peer pressure from GitHub—having their name on a project—was a big motivator for engineers to work harder and not let the community of users down.
    5. If they leave, they're likely to keep working on the project, so you're still getting value for free!
  22. Mar 2015
    1. Any contributor to our open source projects is already familiar with a bit of software that we use internally and would require less training if they joined the company.
    2. At Twitter, our open source program has a team of developer advocates focused on growing open source ecosystems which are important for us to ensure they thrive and evolve to our benefit.
    3. hosting events, speaking at conferences, reaching out to contributors, writing documentation to lower the barrier of entry to new contributors
    4. suffers from an over protective legal organization
    5. respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on
  23. Feb 2015
  24. Nov 2014
    1. If we believe in equality, if we believe in participatory democracy and participatory culture, if we believe in people and progressive social change, if we believe in sustainability in all its environmental and economic and psychological manifestations, then we need to do better than slap that adjective “open” onto our projects and act as though that’s sufficient or — and this is hard, I know — even sound.
  25. Oct 2014
    1. WordPress, Drupal and many other complete web applications come ready made for deployment.

      Even if cheap, I wonder what the TCO (total cost of ownership is like)

  26. Jun 2014
    1. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

      "Technology leadership is....defined by...the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers."

      The key components of this applied "open source philosophy" seem to be about increasing input, visibility, and collective motivation by taking fear out of the interaction equation.

  27. Feb 2014