Archive for July, 2006

I haven’t been posting regularly lately as time and energy has been spent elsewhere. But I hope to make up for it as I have a lot to say. This is the first of what I think will be a series of posts on the process of using an open source system for a couple of local web sites we have been working on.

The Redwood Technology Consortium is nearly done converting its web site from a proprietary, customized content management system to an open source system. It’s been a huge effort involving lots of people and lots of time. I won’t bore you with the details of why we made this decision in the first place other than to say the old system had lots of issues with it that were becoming too big a burden to fix and too big a burden to live with.

So, after many, many meetings and email discussions it was decided by the board and web site commitee members to take the plunge and move to a new system. Then the discussion turned to what system: Would it be more efficient to build another customized system, or try and convert the existing site and all its features and data to an already existing system?

We eventally realized in the long run an open source system that is supported by a large community of developers would be a better path to follow for a small non-profit than paying for a cusomized system that would be dependent on one or two developers for improvements or upgrades. We’d already been down that path and had found it full of problems.

On the surface, this makes sense. But then the quesiion becomes “Which system?” Which system is best and which system most closely fits the needs of the site and the organization?

First, we spent a considrable amount of time trying to nail down, as closely as possible, what the specifications of the new site would be. This is a crucial step to any web development project, of course. Then we set out on a search for a system that could handle those specifications.

We talked to some developers, each of whom had invested a lot of time in one system or another and were convinced of that particular system’s strengths. We also looked at a couple sites that allow allow comparisons of different CMS packages. Just visiting these sites gives you an idea of the huge number and range of possibilities:

CMS Matrix lets you compare 2 or more CMS packages and their features side-by-side.

Open Source CMS lets you try any number of systems in their demo install mode so you can get the feel for a CMS before installing it on your own site.

We went round and round trying to compare systems, talking to developers, refining our specs. So what did we choose, and why? Stay tuned…

Firefox, the open source web browser continues to grow in popularity according to this article in Computerworld. According to a study by the  “…Netherlands-based OneStat.com Firefox gained 1.14% in June and is now used by 12.93% of surfers. That’s up from 11.79% who used Firefox in May, while IE use declined by 2.12% to 83.05%.”

This is good news for those of us who create and maintain web sites. Why? Because as Firefox’s market share grows, Microsoft will slowly be forced to make it’s browser, Internet Explorer, (the one most people still use) more like Firefox. From a web developer’s point of view, that means there is hope that it will someday become easier to make web sites that adhere to web standards without having to stuff the code with hacks to make it also work in Internet Explorer. Microsoft has consistently refused to recognize the standards established by the web community.  I assume they believe that because their browser has such a commanding market share, they can make their own standards and force everyone to comply with them, whether they make sense or not.

This battle of standards may not mean much to you if you aren’t in to web development or care about why standards matter. But if you want to learn more about Firefox and why you  ought to try it anyway, you could start with my article that appeared in the Times-Standard over a year ago. What I wrote back then is still valid. And I am looking forward to version 2.0 which is currently in early Beta development.

The North Coast Journal has started using Google Earth to provide location information related to stories they write about. It’s an interesting use of technology, though I’m not sure just how valueable it is and it seems a little awkward.

To take advantage of the service you first need to have downloaded and installed Google Earth, which, if you haven’t already, is worth checking out.  Google Earth is a desktop interface to Google Maps. It allows you to type in any location  and you can then ‘fly’ around the globe and zero in on that lcoation via Google’s satellite imagery. Lots of fun.

Once Google Earth is installed you have to go back to the North Coast Journal site and click on their Google Earth button to get their specific implementation. Finally, you need to click on the .kmz file you just downloaded from the NJC site. This will launch Google Earth, and stories from the current NCJ issue will be listed in the left hand window. Clicking on a story will pop up a balloon in the earth window with information about the story, sometimes links back to the NCJ site or other related sites, and, if you want, you can zoom in to the location pinpointed by the story.

Here you can see where I have zoomed in to the location of the Navaarre Corporation in Minneapolis from a story called ‘The music biz can bite’. Fun!  Also, you will need to download a new .kmz file each week to get a new list of links with the current stories.

I know I am going to keep trying this out. I think it’s a great experiment and could provide a unique perspective on stories in the future. Good work, Hank!

As we celebrate our nation’s birthday it’s good to see the system our Founding Fathers established 230 years ago is still working so well. Senator Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens has stepped up and explained how the Internet works in a speech that also attempts to explain why he voted not to support Net Neteutrality.

This Wired post transcribes part of the speech. The ignorance of how the Internet works is astounding. The butchering of the English language frightening. If you have the time, listen to the complet audio file of the speech (about 10 minutes). Senator Stevens’ locutions have been making the rounds on the Internet turnining the Senator in to a bit of a laughingstock. Perhaps he has helped the cause by illustrating the twisted logic used by the telcos hoping to gain complete control of the network and the ability to charge whatever they want.

Happy Birthday, America!

The California Senate is about to vote on a bill that will do away with the local cable TV franchise system we have come to know here in Humboldt County. Essentially, the bill, which was approved by the Assembly by a 77-0  vote and cleared out of a Senate committee by an 11-0 vote, will allow telcos, like AT&T to compete in markets where cable companies have negotiated franchises.

The arguements in favor are all about open competition which will supposedly bring down prices and create more services for consumers. AT&T is pouring millions in to lobbying campaigns to push this through. And of course, the cable companies are waging their own publicity campaign in opposition.

I don’t claim to understand all the issues involved, but here are some questions I think we should think about as citizens of Humboldt County:

1)What happens to all the cool things that we just spent months negotiating with Cox (now SuddenLink) on their franchise renewal? I assume if this bill becomes law it will nullify that agreement. So, suddenly SuddenLink will have the market to itself without any of requirements included in the franchise agreement.
2) Will AT&T really build out their network to provide video content to our homes? It’s unlikely they will spend the money in small markets like ours. The money is in the urban areas. If they do build here it won’t be any time soon, and it certainly won’t reach beyond Eureka and other larger townships. There is some talk of altering the bill to ensure some service to typically underserved areas. But this needs to be watched very closely.

3) I am tieing this issue to an even larger one of Network Neutrality. Why? Because if this bill passes, AT&T will no longer just be the carrier of content. It will become a supplier of content. And if Network Neutrality as a principle is not codified, then the company would be able to charge whatever it wants to providers wishing to offer content over the Internet. AT&T is currently the only carrier of Internet content in and out of Humboldt County. They can give priority status to their own content while degrading the content of anyone else’s who doesn’t pay the extra tariff.

Now, I understand why AT&T is trying to bully its way in to the multibillion dollar TV content industry. It’s long distance service is under increasing pressure from free and low cost VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services. As the popularity of these services grow, AT&T’s profits will continue to shrink. Of course without Net Neutrality regulation, telcos can also relegate VOIP competitor’s data to second tier status. And then, simply offer their own service at better quality (and higher prices).

Does this sound right to you?