The Thomas Farm Project
January 31st, 2010
Just a heads-up: I am participating in an agricultural living “experiment” with two friends of ours and we just launched a new site dedicated to the year-long venture: thomasfarmproject.com. We plan to post blog entries (more frequently than I do here) and photos as we explore “sustainable” “intensive” “gardening.” (Please overlook the site’s default styling—we’re working on it.)
Check it out!
—m
Don’t Bother Replacing Office
October 1st, 2009
Recently Mark Gimein wrote in his blog that Microsoft Office doesn’t have any real competition because its closest competitor, OpenOffice.org (OO), is free, but mediocre. According to him, because the latter suite is mediocre, few would use it to replace the Old MS Standby, and because it is free, no one can be expected to develop and subsequently sell an alternative office suite for anything more than nothing.
He makes some excellent points. For one, I think he’s right in saying that OpenOffice.org is in many ways a clone of MS Office pre-2007. Of course, this isn’t entirely true, but it appears that the purpose of OO and its predecessor, StarOffice, was to duplicate Office functionality for a lower price. Unfortunately, while Office underwent a pretty significant and, in my opinion, positive overhaul with its 2007 version, OO seems mired in the past, particularly in terms of its interface — functionality buried behind a dizzying array of menus, submenus, dialog boxes and property sheets. Gimein believes that the OO community has settled for “good enough” software since its price tag is $0. Furthermore, we shouldn’t expect anyone else in the open source community to produce anything superior in the non-sexy realm of office productivity software. I hope, to a degree, he’s right.
I don’t think anyone should bother replacing Microsoft Office in its current form. That is, a large office software suite with a plethora of features, most of them of acceptable quality, but none of them particularly amazing. Instead, I’d rather see the free software community develop modular, more specific tools that work together happily via open standards. The idea is old. Individual software programs should fulfill a particular niche within a larger procedural pipeline, not consist of the entire pipeline in themselves. People in the Linux/Unix world seem to get this. Why use Word for everything including word processing, HTML and image editing, desktop publishing, writing theses and dissertations (with references!), creating forms for users to fill-in, and sharing documents for viewing when each of these tasks really needs its own, dedicated system to do the job well?
I’m guessing my argument is moot anyway. The future of office software is not primarily on the desktop, but likely in the cloud (a whole other topic altogether). Like Google Docs, they’re likely to be a bit more streamlined than the Office we’re used to. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and learn about more focused systems that replace bits of Office functionality — text editors (other than Notepad), image editors, desktop publishing systems (even for academic posters!), HTML editors, database systems, diagramming tools, and so on. (Take note, there are free systems [other than OO] in all of these categories.)
For my own sake, I can’t go without griping about a couple of Gimein’s assertions:
- Don’t confuse the so-called open source movement with the free software movement. Richard Stallman is more concerned with ethical issues regarding our liberty and freedom with software than about production processes and quality; those latter issues are promoted more by the Open Source Initiative, which is trying to appeal to the business world.
- OO’s benefits go beyond the free price; the author neglected to mention that it natively supports the OpenDocument format, preventing users from vendor lock-in.
Bemoaning the Decline of Print
September 26th, 2009
This morning I stumbled upon a blog entry titled Rebooting the Book (One Apple iPad Tablet at a Time) by Mark Sigal. In the article, Sigal dreams of the new possibilities of when digital readers and other multimedia devices completely replace the printed book, in particular when Apple gets involved in the e-book reader business. (I personally don’t know anything about Apple’s e-book projects, but it’s really beside the point.)
This article is another example of dramatic, high-tech speculation in which possibilities in the future world astound us, and those who hold on to present or past ways are cast aside in irrelevance. In this case, it’s the bibliophiles who are desperately (and apparently, naively) holding on to the printed word; if only they would open their eyes to the inevitable developments — “books” with internet connections, interactive features, simulations, video immersion, and built-in social networking — they would see the light too! So the other author pleads.
For better or worse, I don’t quite consider myself a bibliophile. I like reading, but I tend to get distracted and forget about the two or three books I’m trying to engage. However, I, like some bibliophiles, am really hesitant to fully embrace the e-book reader trend, or the multi-media remaking of the book. My primary concerns are in the form of questions. First, there are the copyright issues. How will future e-books be distributed, who will have the rights to read them, and will I be able to give a copy to my friend when I am done (something I can do now with physical books, at no risk to my legal self)? Will e-books make me more or less dependent on energy companies, telecoms, and technology companies? Will they help the small publisher, or more greatly benefit the large media outlets (e.g., Amazon, Apple, etc)?
These last concerns are particularly directed at Sigal’s speculations about the new possibilities for multimedia in learning. Will future forms of what are now printed genres help me better reason about the world? Will simulations and immersive digital environments help me to better develop, communicate, and defend my ideas? Will they help me think and speak coherently? I for one have a really hard time reading a long wikipedia article without getting completely distracted with links redirecting me and my thought processes to other articles or other places on the web.
I like new things. They’re fun and exciting. I also understand that communication media change and will continue to change. (Personal case in point: I’m writing a blog.) However, don’t give up on print just yet. Don’t give up on that which is non-interactive. Don’t give up on the linear construction of ideas. And please, don’t just assume that if Apple is coming out with a new technology that the best thing to do with it is to push it into our schools.
Update (1 October 2009): I just read an article regarding these new kinds of media and some and those who are suspicious.
“Sizing Up Sustainable Food”
September 13th, 2009
On a semi-recent edition of NPR’s Talk of the Nation, host Ira Flatow interviewed three individuals regarding the local food movement—James McWilliams, Michael Pollan, and Brian Halweil. While Flatow tried to structure the debate with the interviewees in opposition to one another, they had little to disagree about. Instead, this interview turns out to be a nice overview of the broadness of the so-called locavores’ arguments regarding food production. It’s more than simply reducing your “carbon footprint”; they promote thinking about where your food comes from in terms of energy use, community connection and development, economics, health, and creating a decentralized, stable food system. Also, Pollan et al. argue that it’s important to put an end to the strict dichotomy between what is known as conventional farming and organic farming. To its own benefit, the former can easily integrate some of the practices of the organic community, while the latter can be easily co-opted by large agri-businesses, reducing its benefits, particularly in terms of energy use. (I recommend listening to the interview over lunch.)
Moreover, this interview is a fine response to one previously aired, in which Charlotte Allen vents her frustration with what she feels is an impossible and condescending call to eat locally. However, she doesn’t offer very strong arguments for her position during the interview outside of a desire to be able to eat whatever she wants, cheaply, and ignores the broader costs of food production.
On a related note, in a more recent interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, Pollan discusses the national diet and the food industry in relation to the health care debate. His primary argument is that while the federal government is trying to cut health care costs, it is also fueling the fire by heavily subsidizing the crops that find their way into our junk food—in particular, corn syrup.
This topic verges on a conversation I’ve been hoping we could have for a while now. Unfortunately, discussion about how to build healthy lifestyles has been shadowed by the conversation about how to mend health problems. Health reform (as opposed to simply health care reform), should include a thorough examination of our food and our food sources.
Blog Archives
Subscribe
Subscribe to this site via RSS
About Me
I’m a generalist with pockets of expertliness. (Read More)
