It's been a spectacular day for news today, just way too much to break up into separate posts.
The first big item was that Google has added Atom feeds for Usenet. That is just amazing to have that kind of adoption for the format. Unfortunately, they don't currently validate, but hey, that's what a beta is all about.
An Atom Supporter
Then we learn the MoveableType 3.0 has a new license. And you now have to register with TypeKey to download the software. The response is less than enthusiastic. Follow some of the trackbacks on Mena's post to get a flavor. Timothy Appnel has posted his observations, but I think he misses one of the big points: MT has always allowed access to the source but it has never been Open Source. Had it been open source then interested developers could fork MT 2.661 and continue improving it. The things I'll be watching over the next few weeks will be how many high profile bloggers switch away from MT and how SixApart handles the controversy. The take away from this is two fold, first always read the licensing agreements carefully before you end up as Bill Gates towel boy, and second if given a choice among equals always choose open source.
The next big news of the day is that the Atom working group is being wooed by the W3C. Earlier in the day the W3C posted a note W3C response to proposed Atom Publishing Format and Protocol (atompub) working group where they outline why they think the Atom working group should be hosted at the W3C instead of the IETF. The response was quick and the ATOMPUB WG was not approved during today's IESG telechat. Danny Ayers tends to approve of going to the W3C while Mark Nottingham has his reservations. While I think its great that the two organizations are both interested in Atom I do have my reservations about the W3C which mostly mirror that of Mark Nottingham. My biggest concerns that anybody be able to join and participate which isn't how the W3C currently operates, and that RDF not be foisted upon Atom.
I Told You So
Finally, as much as I hate to say it, I told you so. In the article entitled "Longhorn goes to pieces" the slow slipping of WinFS is described. Here's a great quote:
"So it could be that for example, you could use WinFS as a server for collaboration in workgroups. But if you want to support hundreds of users, that may wait for the update release," Muglia said.
So the strategy is: we'll ship it now and fix the fundamental performance bottlenecks in a service pack. Yeah, good luck with that.
"... if given a choice among equals always choose open source."
It's affirmative action for software!
Posted by Ryan on 2004-05-14
Posted by Asbjørn Ulsberg on 2004-05-15
Thanks, the link has been updated.
As for the problems with the comment script please accept my apologies. I know how to fix the problem, but I am actually spending my time on migrating from Bulu to pyblosxom.
Posted by Joe on 2004-05-15
"as much as I hate to say it"
Posted by Sam Ruby on 2004-05-16
Posted by Lawrence Oluyede on 2004-05-14