Categories
Technology

Microsoft gets Groovy

This was an eye opener today: Microsoft has bought Groove Networks and hired Ray Ozzie as new Chief Technical Officer.

Years ago when I lived in Boston, I had visited Groove and met the development team and Ray’s brother, Jack, when I was looking at doing a book on Groove for O’Reilly. I also interviewed with them, once, for a possible job.

It’s been a few years, but the Groove people I met were a loyal, sharp, enthusiastic group of people who seemed to have a lot of respect for the Ozzie brothers. I see from the press release, Microsoft has also hired the crew and they’re staying in the Boston area.

Microsoft buying Groove is one thing, but the kicker is the company hiring Ozzie as CTO. This signals a major shift in product direction, and product mentality, for the company.

Great Slashdot quote on the move:

 

Yup, that’s pretty much what all groupware is — it’s software that causes open source fanboys to say “I don’t see what the big deal is. I could do the same thing with NNTP, awk, MythTV, ReiserFS, two tin cans and a piece of string. All this “integration” and “working” stuff is just eye candy.”

Lotus Notes is the same thing, except that in that case the fanboys really could have done better with the cans and string.

Categories
Technology Weblogging

From Press to Form

When I post the Wordform files for download, I’ll provide details of the conversion from WordPress 1.5 to Wordform, but I thought I would provide an overview of the changes, upfront.

First, my decision to make such extensive modifications to WordPress that I decided to fork the code isn’t an indication that I think WordPress is a ‘bad’ tool, or is based on ‘bad’ coding. On the contrary: with this new release, I consider WordPress 1.5 to be one of the best weblogging tools on the market. The new themes design is absolutely brilliant, the user interface is intuitive and easy to use, and the code has been cleaned up very nicely–the developers can be justifiably proud of what they’ve delivered with this release. When the first bug release of the product is available for download, (1.5.1) I can, without hesitation, recommend this tool to any weblogger.

However, my views of what I want from a weblogging tool have been diverging from the WordPress developers for some time; luckily, since WordPress is GPL and I’m also a coder, I can do something about it.

Many of the changes I made to the code to take this tool from WordPress to Wordform are ‘under the covers’. For instance, I pulled all database queries into a separate file so that if I want to make changes to the underlying database I can easily without having to go through individual files looking to see what has broken. Of course, if I add or remove fields, I will have to change code, but in many cases, this additional separation of application and data can mean that even a significant change, such as multi-weblog support, can be made with relatively little impact on the application.

Other changes I made are very apparant to the user. For instance, I pulled all trackback and pingback code. Yup, every last bit of it, including dropping the table columns from the database. The more I looked at pingback and trackback, the more I didn’t like either: the former because it’s nothing more than referrer linking, and the latter because it’s too vulnerable to abuse. Instead of trackback and pingbacks, I’m incorporting the concept of ‘tagbacks’ into the tool, specifically as a focus for either a discussion thread, or as a multi-threaded topic. (More on this in a later post.)

(One side benefit of removing pingback and trackback is that the tool is very fast now. It was fast before I made the change; afterwards, updates and new posts are instantaneous. In addition, I think not having to manage these within the code has also simplified much of it, and simpler code (or more focused code), is easier to maintain.)

Picture of Bam-in-a-CanAnother change I made was to the new WordPress Desktop. Instead of scraping in the WordPress Development weblog and Planet WordPress syndication feeds, I’ve incorporated a page that uses Feed on Feeds, a server-based aggregator that works somewhat like Bloglines. Feed on Feeds is just one of the external applications that can be installed with Wordform, and it allows you to subscribe to various sites. Then, when you access the Wordform Desktop (which has been renamed to “Bam-in-a-Can!”, for no other reason than it’s such a cheerful phrase), you’ll see the updated feeds from all your subscribed sites.

I pulled all implementations of ‘nofollow’ from the tool. I was going to detail how to do this for WordPress users; unfortunately, though, if you want to use WordPress as a tool, you’ll actually have to modify the tool libraries to remove this attribute, not just modify the tool templates. I’m reluctant to provide a ‘how to’ on this, as this will make the tool incompatible with future releases. If you want this information, you’ll need to send me an email.

I also added an option to turn on or off the enclosure functionality. Right now, if you link an MP3 in your post in WordPress, it’s automatically added as a syndication feed podcast. I’d rather give people the option whether to list this as an enclosure or not in their feeds.

I pulled in-page preview from the edit page, and added preview as an option for the main template. With this you can preview a post ‘in context’ –within the page design. I also added spell checking to the edit page, and am pulling the Quicktags in favor of a more sophisticated designer bar (which can be switched out for the existing Quicktags if you prefer the older design bar).

Some other major architectural changes:

  1. Creating a page literally creates a hard page, which can be individually moved. If .htaccess is writable, the page is linked to a virtual directory location; otherwise, you have to move it.
  2. I pulled private posts. The one time I’ve seen this, I didn’t like it. Here you have a weblog with this big “PRIVATE POST” blob in the middle of the page, taunting the readers with what they could not access–the plebians. I figure if a person wants private posts, they should think about having a private weblog. And again, this change nicely simplified the code — the old fewer moving parts, less breakage thing.
  3. I’m incorporating the concept of Wordform Application Modules (WAM) into the underlying tool architecture. These are full featured applications, wrapped to work with Wordform, as compared with plugins, which are bits of code written specifically for Wordform (or I should say, WordPress, as I’m keeping the plugin architecture the same so that Wordform can use most WordPress plugins). The Feed of Feeds implementation in the Bam-in-a-Can page is a example of a WAM.
  4. Comment and post status are pulled from the database and populated in a dropdown box. This allows application module and plug-in developers to add new statuses. I used this myself to add comment moderation on a post-by-post basis.

There are other new changes that I’m still working on, and hope to roll out with the first beta release of the product, some time next week or so.

I did incorporate my old comment management system in Wordform, and pulled the existing WordPress whitelisting functionality. I’m not crazy about whitelisting, and I don’t like blacklisting. What I’m doing is providing an option that allows a person to turn off comments older than a certain date. However, the comment itself isn’t turned off until the first comment that post received after this date. That comment is moderated and than the post is turned off. This allows the weblog user to see if the comment is spam, and if it isn’t, to make a decision whether they want to turn comments back on with that post.

I’ve also added in my old throttle, which will keep a person from being crapflooded; and am enhancing the manageability of the pages that display comments and posts — providing NEXT and PREVIOUS page functionality so a person can page through results. People can also search for comments and posts based on dates and post or comment IDs.

The post-comment editing functionality can take multiple tool backends, so you can use this with WordPress, Textpattern, Movable Type or other weblogging tool. In addition, I have a comments.php file that will work with both Wordform and WordPress, and which will enable spell checking, live preview, and post-comment editing.

While this is all going on, I’m also keeping an eye on the WordPress codebase, to incorporate relevant fixes to functions in Wordform, as they occur. And I have a couple of patches for the WordPress folks that I need to drop into the WordPress bug system, soon as I have a spare moment.

I’ll say one thing with all this effort: if you need help with your WordPress weblog, I’m your woman: I’ll probably know the code almost as well as the developers when I release Wordform 1.0a.

Categories
Technology Weblogging

Wordform 1.0a in test

Wordform 1.0a is in development and test at Burningbird. This site has not been updated to most recent version, though I hope to by week’s end.

I also hope to have the first alpha release of the code ready for download next week. Knock on wood.

Categories
Diversity Technology

Guys Don’t Link

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The Better Bad News folk did a take on the AutoLink fooflah, which is worth a chuckle, though not necessarily a guffaw. However, what I found more interesting about the page is the *list of webloggers that the BBN folks referenced:

1. Opt Out Petition
2. Dan Gillmor
3.The Scoblizer

4. Dave Winer
5. Cory Doctorow
6. Time
7. Mark Jen
8. Steve Rubel
9. Kas Log
10. Tim Bray

with sonic support from Plastikman

Aside from the Time article, which is actually written by a woman, and the petition, all of the webloggers linked were men. Every single one.

This matched closely what I found at Doc Searls, in his post on AutoLink. He references the following bloggers:

Steve Gillmor
Tim Bray
Dave Winer
Dan Gillmor
Fred Von Lohmann
Craig Burton

ubermostrum at kuroshin

Again, all guys.

Point of fact, if you follow the thread of this discussion, you would see something like Dave linking to Cory who then links to Scoble who links to Dave who links to Tim who links to Steve who then links to Dave who links to Doc who follows through with a link to Dan, and so on. If you throw in the fact that the Google Guys are, well, guys, then we start to see a pattern here: men have a real thing for the hypertext link.

Well, huh. How about that. Not being a guy, I couldn’t understand this male obsession with the link, so I decided to call on an expert on gender roles about the issue: Lawrence Summers, Harvard’s current President.

“Larry,” I said. “What is is with guys and links?”

“Well Shelley, statistics–now, don’t worry, I won’t show you any actual values because being a women and all, we know that you can’t do more than count your ten fingers and toes–anyway, statistic show that guys are linked more than women, and link to each other more than they link to women. And when one guy links to another guy, a whole bunch of other guys come along and link them both, and then start linking to each other.”

“I’m aware of the behavior, Larry. But what causes it?”

He beamed at me, patted me on my head and chucked me under the chin. “Why honey, it’s because the male brain is wired for linking!”

I’ll have to admit, I was taken aback by Larry’s response. I mean, it didn’t make sense that a guy’s brain could better handling linking, especially since women also use the link.

“Larry, are you sure that linking isn’t a pattern based on cultural and social similarities, rather than gender-based differences in the brain? Guys are linked more because our current society and most cultures still see men as ‘authorities’, regardless of demonstrated capability?”

Larry just smiled, somewhat sadly and shook his head.

“All too often we think that guys are linked more than women because of social patterns, but that’s really not the case. Look, there are three reasons why men are linked more than women, and I’ll take them in the order of importance.”

He held up the index finger on his right hand. “The first reason men are linked more is based on interest and time. Women just aren’t interested in weblogging as much as the men, and don’t have the time for it, even if they are interested. You ask both men and women the question, ‘What’s more important: your families or your weblog?’ and I bet you’ll find that women, overall, will pick their families over their weblogs.”

He held up the middle finger on his right hand. “The second reason is aptitude — men and women’s brains are different, and men are more equipped to handle the complexities of the link, as compared to women.”

Larry then held up the third finger, almost indifferently and said, “And then there’s the social issues, but I don’t want to get into this because anything having to do with social issues means folks like me have to change, and we don’t want that.” He quickly lowered his third finger. “And I don’t want to get into time and interest, because I’m running out of time and the topic has little interest.”  And with that, he lowered the index finger, leaving only the middle finger raised.

“And that leads us back to men and women’s brains being different, and men being better equipped to handle linking.”

At that point, Larry noticed the stunned look on my face, my mouth opened in astonishment. He said, “Seriously, I think it’s important to focus this topic on the hard wired differences between men and women, virtually to the exclusion of any other discussion.”

“To take an example I discussed previously, when I gave weblogging tools to my twin little girls, and they are Daddy’s good little girls might I add, it wasn’t long after I showed them what a link was that they were calling them ‘Daddy links’, ‘Mommy links’, and ‘Baby links’. Leaving aside that all the television they watch features ads with little girls playing house and pretending to be mommies, how else can you explain this behavior other than the female brain perceives the link in a different way from the male brain?”

The conversation continued from that point, but I don’t remember much of it as my brain was in a red haze–I imagine that Larry would say it was because I am a woman and we were, after all, discussing links. Later that day, though, not feeling overly satisfied with his answers, I sought out the one fountain of wisdom I always returned to, again and again, whenever I was troubled about gender issues: Mags the bartender down at the Bushels of Beer Bar & Grill.

When I got there, business was slow and Mags was wiping down the counter. Her hair was steel gray, though strands of golden blonde appeared here and there–she always did miss a few when she colored. Peering out at me from behind thick, fake glasses, she smiled broadly, easily re-cutting the lines long creases into her cheeks. She was a lovely woman, though she spent a great deal of time trying to live this down.

“Shelley! What are you doing here on a fine afternoon! I thought you walked during this time of day?” she said, reaching under the counter at the same time to get the mixings for my usual margarita.

“Skip the drink today, Mags.” I said, heavily, as I plopped down on the stool. “What I want from you is advice, not booze.”

I then proceeded to tell her all about Google’s new AutoLink, and my own findings on men and links, and the conversation with Larry the Harvard President. She nodded from time to time, as if nothing I said was unexpected. When I was finished, she looked at me a moment and then did something she rarely did — come out from behind the counter to sit on the stool next to me.

“Shelley, I’m not surprised by anything you’re saying. But you might be surprised when I say that I sort of agree with your Harvard President — men do think differently about links than women.”

I was surprised, and showed it.

“Oh, I don’t mean that men and women’s brains are wired so differently that men are naturally more adept at linking then women. No, the difference between men and women lies in how men perceive links, not their ability to use them.”

She leaned closer to me, even though no one else was in the place.

“You see, guys see links as an extension of themselves. ”

Extensions of themselves? Extensions? Slowly, understanding dawned.

“You mean…”

“You always were a bright girl, mores the pity.” She said, winking at me. “You got it in one. To you and me, a link is just a link. To a guy, however, a link is something special, a part of himself. The most,um, important part of himself.”

Time for plain speaking. “Mags, are you telling me that guys equate links with their dicks?”

Mags just smiled, patted my hand one more time, and then got up and moved back behind the counter.

“Shelley, to a woman, a link is a way of connecting and being connected. To hearing and being heard. But not so for a guy. Guys see links as power, and therefore something precious, and to be protected. They hold on to their links as tightly, and as lovingly, as a thirsty drunk holds onto a bottle.”

At that moment I had a mental image, of a male weblogger I know, carefully adding a link to his post, bright, feral grin on his face, manic glaze to his eyes. But instead of typing into a keyboard he was…oh, that’s disgusting!

I shuddered, world twisted upside down. “Surely, Mags, not all guys think this way!”

Mags shook her head. “No, this attitude isn’t universal among men. There are many guys who see a link as nothing more than a way of inviting a conversation or passing along useful information. They link without regard to the consequences, and the most they hope for is that it might spark an interesting discussion.”

She stopped wiping the counter and leaned closer to me, lowering her voice. “The power-link guys have a word for men who link just to link,” she whispered. “They call them linkless.”

At that point, a couple of people entered the bar and Mags hurried off to do her job, leaving me to think on our extraordinary conversation. The more I thought on Mags words, though, the more I could see the truth in them. Much that has confused me about this environment is explained if one considers for a moment that some men think of links as some form of virtual penis.

For instance, ‘nofollow’ wouldn’t just be a misuse of HTML and a way for Google to solve the weblogger pest problem: it would be way of increasing the power of one’s link– literally a hypertext version of Viagra. As for Google, it becomes both the hand and the condom, enabling and protecting at the same time.

Sites such as Technorati become the internet version of a locker room, where the guys can hang around, comparing themselves to each other. Those that come up short look at their better endowed brothers with both envy and admiration; sucking up in order to increase their own stature.

When we women ask the power-linkers why they don’t link to us more, what we’re talking about is communication, and wanting a fair shot of being heard; but what the guys hear is a woman asking for a little link love. Hey lady, do you have what it takes? More important, are you willing to give what it takes?

Groupies and blogging babes, only, need apply.

And the phrases, “circle jerk” and “Google juice”, take on new depth and sudden meaning in light of this discovery.

I wandered home from the bar, in a daze of comprehension so strong, it literally staggered me. I thought back on what started this all: the AutoLink. Now, I could understand the concern: it was all about protecting the Link.

What I see is functionality that can only be used in one browser, in one operating system, and only when the weblog reader pushes a button; when pushed, the tool only autolinks a few items: addresses and ISBN numbers and a few other innocuous odds and ends. To me, this is no big thing, but to those who run afeard of this technology, if we treat this service indifferently, other tools will take this as a sign of easy compliance and do truly evil things with the link.

We could then have ‘neocon’ and ‘progressive’ linking toolbars, that automatically link words such as ‘patriot’ to either Michelle Malkin or Atrios if the reader pushes a button. Or syndication toolbars that convert the word “Atom” to a link to the RSS 2.0 specification. (Resulting in such fine combinations as: “RSS 2.0 and Eve” and “Water is made up of two RSS 2.0 of hydrogen and one RSS 2.o of oxygen.”)

Why, some toolbars might even link terms to Wikipedia entries, and modern civilization, as we know it, would collapse into tattered heaps of folksonomic trash.

But not all guys saw AutoLink as the damnation of all mankind. No, a few anarchists in the crowd are always looking for opportunities to rip open the constraints and just let it All Hang Loose.

Yes, so much is explained now. Where I saw AutoLink as a relatively uninteresting and innocuous innovation, to some guys it was a way of dropping their pants and swinging what they got, while to others, it was a big metal Zipper, just waiting to catch the unwary.

Categories
Technology

Don’t link to this

Never attempt to write anything as long as my previous post, directly in the weblogging tool. If you do, you will go mad, and most likely cause harm to your computer or cat, whichever is closer.

I did want to point out that after my experiment in the earlier post–and did you all have to click that link that said “don’t click”? Is that the key to popularity? Name your weblog, “Don’t Read Me”?–I did confirm what Kevin Marks wrote earlier, in that you can use your own URL as the feed for a Technorati tag, rather than have to point to Technorati directly.

As long as the rel=”tag” attribute is in the link, Technorati pulls the filename from the URL and uses this as the tag name. This should reassure folks who are concerned about putting too much juice into Technorati, because any tool, now, can do the same: look for the attribute and derive the tag name from the file name, and create it’s own ‘tagback’ page. And since I point the link at my URL, even if the Technorati tagback page disappears, my link is still valid; I control the data, and the tagback still exists.

Kevin also confirmed that search bots are being denied access to the tags page, through the use of the META tag. Google honors this, so no pagerank. No pagerank, no reason for spamming.