Open Source

Barrie North has a problem. He can't stop talking about his favorite content management system, Joomla!. So last year, he decided to write his own Joomla book titled appropriately, Joomla! 1.5: A User's Guide. The problem is that people like North are never willing to let that be enough. As Joomla! 1.5 continues to evolve since its initial release so too has North's offerings. Two weeks ago North's publisher, Prentice Hall, sent me a second edition of Joomla! 1.5 as well a new video from their LiveLessons series, Fundamentals of Joomla!. Unlike last year, I decided to actually review the book as well as watch the video.

Let me first say, I'm a reluctant book reviewer. There is nothing that weighs on a person's busy day than having publishers send me a steady stream of content management related books for review. Eventually, those technical books begin stacking up on my desk and secretly I know half of those books aren't worth my time or your money. Luckily for all of us, North's Joomla 1.5 book and Fundamentals of Joomla! video are well worth the purchase. I can't help but give two thumbs up to both North's updated Joomla! 1.5 book and new video.

There is a real fear out there. A fear involving companies commercially supporting open source software and neglecting the "free" community version of their software. Fortunately for us, when looking for proof of this fear Alfresco is in the wrong direction to look. Alfresco Community Edition 3.2 brings so many new capabilities and improvements to the table that you can almost see the enterprise content management landscape brighten up.

Some of the most intense debates I've seen in the open source community have been discussions covering what is or what isn't required by the popular open source license, the GNU GPL. For example, it is common practice in the open source CMS market to distribute themes that include the templates (the code) under the GPL and the artwork (including CSS) under a different license. Under the GPL, is this practice legal or not?

BuddyPress 1.0.1 was released yesterday. This point release fixes a number of security issues in the 1.0 version so it is a critical upgrade for everyone currently running BuddyPress. There is also a number of other bug fixes so please review the release history for more information.

I forgot who sent the tweet on Twitter but I was pointed to some very interesting research (2005) posted at the Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge site.

Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who Will Win?

Using formal economic modelling, professors Pankaj Ghemawat and Ramon Casadesus-Masanell consider the competitive dynamics of the software wars between Microsoft and open source.

Geeklog, an open source blogging application, just went into its first beta. This release incorporates some of the work done in projects implemented during the 2008 Google Summer of Code.

New features and improvement you can expect in Geeklog 1.6.0 Beta 1 include:

I originally thought the article from Silicon.com, "Naked CIO: Open source ain't cheap" was written by a troll.  Most IT authors realize that the quickest way to get a rise out of readers is to say something negative about one of two topics, Apple computers or open source. This author decided to write about the latter.  Reluctantly, I have to agree with the author that for most enterprises running while open source is no more expensive than proprietary solutions it also certainly is not compellingly cheaper.

A few sources of costs for the enterprise running open source given by the author include:

I've never agreed and disagreed so much with one article as this one from The Sydney Morning Herald, Drive your own website.

I agree...

I hate being held to ransom. And I'm sure you do, too. But that's the scenario you're creating when you hand over your website to a web designer or developer and relinquish control over when and how you can change your content...

...That's why I think it's vital for small-business owners to use their own content management systems (CMS). My recommendation is to initially use a designer to create the overall look but after that you at least want to be able to change the text on your website whenever you want.

I disagree...

If you are planning to use a free CMS, such as Wordpress, Drupal or Joomla, expect a steep learning curve and a lot of time poring through forums and blogs trying to figure out how to insert that picture just the way you want.

On the other hand, monthly subscription-based models can offer more flexibility. While you might baulk at being tied to a monthly subscription, the benefit is this is usually accompanied by technical support - so you can call or email for help

The fact of the matter is whether you're going to be using a CMS that is propriety, open source, or subscription based...there is always a learning curve involved.  The advice I often give to those looking for a CMS is to look at which CMS meet the requirements then worry about the licensing along with the how/where the site will be hosted. The fact is that if the CMS doesn't meet your requirements...no subscription-based model for that CMS is going to meet your needs.  Also, if you think Wordpress has a steep learning curve...you likely haven't done your homework on Web content management systems.  Just my opinion...

The XOOPS Project, one of world’s leading Open Source CMS (Content Management System), is experiencing something that probably none of the Open Source CMS projects have ever experienced: reunification with its forks.
It's typical in the Open Source environment that developers work on a project, but then have different ideas, and leave the project to create their own forks. Most of the time they never come back.

So it's a sign of a visionary leadership of the current XOOPS team that they reached out and were able to attract back three of its recent and most innovative forks:
 
•    Simple-XOOPS under Dirk Herrmann from Germany 

Good Web Practices has a new post comparing three of everyone's favorite content management systems, Wordpress, Joomla, and Drupal [link broken].  The comparisons the author makes between the three CMS are fair as he weighs out the positives and negatives of each CMS.  Those that "get" open source will also like the way he concludes his article.