Tim Anderson's ITWriting » open source

Where is phpinfo() for .NET?

tim — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:07:17 +0000

I’m moving an ASP.NET project to a different ISP, and rather than grill the ISP about the setup I cast around for a .NET equivalent to phpinfo(), which generates a web page giving comprehensive information about the server configuration.

The closest I’ve found so far is this Codeplex project by Aarron K Jackson. I downloaded the source, compiled (I had to delete the private key included by the author) and ran it on the new server. It did in fact answer most of my questions. Information includes the Windows and .NET version, number of CPU cores, memory available and used, environmental variables, path to the web site, IIS version, trust level, and all the server variables; there is even a test email form.

According to Codeplex the project has fewer than 100 downloads so I thought it deserved a plug. One caveat: I suggest you password-protect it or delete after use, since the information could be valuable to hackers.

Oracle breaks, then mends Eclipse with new Java build

tim — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:34:11 +0000

Somewhere in the JVM (Java Virtual Machine) is a company field, identifying the source of the JVM. Following its acquisition of Sun, Oracle reasonably enough changed the field in version 1.6.0_21 to reference Oracle rather than Sun.

Unfortunately some applications use the field to vary some command-line arguments according to which JVM is in use. “If Sun JVM do this, if IBM JVM do that.” Eclipse was one of these, so Oracle’s update caused “crashing and freezing issues” for Windows users. There is more information here.

When the problem was discovered, Oracle issued an update that reverts the change. Hence Ian Skerrett at Eclipse has posted Oracle Demostrates Great Community Support and Fixes Eclipse.

The issue demonstrates that almost any software change can have unintended consequences, especially if the software is an application runtime.

Should Oracle have checked for this before release? Possibly; though it cannot check every build against every application on every platform. Still, everyone has done the right thing here.

Will the JVM now say Sun for ever? I would think for some time to come, bearing in mind that companies may standardise on specific Eclipse builds and stay on them for an extended period.

Microsoft and the NHS: what went wrong?

tim — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:19:18 +0000

Microsoft UK’s John Coulthard, Senior Director Healthcare and Life Sciences, has posted a comment on the decision by the NHS not to renew its EWA (Enterprise Wide Agreement) with Microsoft. His summary:

The bottom line is the NHS benefited from the productivity gains delivered through a suite of Microsoft software worth in excess of £270m per year. The actual cost to the NHS was £65m per year, delivering a saving of saving of £205m to the NHS and British taxpayers. For the next three years the cost would have risen to £85m as the NHS deploys more and more technology while the National Programme rolls out.

Software supplier whinging at loss of a lucrative contract? Of course; but at the same time I’d be interested to know whether this results in greater expense for UK taxpayers, of which I am one, and what is the real reason for the contract’s termination.

I’d like to think the decision is part of a strategy to end vendor lock-in and promote both competition and use of open source systems; but the truth may be less inspiring.

What are we to make of this report in Computer Weekly which says:

“Out of the blue, the Cabinet Office rejected the cut-down version of the renewal," said a source. "The noise from the top is that they are not sure national agreements work. It will be down to the trusts to make sure they are fully licensed."

One of the odd things reported is that the cut-down agreement was to have cost £21m, I presume annually; but the government is paying an immediate £50m to Microsoft:

The Cabinet Office did agree to pay Microsoft about £50m to cover software used in the previous agreement that was not licensed, but attributed the spend to the last administration’s budget.

That does not sound like a strategy to save money, when you consider the licensing costs now facing NHS trusts who no longer have an agreement in place.

Now, it is possible that the long-term effect will be to reduce lock-in, though that is optimistic; I do not know if any NHS trusts are actually planning to move away from Microsoft’s platform and even if they are, it is not something that can be done quickly. Another scenario is that most of them make their own agreements with Microsoft, the total cost of which exceeds what the EWA renewal would have cost.

Still, the outcome will probably please Google which has its own idea about how to provide IT for healthcare.

Nothing I’ve read really explains the decision and I would like to know more.

Day Software: another strategic acquisition for Adobe

tim — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:25:20 +0000

Adobe has acquired Day Software, a company which specialises in web content management. Its products include the CRX Java Content Repository and the CQ5 Web Content Management Platform. One of its distinctive features is an emphasis on interaction and collaboration. Day’s chief scientist is Roy Fielding, co-founder of the Apache Software Foundation and well-known for his work on REST (Representational State Transfer).

The acquisition gives Adobe a stronger presence in the open source community, and it will be interesting to see if it influences controversial issues like the fact that the Flash Player is closed source, or that some of Adobe’s open source projects are not as collaborative as they could be.

I suspect though that Adobe is mainly aiming to broaden its technology to encompass web content management and to tie it together with its rich client platform, Flash and AIR. It is a good fit, since it is Java based and should work nicely with the existing LiveCycle pieces. We might also expect integration with Omniture web analytics as well as with the content authoring tools in Creative Suite.

Looks like a sane acquisition to me.

How infectious is the GPL? Battle of words between WordPress and Thesis

tim — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:46:33 +0000

Matt Mullenweg, the creator of WordPress, is engaged in a battle of words with the maker of one of its premium themes, Chris Pearson, who runs DIYthemes and offers the Thesis theme on a paid-for basis. I listened to their discussion on Mixergy; it is ill-tempered particularly on Pearson’s side.

The issue boils down to this. WordPress is licensed under the GPL, which provides that if you derive a new work from an existing GPL-licensed work, the GPL applies to your new work as well.

Pearson argues, I think, that his work is not so tightly linked to WordPress that the GPL applies. “Thesis does not inherit anything from WordPress” he says.

Mullenweg says that the way themes interact with WordPress is such that all themes much be GPL. “If you build something on top of it, it should be GPL” he says.

Pearson is refusing to license his theme under the GPL. What is to be done – would Mullenweg go to court to protect the GPL?

“You want us to sue you? That would break my heart.” he says. Then later, “I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” Then, “If people decide the GPL doesn’t apply, it’s a serious step for open source.”

Disclosure: this site runs on WordPress and I regard Mullenweg as one of the heroes of open source. Like the Apache web server (also in action here), WordPress is among the greatest achievements of the open source community.

I have no legal expertise; though I know a little about how WordPress works. Themes link very tightly with WordPress and in most cases are built by modifying an existing GPL theme; but I guess if you could show that Pearson’s work does not do this but merely runs on WordPress, as opposed to modifying it, he may have a case. That’s the argument Michael Wasylik makes here. On the other hand, did Pearson really create his theme without including any tiny bit of GPL code?

Another factor: if you choose to build an extension to a platform like WordPress, it is arguably unwise to do something counter to the strong wishes of its founder. There are ethical as well as legal aspects to this.

It is an important discussion for the open source community.

Novell’s Michael Meeks downbeat on OpenOffice.org project

tim — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:01:19 +0000

There is a fascinating interview over on The H with Michael Meeks, who works at Novell on OpenOffice.org development. It would be wrong to call OpenOffice.org unsuccessful: it is a solid product that forms a viable alternative to Microsoft Office in many scenarios. Nevertheless, it has not disrupted the Microsoft Office market as much as perhaps could have been expected; and Meeks explains what may be the reasons – tight control by Sun (now Oracle) and a bureaucratic approach to project management that has stifled the enthusiasm of the open source community.

Contributors to OpenOffice.org are required to sign over copyright, which is a big ask if you are giving it freely. While Meeks does not say that the trust of contributors has been abused, he does say that that there is a lack of transparency and reassurance, specifically concerning IBM’s Symphony which is based on OpenOffice.org:

In some places they do feed stuff back. We see their changes, but parts of Symphony are not open source, and we don’t have the code for them, and interestingly, there is no source code available so far as I am aware of the version of OO.o that IBM is shipping inside their product, so clearly they’re not shipping this under the LGPLv3. IBM have a fairly public antipathy towards the GPL unfortunately, and as a consequence you have to wonder what terms are they shipping OpenOffice under – and as there is a lot of my code in there, not only my code but Novell’s code and a lot of other people’s code, you have to wonder ‘What were the terms and what was the deal? That’s a shame, and would really help improve the transparency and confidence in Sun’s stewardship around these things. The code was assigned to Sun, and I have no doubt there is no legal problem at all, but a lot of people have assigned their code to Sun in good faith, believing them to be good stewards. Maybe they are but its impossible to tell without knowing the terms under which third parties are shipping the code.

Meeks says that the Oracle takeover is an opportunity for things to get better. Even if you like Microsoft Office you should hope that it does, since a strong OpenOffice puts pressure on the competition to keep prices down and product development up. Further, Microsoft has no plans for Office on Linux that I know of – unless you count Office Web Apps.

Farewell to Becta

tim — Mon, 24 May 2010 10:52:49 +0000

The UK government today announced that Becta, a government body to “promote technology in learning”, is to be closed. Becta stands for “British Educational Communications and Technology Agency”.

I have mixed feelings about this, though in a period when severe cutbacks are required a body like Becta is hard to justify. I first came across Becta in the context of the debate about Office Open XML, Microsoft Office and Open Office. Becta, which claims to provide “rigorous research and evaluation”, came up with a full report on Microsoft Vista and Office 2007. These are products which I know a lot about, and I thought the report was poor. I liked the fact that Becta was positive towards open source; but disliked the uncritical advocacy which it seemed to indulge in at times.

My other observation comes from attendance as a speaker at the Education conferences organised by Forum Events. When I asked what delegates thought of Becta, I found that most attendees, in seminars on open source and on cloud computing, had not heard of it. I think the way IT is handled in education is a key issue for our industry and economy; but from my limited contact did not see evidence that Becta was achieving its goals.

Office Web Apps better then Open Office for .docx on Linux

tim — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:52:31 +0000

I’ve been reviewing Office and SharePoint 2010, and trying out Ubuntu Lucid Lynx, so I thought I would put the two together with a small experiment.

I borrowed a document from Microsoft’s press materials for Office 2010. Perhaps surprisingly, they are in .doc format, not the Open XML .docx that was introduced in Office 2007. That didn’t suit my purposes, so I converted it to .docx using Save As in Office 2010.

Then I stuck it on SharePoint 2010.

Next, I downloaded it to Ubuntu and opened it in Open Office. It was not a complete disaster, but the formatting was badly messed up.

Finally, still in Ubuntu, I navigated to SharePoint and viewed the same document there. It looked fine.

Even better, I was able to click Edit in Browser, make changes, and save. The appearance is not quite WYSIWYG in edit mode, but is the same as in IE on Windows.

The exercise illustrates two points. One is that Open Office is not a good choice for working with Open XML – incidentally, the document looked fine when opened in the old binary .doc format. The other is that SharePoint 2010 and Office Web Apps will have real value on mixed networks suffering from document compatibility issues with Office and its newer formats.

UK government’s open source commitment words not deeds says Ingres VP

tim — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:15:51 +0000

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke today about the government’s IT strategy, including a mention for how open source technology can reduce costs:

… we will unleash data and content to the community to turn into applications that meet genuine needs. This does not require large-scale government IT Infrastructure; the ‘open source’ technology that will make it happen is freely available. All that is required is the will and willingness of the centre to give up control.

A naïve statement: “IT Infrastructure” normally refers to hardware as well as software. Hardware is not “freely available”; and even in cases where free open source software is used, the management and software development effort does not come for free either.

The closest thing to free IT infrastructure is something like Google Apps, which is not open source, but subsidised by advertising alongside Google’s confidence that it can make money somehow if you commit to its platform.

Still, leaving that aside, it is good to hear that the UK government recognises the benefits of open source. Or does it? Steve Shine, executive VP of worldwide operations at the open source database vendor Ingres, is sceptical:

This is not the first time such platitudes have been made by the government. Over the past 12 months the office of the CIO has continually pointed to open source as the key to reducing capital expenditure on large public sector IT projects. We at Ingres work with public sector bodies daily and have not seen the enforcement of these policies at a practical level and so view this announcement cautiously. Right now there is a very large negotiation underway to renew Oracle’s contract with the MOD which in theory should be put to competitive tender but sadly is being conducted behind closed doors.

We therefore urge the government to enforce the ideas put forward today: Put steps in place to open up the public sector IT procurement process, run tenders in public and put penalties in place for those bodies that fail to assess open source software.

Ingres has a direct commercial interest in this, of course, so such statements are not surprising. Shine has a point though. It takes more than a few speeches to change the software culture of the myriad departments and other state-run entities that between them compose government IT.

Mono Tools for Visual Studio: code on Windows, run on Linux

tim — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:37:33 +0000

I have just com across Mono Tools, a Novell add-in for Visual Studio that lets you test Mono compatibility. It adds a Mono menu which has options to run locally or remotely in Mono, analyze for compatibility issues, and create deployment packages. No sign of Mac support, which is a missed opportunity, but understandable given that Novell owns SUSE Linux.

For those few still unfamiliar with Mono, it is an open source implementation of Microsoft’s .NET Framework, enabling your .NET applications to run on other platforms. One compelling use is to have your ASP.NET web applications run on the free Apache web server, rather than Microsoft’s IIS.

Mono Tools works with both Windows Forms and web projects.

This is just the sort of thing Mono needs to move it further into the mainstream, though another less welcome sign of business acceptance is that this is a commercial product, currently costing $99.00 for an individual or $249.00 per seat in an organization. There is also an Ultimate edition at $2,499, which comes with a commercial non-LGPL license to redistribute Mono.

The Mono Tools team is now looking for testers for its 1.1 edition, which supports Visual Studio 2010.