The Battle of Open Source: Why Can't We Be Friends?
I just read an article on Network World[!] that has me totally floored.
The Banshee[!] developers made it where you can sample, buy and download music within their media player from Amazon MP3[!], and 100% of the affiliate revenues is donated[!] to the GNOME Foundation[!].
Upon further review, Canonical[!] has their own Ubuntu One Music Store[!] that Banshee would be competing with and Canonical wouldn't be getting any cuts from Banshee unless they used Canonical's affiliate ID instead of GNOME's[!]. Canonical wants 75% of the affiliate revenues, with the remainder 25% going to the GNOME Foundation. With the release of Ubuntu 11.04 swiftly drawing near, and Banshee Media Player replacing Rhythmbox[!], the Banshee team opted to disable the Amazon MP3 store all together.
Now it's time for my opinion. Banshee is a wonderful iTunes[!]-like media player for Linux. Since I am such a music buff, and I liked sorta liked iTunes back in the day when I ran Windows[!], I set out to find something similar. As I was searching through media players on Freshmeat[!] back when I was running Debian GNU/Linux[!], I came across the Banshee Media Player. It looked like iTunes and had many of the same features. This was the one I chose to go with. A couple of years later, I switched to Ubuntu Linux because of its rapid releases and programs were more up to date than Debian was. I stay fairly current with the happenings behind the scenes in Ubuntu development, even though I am not a developer myself. I even often times over voice my opinions a lot on Twitter about various things in development. I still use Banshee in Ubuntu to this day.
Back when Mark Shuttleworth[!] was pushing Ubuntu for open development, he didn't show greed or ways to control people or projects. He wanted his Ubuntu project to be available for EVERYONE. Sure, projects take money to develop, but there are other ways to go about doing. Changing the affiliate IDs[!] of other open source programs that you distribute is not the answer. That just turns into open source projects fighting one another and NOTHING gets accomplished.
By changing the affiliate IDs in programs such as Banshee and Firefox[!], Canonical is steering, shall I say stealing, possible development revenues from the original program developers. This is not only unfair, but it is just plain wrong.
What do you think? I would love to know your opinions. Please read the whole story from Network World at the top of this post, then either leave me a comment on the blog or better yet, contact me directly on Twitter at @jpyper. I would love to hear form you.
Sometimes I Wonder - Comixed
Some things just never change...
[01 JAN] NexusHD2-Froyo V1.9a NAND [UpdatedKernel: hastarin_r8.6_oldcam_N UTF-8 WiFi]
Best Android ROM for the HD2 using NAND booting. Check it out!
20 Open Source Movies You Can Edit and Redistribute for Free
Can open source movies be the new way to express yourself?
Facebook Over Exaggerated User Data
Face supposedly crossed over the 500 million user mark. While this may or may not be surprising, the data surely has to be misconstrued somewhere. Let's dive a little deeper into what I think the claim is about.
First off, how exactly does Facebook measure the number of users? Is it per verified email address? If that's the case, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo Mail accounts are a dime a dozen and eazy to create multiple accounts. This is a bad way to measure total users.
Second, I'm thinking 'pages' are being classified as accounts/users. Any joe blow with a single Facebook account can make 'pages' that are linked to their accounts, yet look like a total different account. This doesn't work either for measuring total users.
Third, dormant accounts are not removed. I had one of the original Facebook accounts when you had to have an email account at an educational facility with a top level domain ending in .edu. I haven't used that particular login in over 3 years. I decided to try it tonight, and I logged right in and saw everything that was there 3 years ago. While it is a legit account, stagnant unused accounts should be removed to keep the ecosystem within Facebook clean. I know, I know. It's all about data collection. I believe to get accurate data on your users, you need to report the number of real 'user' accounts that are ACTIVE say within a 6 month to a year time span. This shows your site is interesting. It shows recent activity. It also shows that these are real people behind the keyboard.
Fourth, this one bugs me. Spammer accounts. They are fairly easy to point out. You report spam to Facebook, and if enough people complain, the account gets disabled. Disabled? Why not purged? This is also tallying up their bloated over exaggerated user counts.
So, to end this brain dump about Facebook, let's recap a little.
Users based on unique email addresses doesn't mean anything. 'Pages' that look like user accounts but are not shouldn't be counted. Old accounts should be purged from the system on a scheduled time of inactivity. Spam is best when fried, diced up and mixed with scrambled eggs...not all over the Facebook pages.
Please comment with your ideas. Correct me on my assumptions. I would like to see what you all think of this. Thank you for reading
-John
More Americans' credit scores sink to new lows
NEW YORK —The credit scores of millions more Americans are sinking to new lows.
Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers - nearly 43.4 million people - now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders. It's unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.
Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.
"I don't get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings," said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. "I have plenty of business, but I'm struggling to stay open."
FICO's latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO's 300-to-850 scale weren't as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.
More are likely to join their ranks. It can take several months before payment missteps actually drive down a credit score. The Labor Department says about 26 million people are out of work or underemployed, and millions more face foreclosure, which alone can chop 150 points off an individual's score. Once the damage is done, it could be years before this group can restore their scores, even if they had strong credit histories in the past.
On the positive side, the number of consumers who have a top score of 800 or above has increased in recent years. At least in part, this reflects that more individuals have cut spending and paid down debt in response to the recession. Their ranks now stand at 17.9 percent, which is notably above the historical average of 13 percent, though down from 18.7 percent in April 2008 before the market meltdown.
There's also been a notable shift in the important range of people with moderate credit, those with scores between 650 and 699. The new data shows that this group comprised 11.9 percent of scores. This is down only marginally from 12 percent in 2008, but reflects a drop of roughly 5.3 million people from its historical average of 15 percent.
This group is significant because it may feel the effects of lenders' tighter credit standards the most, said FICO's Jennings. Consumers on the lowest end of the scale are less likely to try to borrow. However, people with mid-range scores that had been eligible for credit before the meltdown are looking to buy homes or cars but finding it hard to qualify for affordable loans.
Workman has seen this firsthand.
A customer with a score of 679 recently walked away from buying a house because he could not get the best interest rate on a $100,000 mortgage. Had his score been 680, the rate he was offered would have been a half-percent lower. The difference was only about $31 per month, but over a 30-year mortgage would have added up to more than $11,000.
"There was nothing derogatory on his credit report," Workman said of the customer. He had, however, recently gotten an auto loan, which likely lowered his score.
![]()
Studies have shown FICO scores are generally reliable predictions of consumer payment behavior, but Workman's experience points to one drawback of credit scoring: the automated underwriting programs lenders use can't always differentiate between two people with the same score. Another consumer might have a 679 score because of several late payments, which could indicate he or she is a bigger repayment risk. But a computer program that depends just on score won't consider those details.
On a broader scale, some of the spike in foreclosures came about because homeowners were financially irresponsible, while others lost their jobs and could no longer pay their mortgages. Yet both reasons for foreclosures have the same impact on a borrower's FICO score.
In the past too much credit was handed out based on scores alone, without considering how much debt consumers could pay back, said Edmund Tribue, a senior vice president in the credit risk practice at MasterCard Advisors. Now the ability to repay the debt is a critical part of the lending decision.
Workman still thinks credit scores alone play too big a role. "The pendulum has swung too far," he said. "We absolutely swung way too far in the liberal lending, but did we have to swing so far back the other way?"
Happy 7-Eleven Day!
Free Slurpees! Hit up as many 7-Eleven stores as you can. Experience FREE brain freeze. =)
CyanogenMod-6 for D/S: V6.0.0-RC1
New release of CyanogenMod for HTC Dream/Sapphire 32b devices. Android 2.2 "Froyo" is out kicking some tail and taking names. This is only a release candidate, not a final release. Try it and report back so that necessary fixes/changes can go into a near future release.
KingKlick - A Community Unchained
After having a few issues with other Android developers on the XDA forums, KingKlick has decided to make his own kingdom to rule. Great forums for ROM developments, themes and apps. Check it out. You won't be disappointed. Oh yeah, follow KingKlick on Twitter too: http://twitter.com/kingklick92

