Stuff Michael Meeks is doing

• Open Source, over Open Standards (I prefer the term Free software, but this sound-bite is more chewable). As in the past, I will bang on about Free Software to people, and mention OpenDocument as one peripheral (and good) advantage of OO.o. However a lot of end-users find the Open Standards argument much easier to understand: after all they create data and not code, and since they can't even -read- code (written in this foreign language of C++) they don't value the real Freedom here as much as we hackers do. Of course, many of my colleagues whom I respect at both Sun & IBM take a different view, and that's fine, and they have excellent reasons no doubt. My interest is in re-focusing attention, co-operation and investment on where the -real- value is: the 1000 man years of OO.o rather than the <5 man years of the OpenDocument spec. I want the Free software desktop to succeed - for me if Microsoft adopts OpenDocument this is not a final victory.
• Real Openness - I am personally impressed at the genuine openness and neutrality of the OASIS/OpenDocument process, quite apart from its stark contrast to the ECMA process, which IMHO is reasonably termed rubber-stamping ( at least for the 1.0 version, though I'm not optimistic this will change later ). So - this point is at least truthful, OpenDocument really lives up to the 'Open' part.
• Multiple Implementations - this is less substantial, by almost any metric there is only one reasonably complete implementation of each standard. That is OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office. Period. Now - of course, in order to claim you are a 'standard' it is often thought necessary to have a 2nd impl. Hence, there are all sorts of "2nd impls" that minimally fulfill this need, these do not bear detailed scrutiny. But coming back to my 1st point, there are a plethora of products, and a diverse vendor community backing OpenOffice.org based products: the fact that StarOffice, Novell OO.o and Lotus Workplace (to name a few) share a common code-base, takes -nothing- away from the real value of standards (for business): multiple-vendors, no lock-in etc. and is an emerging triumph of Free Software. So again, lets talk about Free Software. For those lovers of KOffice as the OpenDocument 2nd impl. I quote (with manful restraint) from the recent LXF88 / Jan07 review of KOffice 1.6 ...(KOffice apps struggled to open MS and OpenDocument files)... [ do read the article ]. And I suspect like many reviews, this was based on a small sample.
• Size of Standard - yes a huge & complex standard can be hard to implement, this is completely true. Of course, this is partly true of OpenDocument - it's quite big too, we just happen to have a nice implementation of it already in OpenOffice.org. The general level of mathematical excellence being shown off here is quite incredible though. If you divide >700man years of OO.o code by 700 pages of the ODF spec, you get 1man year/page to implement which seems slightly silly. Also this new SI unit of specification complexity the metric page is rather comical. There are lots of largish specs out there (where no PDF is available, I used print-preview on the HTML in firefox (A4)):

  Spec.	Pages
  OpenXML - Markup Lang Ref	5219
  OpenXML - Primer	472
  OpenXML - Fundamentals	173
  OpenXML - Packaging Conventions	129
  OpenXML - Compat & Extensibility	43
  OpenDocument 1.0	706
  SVG 1.1	719
  XSL 1.1	514
  MathML	509
  HTML 4.01	389
  SMIL	350
  OpenFormula	108
  XForms	86
  XLink	26

  So - we can see there is some truth in the huge standard argument here, OpenXML's markup lang ref is larger than the approximate sum of the other standards that OpenDocument references (and of course it's notable that while OpenDocument "makes use of existing standards" (which is great) it's often a small sub-set of them; so a simple sum of the non-OpenXML standards is not a fair comparison. So, perhaps there is a factor of 5x as much 'stuff' here.
• Impossible to interoperate with MS - this is the argument whereby we assume the answer and then run around screaming. Of course, it is true that 100% interop is impossible, but OO.o does a pretty good job, and increasingly so.
• Screwing Customers - Georg concludes OpenOffice.org should refuse to add OpenXML to its main branch, and we should avoid OpenXML while spreading information about the problems as far as we can.. Of course I beg to differ. The same logic could be re-used for removing the binary file format support. Is that also proposed ? how would that help anyone ? Also - it is emphatically not just Novell working here to improve interop, people with real customers realise this is necessary. Sun of course has been doing a ton of work to re-factor the core, improve interop, re-write filter logic etc. and, as-yet Novell has done almost nothing in comparison, (though of course we're trying to increase our efforts).
• Standards - now this is something I really know nothing about. What is and is not a standard ? What is a de-facto standard ? etc. Actually I think (eg.) DVD recording formats are perhaps interesting. Which was first ? which is a true standard ? which has the moral highground ? why there are various combinations of +'s and -'s ?. All I know is - I buy the cheapest, commodity DVD drive I can get, and it (apparently) works with all of them. In the same way I want to see OpenOffice.org become the obvious choice for the best, most inexpensive, interoperable, re-usable, flexible office suite that anyone could want, that also gives you incredible Freedom.

    explicit OUString( sal_Unicode value ) SAL_THROW(())
    static inline OUString const & unacquired( rtl_uString * const * ppHandle )
    inline bool endsWithIgnoreAsciiCaseAsciiL(
        char const * asciiStr, sal_Int32 asciiStrLength) const

Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?

No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.

Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.

• Microsoft has never made a mistake
• => anyone making a deal with them will get shafted
• => we're all going to die
• => run around screaming.

• Sun & Java - Microsoft licensed Java, news.com writes:

  The germ of the suit began when Microsoft took out a Java license in 1996. Sun contended that Microsoft quickly began to run afoul of the licensing terms and filed the initial lawsuit in October 1997.

  So here we see Microsoft making a really stupid move, signing an agreement they couldn't keep, and probably didn't need, and what was the end game ? they got to buy themselves out of it for $20million, got a load of injunctions slapped on them, had to retro-fix their product etc.

• Lindows vs. Microsoft - the Wikipedia article is quite illuminating:

  As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $24 million cash (for a case that Microsoft itself brought), and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.

  And now of course, we all know the Windows & Office trademarks are indefensible, one rumour I heard had it that the settlement itself was intended to be secret, but SEC regulations mandated disclosure & this was missed by the MS lawyers.

Unfortunately the myth of MS infallibility is rather useful to them in a market where leadership is critical, and can move the market.

• Why help Microsoft with OpenXML interop. ? OpenXML sucks, OpenDocument Rocks !?. So several thoughts:
  • This should not be a surprise - Jody Goldberg (on my team) has been working hard for months with Microsoft and others on the ECMA process. At one stage there around 1/2 the open 'issues' wrt. improving disclosure (and hence the spec.) came from Jody. I for one am proud of the job that he did there, an (ongoing) investment that will yield better interoperability for years to come.
  • As I have said for many months now, focusing on an 'Open-Standard' of ~700 pages written by a small team over a short period, is to miss the staggering value that is found in Free software. OpenOffice (as anyone who tried to start it recently knows) contains millions of lines of code, and a staggering investment of thousands of man years of sweat, tears (and perhaps blood). It's localized to umpteen languages, has deep help, scripting, accessibility, interoperability; it's just an immensely feature rich and powerful product.
  • To re-emphasise this, the value in OpenOffice.org is not what file format it supports (eg. we want to add good Lotus Word Pro support) but that it is truly Free software, that gives people critical Freedoms. An open format is anyhow implicit in the native file format of any openly developed Free software project.
  • Telling people about open standards, instead of Free Software is easy - 'normal' people generate data, not software so they understand, but it sells them radically short. In my view better interoperability (with any and all formats) strengthens Free Software, quite without the obvious pragmatic benefits to users & customers.
• Why do business with these scum ?
  • It's true there is a widespread perception of unfair business practice from Microsoft out there, but my experience of working in the ECMA process with the developers, has been of meeting a (to my mind) mis-directed, but equally passionate world-view based around the love of their technology.
  • Broadly, I think it's fair to say there is a certain kind of person that loves to solve complex, technical problems, and I like that kind of person. It's also interesting to note that the average Microsoft (from my small sample) political viewpoint is -way- to the left of the average Novell Free software developer (perhaps a statistical aberration but ...). So, in a nutshell, they're good guys, if mis-directed. The great news is that we can help change that direction and get these guys addicted to the Free Software model.
  • One couple it was fun to meet, both on the Office team, obviously in love, confided in me that they had delayed their marriage to meet the Office 12 schedule: is that dedication ? Let's hope Wedding 2007 will ship on time; but imagine if we can help focus these guys on improving Linux <-> Windows interoperability, and in time Free software for it's own sake.
• What does it mean for OpenOffice ? - my hope is over the long haul: better interop, more bodies hacking on OO.o, wider penetration of (Novell's) OpenOffice into the enterprise, and more individuals able to boldly hack on Free software.
• What does it mean for Hackers ? - of course, I'm pleased that our team got such a great formal IPR covenant for individual developers from Microsoft. For sceptics that think this is a pure gesture, it's always surprising to me how a few key people seem to pop up again and again in Free software, and not everyone has the 7 year stamina that can be required, the RIAA demonstrates the danger well.
• What does it mean for Novell ? - I'm pleased that it seems Microsoft will be distributing lots of SLES coupons, the more the merrier. Of course Nat and Miguel who helped setup the deal have a clearer view.
• What is this Translator ? - it's the early stages of a open-source project to make a standalone bi-directional Open XML to OpenDocument converter. See SourceForge: odf-converter. What is important to me is not the set of design choices here (a standalone XML to XML converter: though that may be useful for other Free software projects such as Beagle, or it's capabilities: a sub-set of Word only so far). What is important is the end-goal of getting substantially better MS Office interop. (with OpenXML) into OO.o.

String(RTL_CONSTASCII_FOO_LONG_MACRO_PARAM("foo"))

UniString( const sal_Char* pByteStr,
           rtl_TextEncoding eTextEncoding,
           sal_uInt32 nCvtFlags = BYTESTRING_TO_UNISTRING_CVTFLAGS );

• Community hacker - thanks a lot for your las blog entry ... i see i'm not alone
• Code Contributor - I had to just drop by and let you know your recent blog entries had me ROTFLMAO. :_D ... You have to laugh, or else I guess you'd cry. I was pleased recently to see even Sun employee's gawk at some of the crazy policies ...
• Community hacker - You know, I don't dispute that specification can be important ... quite frankly, I don't see it worthwhile to sacrifice my time away from my family to try to write a spec, have to debug the basic macro in the template, try to get some help from Sun, only to find my plea for help silently ignored ...
• Sun hacker #1 - read your blog, pre-emptively setup a meeting, produced proposal for improving some aspect, mailed me about it for comment, CC'd relevant stakeholders [wow].
• Sun hacker #2 - This is absolutely inacceptable. ... there are a lot of complaints about work done by you and your colleagues that caused a lot of frustrating work in our QA and for our developers. ... I'm very disappointed. - from someone whose opinion I rather value.

• QA/UE could get upset wrt. big-print / pictures. The point is simply - that there is no need to patronize these people, they are competant technical people. Simple, easily discoverable features (eg. the quick-starter) should not need a specification.
• Humor - it is clear that my daughter hasn't filed an issue yet, and this is rather an exaggeration, and of course some parts of Sun are extremely helpful and responsive, eg. the GSL team - and others, indeed wrt. timely patch review the situation is improving daily. My main complaint is the specification process - at best - it dramatically hinders lots of the diffuse 'polish' changes we need.

before: 5611 5604 5606 5662   Avg: 5621
after:  4977 4883 4863 4881   Avg: 4901

echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
echo "t" > /proc/sysrq-trigger

• Work out the branching strategy / location for this repository, branches can be 'anywhere' man.
• Check out the 'branches' directory (non-recusively -N otherwise presumably you bomb your disk) to somewhere.
• Now svn copy the source to the new location.

• The SISSL with it's invideous terms - allowing (antisocial) people/companies to develop their own changes to the OO.o code without sharing them, and working together with us. Anyhow the SISSL is now dead, which is great. The LGPL means that any changes or fixes to the existing code by others in future -must- be published as they are shipped. This is a huge improvement to my mind.
• Re-usable components - OO.o contains many pieces (eg. chart2) that have the potential for re-use across Linux (and other) desktops. GPLing OO.o, would enfeeble the platform by not allowing this in many cases. The LGPL allows re-use from Java, and any number of other projects / tools. While this is admittedly not a common use-case now, in future, I'd love to see UNO more widely deployed [as part of the system], and OO.o's components re-used.
• The Linux Kernel is a world unto itself. People point to Linux as a great example of the general applicability of the GPL. However - this is an unreasonable comparison: the kernel 'links' to almost nothing. No-one contends that the GNU C library should be GPL (instead of LGPL) because it interacts directly with the kernel. OO.o by contrast is a massive linking consumer & producer with bindings for many languages etc. no problem while LGPLd.
• Competing vs. MS Office - there are a large number of (small) companies making a living by selling proprietary plugins, macros, and re-using Office as a component of their solution. Encouraging these people to not only add support for OO.o (and hence Free software platforms) - but also to GPL their (entire) product, seems an unwise disadvantage for Free software. The LGPL avoids this problem.
• If an end-user is writing macros in eg. Java (ie. a compiled language), or wishes to password-protect their StarBasic macros; then if OO.o is GPL'd - (IANAL) - it appears clear (last sentence) that they infringe the license, unless they also supply the full source for all their macros. This is not the case with the LGPL.

Personally, and Corporately, I have no particular axe to grind here, ( Groupwise/ODMA/COM/Win32 ? ). However, I am concerned about the long term attractivenes of, and re-use of OO.o. As Fred Brooks infers - if there is a silver bullet out there, it is code re-use. Thus I applaud Sun's wisdom in sticking with the LGPL.

Of course - in terms of actually working together with Sun, (and/or the collab.net infrastructure) life can be incredibly painful, turgid, littered with (seemingly) arbitrary barriers, conflict and so on, all of which need fixing (and in many areas things are improving), but licensing is (currently) the least of my concerns

"Every reader of Scripture should know, wrote [William] Cowper

And love divine has paid one price for all."

     RSS SHR Real
old: 92m 55m 37
new: 84m 56m 28

time acroread -toPostScript /demo/a.pdf /tmp/a.ps:
        1st time:    2nd time:
real    0m32.221s    0m1.586s
user    0m1.684s     0m1.108s
sys     0m1.080s     0m0.464s

__cxa_eh_globals*
  get_global() throw()
  {
    static __thread __cxa_eh_globals global;
    return &global;
  }

ipw3945: Radio Frequency Kill Switch is On:
Kill switch must be turned off for wireless networking to work.

	Hello testers you are in test portal
	This is the https port

• Carols at Christmas often focus on Jesus as a child: meek & mild, nothing seems to upset him - quiet in the crib etc. Often we extrapolate & imagine this was true throught, approachability, humility & condescension. And so it is, exhibits self control, patience, forebearance, long-sufferingness eg. praying on the cross forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.
• We'd be eager to create a God that doesn't get upset, fine - creator perhaps etc. but one who didn't get upset with our failures / offences. C.S.Lewis - We want not so much a Father in heaven, but a Grandfather in Heaven. Not the God of scripture.
• God is very angry with people; for ignoring him, and rebelling against him. Not simply a passionless embodiment of eastern detachment. Jesus - this prophetic sign: making a whip of cords, and driving the vendors from the temple. Instead, the savior representing the drastic consequences of failing to repent - goes through the temple with a whip of cords, driving them out.
• Still Jesus' anger is troubling - we need a savior from sin. Problems we associate with anger: the loss of control, lashing out at innocent bystanders etc. Anger not inherently sinful - but should be used correctly. We get angry at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong amount.
• A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult. (Prov) - we're Angry for too long In your anger do not sin, and not let the sun go down on your anger. Eph 4. Anger: God's gift to motivate us to attack problems (not people), to solve the issue. Anger tempered with love - the next time Jesus comes to the temple - weeping because they would not repent.
• Not just the fact of the exchange of goods & money but where it was: the courts of the gentiles. The temple of Jesus' day: a series of barriers. In the O.T. sure only Levites could go into the holy of holies; everyone else men, women, children, gentiles could all go in. In the NT. several class divisions; priests, men, women, gentiles.
• Jesus did all his teaching in the gentile court - is it this that infuriates the savior My temple is to be a house of prayer for all nations. This exclusivism aggravates him on other occasions Mark 10 Jesus is furious when his disciples stop children coming to him: let the little children come to me & do not hinder them.
• Interesting; a number of non-superficial applications.

• A disturbing double irony: 34 miracles related in detail in the NT. Jesus chose to start his ministry in a startling way: this miracle seems least to do with human need, as the others do.
• A 2nd irony: Jesus turned water into wine. Why not stick with fruitcake / jewelry ? also the sheer quantity is astonishing, 120-180gallons of wine; 2-3000 glasses of wine.
• Jesus criticised in Mat 11 no matter what you do, you can't win with some people: John the Baptist called to abstain 100% from alcohol - criticised for that: followed by Jesus, The Son of Man came eating & drinking, and they say: 'Here is a glutton & a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners'. But wisdom is proved right by her actions.
• Was it non-alcoholic ? no: new wine clearly alcoholic - cf. Acts 2:13-15
• Perhaps no alcoholism in that time ? no: Isaiah 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. - scripture recognises some people live to drink & drink to live; have to have compassion, but reject it as God's intention for us. Also passages that stress the lethal mix of alcohol & youth.
• Prov 23 - drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. - the ruin of lives & careers as we see now. Prov 23 goes on to 6 diagnostic questions with excessive use of alcohol: Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?
• However - Jesus turned water into wine - thus, it cannot be an unqualified evil; a question of use & abuse. Much like eg. sexual attraction - wonderful inside marriage, but open to abuse outside; or eg. 'things' - nothing wrong with owning them, but problems when they own you.
• Another lesson is Jesus loves marriage - He thinks weddings are a reason for celebration. Previously seen John 1/2 paralleling Genesis 1/2, also a 7 day chronology. Jn Ch 2 - finished the week; the 7th day; Gen 2: a wedding. What about the 2nd Adam ? his opinion of marriage ? follow his example ? he never got married - clearly not: a stunning affirmation of marriage. He & his disciples celbrating & engaged in a wedding feast. Jesus having fun, parties are good.
• 3rd lesson - the Glory of Christ; he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. Not really about weddings, wine but about Jesus. Mainly because his miracles - not that amazing; Jesus fed 5000 for 1 day; Moses 1 million for 40 years. Pointing to himself: I am the bread of life etc. other miraculous signs: pointing to himself.
• We provide the stone vessels & the water - he does the rest. Post enlightenment as we are: we have an anti-supernaturalist bias: religion may help mentally, but don't expect religion to affect the material world. Jesus didn't hear that view - He spoke the universe into being, he can change water into wine like that. He can change you too, transform you into a new creature.

"If you are a Muslim and your faith is strong and you believe in God and in your prophet then I don't think you should be remotely frightened of what some ludicrous infidel says or does about your religion or any depiction he produces."

"I think we've got to move away from this hysterical and rather patronising idea that we have got to treat the Muslim religion with kid gloves and not subject it to all the same rough and tumble that we subject other faiths to."

Nigel Nicholson, a professor of organisational behavior at the London Business School, called the matrix structure "one of the most difficult and least successful organisational forms."

Messrs Ghosal and Bartlett wrote in the past tense, suggesting that companies had escaped from the matrix corset. But 15 years after the article was published, many are still trying to struggle free.

I only open my mouth to change feet.

Section size breakdown:
 symbols         57450kb - 30%	[ a non-stripped build ]
 code            53676kb - 28%
 linking         43092kb - 23%
 data            14248kb - 7.5%
 exceptions      11978kb - 6.3%
 data relocs     5769kb -  3% ...
Of which:
Symbol entry counts:
 ~total .dynsym entries: 724251
 .dynstr size:
    def:    42969100
    undef:  3999841
    (avg len):  65

In one particularly odd case, a Najran judge sentenced a 16-year-old Ismaili schoolboy to death for blasphemy. This was commuted on appeal to 14 years in prison and 4,000 lashes, to be administered publicly in 80 weekly sessions of 50 blows. Most Saudis are unaware of such injustices...

Interviewer: So - it's great that you're willing to sacrifice a day's pay to strike & make your voice heard in government.

Striker: Oh no, I don't loose any pay, it's my civil right to strike, the government continue to pay me.

Interviewer: oh - but, of course you have to pay the train fair of course, that's some sacrifice

Striker: Oh no, the Union pay the train fair.

Interviewer: but of course, you pay that through higher union dues effectively ?

Striker: Oh no, the government pay my Union membership dues. ...

• Passage bristling with interesting problems; Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me." - should you follow strangers ? and calls Nathanael similarly a verse later. This plays into our wish that we can be turned around instantly and walk the walk from day 1. eg. Acts 14 - we must go through many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.
• Not the making of instant Christians, but those who are willing to do his will. Follow me. all that's recorded, but we should not assume that it's an exhaustive summary of all that was said; clearly - but that was the most important part.
• Jesus did not say listen to me, or agree with me, or even believe me., but Follow me.. 3 times in the text Come and see - not just an intellectual assent, but the experience of meeting Jesus; the incomparable person of Christ himself.
• Nathanael guile-less, doesn't hide his doubt - shows a key problem: Jesus apparently from the wrong place: Nazareth, but shows up & checks him out. Being under the fig-tree: metaphore for in prayer with God.
• At the end - aluding to Jacob's ladder, a stepped pyramid - eg. mesopotamia in Babylon - 1st step 100ft, next 50ft etc. Jacob had a dream - angels ascending & descending - comes down & blesses him. The Son of Man is that ladder - through whom, God can bless.