When you release source code, it is always good to have a back-up site. I updated mine after six months tonight.

http://barbalet.topcities.com/

Good night.

'The thing I like about media is the power it gives you to mold the public mind.' [8.1Mb MP3]
    - Gurap quoting Kerry Packer who, according to BBC News, has died.

I remember one year when he won more than $1.3 million on a single horse race he paid less than $100 in tax for the entire year. I recall the sum was around $30. (I found a media source for this).

'I minimise my tax. Any Australian who doesn't minimise his tax should have his head read.'
    - Wikipedia quoting Kerry Packer.

This little monkey got off that island.

Good afternoon and to Mr Packer, good night.

Recovering from the carnivorous experience...

Backgrounding...

Something I enjoy about maintaining and developing Noble Ape is hearing about new technology. I get probably two emails a month about new technology that seems to merit a second look. Backgrounding technology - establishing if there is enough information online to answer my initial questions and then establishing what is needed to run or compile the technology - is a re-occurring theme with these emails.

I have a checklist, for the benefit of a leisurely evening, I will expand upon.

(1) What is it? Is there enough information online to establish what it is.

(2) Is the information filled with jargon? Funnily enough, jargon is almost always a bad thing. If people can't say what something does simply, it probably does very little.

(3) Who is involved? A little honesty goes a long way. If the project is just a single dude, say it's a single dude.

(4) Can I get the application/source code/documentation easily? If not, why not.

(5) Are other folks talking about it/writing about it online? It's pretty easy to generate an online buzz - but getting lots of independent folk to write about something is always a good indicator that there is something there.

(6) How frequently is the site/information/executable/source code updated?

(7) The more information, the better. Even if the information is unclear, poorly written or typo laden.

(8) What are the motivations of those involved with the project? This is perhaps the hardest point to answer.

So with these magic eight, let's look at three practical examples I have ''backgrounded'' in the past six weeks.

http://www.croquetproject.org/
http://www.ogre3d.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Another Ballgame?

OpenCroquet is an interesting example of a clearly detailed project that fails completely to convey what it does through use of very picturesque graphics that are non-descriptive to the project and heaps of jargon. In fact, I found it difficult to understand what OpenCroquet was until I went to the screen shots section of the site.

In terms of who is involved, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by long lists of names associated with companies and academia if I don't already know about the project. I'd like to think the big projects don't miss my radar, and similarly I have found projects with huge involvement lists that never move very quickly. You also can find that some/most of the names quoted don't even know about the existence of the project. I don't want to name names. But I am generally skeptical of long involvement lists.

The email about OpenCroquet came with a caveat saying the recommending person had difficulties compiling the source. That is a huge red flag for me. Difficult source code compilation indicates blue-cloud open source development. You need exactly the same development environment in order to compile it.

One of the first things I did with Noble Ape was make sure every compiler I touched would be able to compile the source code. This got praise from Apple engineers because I had #ifdef testing that automatically compiled the right code for the right compiler. Not as easy for Windows or Linux, but I'm still sensitive to the issues of source code compilation.

So from the red flag OpenCroquet will be a watch, but don't invest time in until I hear more positive stuff from more folk. The motivations of the parties involved seem to be more academic than practical. Yes, there is bias in this assessment. But I have a finite amount of time.

Grrrr-wait

I really like the idea of OGRE3d. In fact, it is something I download and test every 6-9 months to track where it is in terms of where I would need it to be for a Noble Ape implementation. My real question about the development is what does it do that GLUT doesn't do? I understand it has thin layer ActiveX support which is cute. But it still seems a little clunky in both OpenGL and ActiveX modes on Windows.

Honestly, through good demos and clear documentation, I really don't care who is involved with OGRE3d. It's in the keep watching and keep downloading whilst they iron out the final kinks before I commit more time to it. But it is moving in the right direction.

Open Without Information

Everyone knows Wikipedia now? Right? I'm curious who's behind Wikipedia. I say this because I have noticed a slightly right wing bias in Wikipedia which seems somewhat strange as it has leftist motives through the editing and general use. I wanted to know who set up Wikipedia and how it was set up. It all comes down to the Board of Trustees;

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees

The US has some of the most curious non-profit laws in the English speaking (and probably first) world. Whilst I have considered setting Noble Ape up as a US non-profit, I'm always curious why others would set up a US non-profit associated with Open Source. There are substantial financial advantages setting up any high R&D internet enterprise as a non-profit.

The bio information of the Board of Trustees gave me a number of red flags. The term ''internet entrepreneur'' always makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. I think my friend, Brian C. Wiles, would accurately be described as an internet entrepreneur, but I don't think he would ever use the term to apply to himself. It has a failed dot-com, but not quite dead yet, ring to it.

I don't like a ''user'' board member who created a company with one of the founders. That strikes me to be too close for objective discourse. Similarly Tim Shell. It's unclear what his role is through the information on the site. Or through Google for that matter;

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Tim+Shell

http://www.timshell.com/
http://www.answers.com/Bomis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Shell

From all this information, I don't have a clear view of Tim Shell. He's a fellow resident of Las Vegas. Perhaps I should track him down in person.

Wikipedia is already a very powerful internet player. It will be curious to watch the direction it heads. I'd like to think the Board of Trustees of such an enterprise would be more open in terms of the depth of practical information but it could be a minimalist Trustee need for such an evolving project. Clearly one to watch.

Good night!

In the tradition of recycling Christmas cards, here are a couple of electronic cards received this season. The first comes from Pedro and the second from Craig 'Ubik' Wilson.

In other news, I created a ringtone for my cell phone. I tried a number of less offensive tunes. But for a ringtone, it needs to get your attention in the most unoffensive way possible.

Seasons Greetings!