Thunderbird 2

There was always something rather exciting about Thunderbird 2 that the other Thunderbirds were unable to match. Perhaps it was that interchangeable pod thing, which fitted inside inside the outer frame, that lent it an extensibility and thus unpredictability the others lacked.

Anyway, Thunderbird 2 (Mozilla's email program) has landed and is very cool.

Mapping Social Networks

Social networks lie at the heart of Web 2.0 - and of the opens. So it is surprising that more hasn't been done to analyse and map the ebb and flow of ideas and influence across these networks.

Here's an interesting solution for enterprises, called Trampoline. There are clear financial benefits for companies if they can understand better how the social networks work within (and without) their walls, so it's a good fit there too.

In a sense, all this stuff is obvious:

We humans spent 200,000 years evolving all kinds of social behaviour for accumulating, filtering and passing on information. We're really good at it. So good we don't even think about it most of the time. However the way we use email, instant messaging, file sharing and so on disrupts these instincts and stops them doing their job. This is why we waste so much time scanning through emails we're not interested in and searching for documents we need.

Trampoline's approach is so refreshingly obvious it seems radical. We've gone right back to the underlying social behaviour and created innovative software that harnesses human instincts instead of disabling them. We describe this process of mirroring social behaviour in software as "sociomimetics".

Trampoline's products leverage the combined intelligence of the whole network to manage and distribute information more efficiently. Individuals get the information they need, unrecognised expertise becomes visible, the enterprise increases the reuse and value of its knowledge assets.

Given the simplicity of the idea, it should be straighforward coming up with open source implementations. And there would be a double hit: a project that was interesting in itself, and also directly applicable to open source collaboration. (Via Vecosys.)

Thanks, Tony - But No Thanks

I received an email from Tony Blair yesterday. Not that this was so special, since he also sent it to the other 28,000 people who had signed an e-petition calling for ID cards to be scrapped. You can read the missive here (and if you're feeling really left out, you can copy it into an email to yourself and pretend that it came from our Tone).

What's particularly galling is that this email essentially says "thanks for your request, but get lost", and then goes on to repeat all the tired old misinformation about the ID card scheme's cost, its efficacy against terrorism and how it will reduce identity theft. Although I could pick some of its arguments apart, I'd rather leave it to the master himself, The Reg's John Lettice:

The National Identity Register will allow police to add the entire adult population of the UK to their suspect list, giving them the opportunity to check fingerprints left at scenes of crime against those collected from ID card and passport applicants, says Tony Blair. Nor are fingerprints in other EU countries necessarily safe - the introduction of biometric technology, he adds, will "improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

Blair made the pledge to collar the lot of us, and some, as part of a rag-bag of warmed-over, half-baked, misleading, and just plain untrue claims issued in an email to the near-28,000 signatories of the Downing Street petition calling for the scrapping of the ID card scheme.

Now We Are Five: HTML5, XHTML5

Anything that talks about HTML5 and XHTML5 gets my attention pretty quickly. I don't pretend to understand all the implications of this, but it sounds cool:

This specification introduces features to HTML and the DOM that ease the authoring of Web-based applications. Additions include the context menus, a direct-mode graphics canvas, inline popup windows, and server-sent events.

...


The scope of this specification is not to describe an entire operating system. In particular, hardware configuration software, image manipulation tools, and applications that users would be expected to use with high-end workstations on a daily basis are out of scope. In terms of applications, this specification is targetted specifically at applications that would be expected to be used by users on an occasional basis, or regularly but from disparate locations, with low CPU requirements. For instance online purchasing systems, searching systems, games (especially multiplayer online games), public telephone books or address books, communications software (e-mail clients, instant messaging clients, discussion software), document editing software, etc.

I can't wait. (Via Vecosys.)

Why Collaboration, Why Now?

A good point:

Word, Excel, Powerpoint were all about making me, as a worker at my desk, able to create more work per unit of time. But, I think we've eeked out the last bit of individual productivity gain at this stage. I mean, does the new ribbon on MS Word make me more productive as an individual? Probably not. It's a great interface, but it's unlikely that there is a massive gain in personal productivity.

This next wave that we're in is about productivity gains achieved NOT by making the individual more productive, but by making groups more productive. The massive penetration of email means that we're in touch with one another like never before and dependent on teams like never before. That means that there is a huge opportunity for productivity gains through more effective collaboration.

- Joe Kraus, co-founder of Excite and JotSpot, now at Google.

Pegasus Flies Into the Sunset

Sad news: David Harris, creator of the Pegasus email client, has ceased development of the software. During Web 1.0, Pegasus was my preferred email software, running on Windows 3.1 and using good old Trumpet Winsock. It was free, too - at least, free as in beer. I suspect that had it gone free as in freedom early enough the hacker community would have picked it up and turned it into an early Thunderbird. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

Aunt Eudora Goes Open

For old-timers such as myself, the Eudora email client has connotations of pure Web 1.0-ness. During the 1990s it was more or less the definitive piece of Windows software for sending email if you didn't want to besmirch your name by using Outlook, once that existed. Times have changed, of course, and Thunderbird has now taken over that role.

So the announcement that future versions of Eudora will not only be open source but based on Thunderbird, seems to close the circle nicely. (Via LWN.net.)

Bad News in Your Inbox

I have been asked so many times "Is it possible to tell if someone has read my email?" And the answer, of course, is no: email gets sent; whether it is received or read is entirely unknown.

Unless you use DidTheyReadIt. I presume this works by adding an invisible HTML element to the email message that calls back to the company so they can track when messages are read. Although this might satisfy people who insist on knowing whether their masterpieces have been read, it's really Bad News because of the tracking it carries out. And just think of the field-day spammers will have: now, they won't have to guess whether an address works or not.

I hope that email clients will add the facility to block this kind of stupidity. It's not what email is about: if the person who receives your email can't be bothered to reply, either your message wasn't important enough - or maybe they aren't. (Via Lessig .)

Scalix the Chameleon

Scalix has always been something of a showcase for how GNU/Linux can be used to run enterprise-level software. And yet, ironically, Scalix itself has been proprietary.

Until now.

Given that the company was successful with its earlier strategy, this move to a dual-licensing approach is an interesting comment on the even greater advantages of being open source, and not just running on it. (Via Linux-Watch.)

The Science of Open Source

The OpenScience Project is interesting. As its About page explains:

The OpenScience project is dedicated to writing and releasing free and Open Source scientific software. We are a group of scientists, mathematicians and engineers who want to encourage a collaborative environment in which science can be pursued by anyone who is inspired to discover something new about the natural world.

But beyond this canonical openness to all, there is another, very important reason why scientific software should be open source. With proprietary software, you simply have to take on trust that the output has been derived correctly from the inputs. But this black-box approach is really anathema to science, which is about examining and checking every assumption along the way from input to output. In some sense, proprietary scientific software is an oxymoron.

The project supports open source scientific software in two ways. It has a useful list of such programs, broken down by category (and it's striking how bioinformatics towers over them all); in addition, those behind the site also write applications themselves.

What caught my eye in particular was a posting asking an important question: "How can people make money from open source scientific software?" There have been two more postings so far, exploring various ways in which free applications can be used as the basis of a commercial offering: Sell Hardware and Sell Services. I don't know what the last one will say - it's looking at dual licensing as a way to resolve the dilemma - but the other two have not been able to offer much hope, and overall, I'm not optimistic.

The problem goes to the root of why open source works: it requires lots of users doing roughly the same thing, so that a single piece of free code can satisfy their needs and feed off their comments to get better (if you want the full half-hour argument, read Rebel Code).

That's why the most successful open source projects deliver core computing infrastructure: operating system, Web server, email server, DNS server, databases etc. The same is true on the client-side: the big winners have been Firefox, OpenOffice.org, The GIMP, Audacity etc. - each serving a very big end-user group. Niche projects do exist, but they don't have the vigour of the larger ones, and they certainly can't create an ecosystem big enough to allow companies to make money (as they do with GNU/Linux, Apache, Sendmail, MySQL etc.)

Against this background, I just can't see much hope for commercial scientific open source software. But I think there is an alternative. Because this open software is inherently better for science - thanks to its transparency - it could be argued that funding bodies should make it as much of a priority as more traditional areas.

The big benefit of this approach is that it is cumulative: once the software has been funded to a certain level by one body, there is no reason why another should't pick up the baton and pay for further development. This would allow costs to be shared, along with the code.

Of course, this approach would take a major change of mindset in certain quarters; but since open source and the other opens are already doing that elsewhere, there's no reason why they shouldn't achieve it in this domain too.

Patently, Absurdly, Patent

This well-written piece about the current legal tussle between Research In Motion (RIM), makers of the Blackberry, and New Technologies Products (NTP), is worth reading - even though it's a long story, and, like me, you probably don't really care about the details of this sorry tale. For what it does serve to hammer home is the unutterable stupidity of the patent system in North America.

So what does the titanic struggle described in the article come down to? - a petty squabble over the "invention" of delivering email by wireless, whose obviousness is only marginally less than that of other deep ideas like that of the sun rising tomorrow, or rain being wet.

If nothing else, this story should emphasise the critical need for an overhaul of the North American patent system, and for a vigorous defence of the European system, which - currently, at least - would never have allowed this judicial folly to proceed in the first place.

Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice.org Are Go

Version 1.5 of the open source email client Thunderbird is now available for download. This is a major release of an important program, even if it tends to be overshadowed by its bigger sibling, Firefox.

Thunderbird matters because it forms part of the key trio of browser, email and office suite that together satisfy the vast bulk of general users' computing needs. Now that Firefox is widely accepted as the best browser around, and with OpenOffice.org 2.0 increasingly seen as on a par with Microsoft Office, the only missing piece of the (small) jigsaw puzzle is email.

Like the other two, Thunderbird is available for Windows, Macintosh and GNU/Linux. This platform-independence means that users can start using the three programs on Windows or Macintosh, say, and then be discreetly slid across to running them on GNU/Linux when they are ready. They probably won't even notice.

I've been running Thunderbird for some time now, and I find it powerful yet easy to use. It's got intelligent spam-filtering built in, and takes a safe approach to displaying dodgy images and attachments. It works with POP3, IMAP, Gmail and other email services, so there's no excuse not to switch - now.