I have decided to do it. This will be the last entry I will post to this blog. The new blog is called Endless Words, and is available here.
The big advantage of the new system is that it now has much better support for the fact that I am using two languages. If you want to see only the english language posts, for example, you can do just that.
The new RSS feed is:
http://www.stelo.uklinux.net/blosxom.cgi/index.rss
I have posted some introductionary notes for your information, which goes into a bit more detail about how to separate the two languages.
I've been experimenting with Blosxom, another weblogging tool. I really like it because rather than storing the entries in a database, the weblog is simply created via the file hierarchy, so to add a new entry you just have to create a new file and put it in the correct directory. This is the solution to the problem I have been having of how to make Emacs the centre of my blogging experience. A further advantage is that I can easily backup and duplicate my blog, which will be great if I move to a new server.
So consider this advance warning...pending a few further experiments, I will very probably move my blog over to this new software. Unfortuantely, that will probably mean that the URL for the RSS feed will change. If that happens, I'll make sure I announce it with the new URL in the feed.
I changed the RSS feed so that it now shows the whole blog entry, including links, rather than just an unformatted (i.e. single paragraph, link-free) extract. I prefer to read other people's blogs this way, so it annoyed me that mine didn't do it. Now it does.
After being brought up on Free Software and its philosophy, I now find myself actually feeling guilty if I am tempted to pay for software. The little voice in my head (not the one that reminds that I have no money and can't afford it anyway, I succeeded in silencing that one a long time ago) chimes "All Software Should be Free!". However, on a number of occasions I have become dependant on some great pieces of software that I got for free. At other times I have become dependant on a great piece of closed source shareware. On both occasions I feel like the authors really deserve something for thier work and the fact that it is so useful to me. However, I have never contributed financially to the first three projects, but to the fourth I have (by purchasing a registered version). What's the difference? Certinaly not the program quality. No, the difference is that with (for example) AudioHijack, I have to pay to keep using it. Legally and technically (it stops working of a number of days). My moral watchdog flags up this kind of shareware as bad news, but at the same time, I love the program and don't mind paying for it (its not very expensive anyway).
I think the real solution is a compromise between the two. I have often thought there is simply not enough encouragement in the free software community to highlight the fact that the software is free as in speech, but not neccessarily as in beer. If I was encouraged to 'register' my copy of Mutt or Emacs or whatever, I think I would probably do so. However, if I was forced to register, I probably wouldn't have started using those programs in the first place because of my enthusiasm for the free software ethic. So perhaps the solution is simply a better promotion of the fact that these projects need funding, without any change to the license (you don't have to pay, its just nice if you do). This donation process could be assisted by the techniques in use by small shareware companies such as RegNet.
Having said that though, I realise that there is one major difference between a traditional and successful shareware product, and a GNU-style free one. That is the warranty. If you register a shareware program, you expect to have a certain level of after sales support, and more importantly, to have your payment be a form of guarentee that that support will be available. With a free software package however, while this support is usually available via discussion groups and your own DIY attitude (the source is available, after all), the project maintaners are rarely in a position to guarentee that support or its quality. For that reason, free software is almost always distributed with a no warranty disclaimer.
But does that have to be the case? There is currently a lot of buzz surrounding the fact that free software is currently poised to enter the mainstream, with great projects such as Gnome and OpenOffice. The current model seems to be that which gave RedHat its success: a group of geeks doing it for themselves create great software, then a commercial organisation with the required structure and management provides customer and support and takes in all the profit. Perhaps these organisations should be combined. Companies should be formed which create the traditional polished, boxed, high quality software that is found in your local PCWorld, but at the same time having it distributed by a liberal license (this is similar to what Apple have been doing with MacOSX, but the freedom is not extensive enough: it only covers the underlying foundations of the OS, not the entire shrinkwrapped package). The majority of buyers may not even be aware of this latter fact, but thier payment will guarentee that they get the kind of support they have come to expect from the software they buy. The free software faithful would be able to buy this software without sacrificing any of thier beliefs, while still getting the benefit of the kind of software that can be written when the programmers are getting paid for it and doing at as full time job. Those who genuinely cannot afford the product need not be left out, because they have a legal right to aquire it for free if they can find a source. However, people who can pay should be encouraged to do so. No more need for complicated student certification processes, it will all work on an honour system. I think that with a successful and popular product, the numbers and social pressure will make it work. But I could be wrong.
I was relieved to click on a link entitled "The Dullest Blog in the World" and find that it didn't lead to this one. At least they do it on purpose...
Us limeys have been patiently waiting for a strong contender to bring us Brit-centered legal online music á la the USA's iTunes. Who would have thought that the first company to give it a try would be Coca Cola?
Of course, the big question on everyone's lips is, what technology will be used to distribute the songs? More specifically, how restrictive will the DRM be, and will the system be multi-platform? Perhaps we are being naive even asking these questions, but for the time being, I'm prepared to give Coke the benefit of the doubt. I am looking forward to seeing what this project produces.
La fekunda Ĝangalo lastatempe fondis novan projekton kiu tre interesas min: esperanta blogaro. Ŝajne, la teknologio kiun ili uzas ne estas tre rafinita, kaj pro tio la blogoj mem havas nematuran guston, tamen ĉiam gravas pri blogoj la enhavo, do ĝi esats plu atentinda. Ĝis nun mi ne sukcesis trovi RSS-ŝuton, espereble tio venos poste.