GregoryTechSoft -//- Gregory A. Cheyney

Starship Says It’s Not Over (‘Til It’s Over)

2011-06-13T21:18:00.001-05:00

As I'll say time, and time, and time, and time again, I am a reader and viewer of science fiction. In one forum, I happened to want to write out a long commentary about one aspect, but decided to write it here, instead of there. Forgive the interruption in the otherwise-story-writing theme. On SciFi-Meshes.com, a site where sci-fi enthusiasts can post their endeavors for modeling objects, I commented about Star Trek versus Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda, especially that I felt the latter was a story universe that could be worthy of the starship model being designed.

[QUOTE](Funny to say this, but: I consider Andromeda as having "fixed" everything that is "broken" about the Star Trek universe, but for obviously different reasoning;[/QUOTE]

I wish to clarify my own words: I am not attempting to diminish all that is the Star Trek story universe; the JJ Abrams snafu did that on its own. But I certainly think the Andromeda universe (actually, comprised of three galaxies that are important to the storylines) allows for far more adventure, danger, intrigue, and overall story possibilities than Trek did/does. While I presume parallel compare-contrast reviews already exist, I'd like to offer this interchange as a definition of the key differences.

Compare the Background Stories.

Star Trek started as, and has mostly remained, primarily a "wagon train to the stars" story. If examined objectively, it has a pseudo-colonial feel to it, even into the Next Generation era; that is, it exists as a stand-in for some undefined future civilization to develop from. The Federation Star Fleet is more akin to the cavalry troops in Dances With Wolves, in that it explores and patrols the "wilderness" that is space.

The Andromeda story, on the other hand, is that the universe had a cohesive civilization, and ... it fell apart, either through the member worlds' or species' arrogance, corruption, greed, or some darker force heating up the universe to re-forge it in the manner of his desire.

It seems to be, what with all the quotes at the front of the show, that the Andromeda universe (before the fall) has been the status-quo for thousands of years, in story terms. So, it has a very rich background. Or, better put: it’s what the Star Trek universe could become, if it existed for the same length of time.

Compare the "Present Situation".

As each series shows the viewer, two very divergent manners of dealing with the universe are presented. The dividing line I base on, is: What is the struggle toward or away from?

The pseudo-colonial Star Trek original series' USS Enterprise has a five-year mission to patrol space, find life, learn all that is learnable, (oh wait, that's V"GER, um, the Borg, but both are snap-in analogies for what the Federation really is), find its way back “home”, … essentially "making way" for the future. Starfleet exists … simply to exist. But, what else? It’s a nice story.
The "glorious heritage" of the Andromeda universe, in its opening two-part show, presents the loss of civilization and, subsequently, one captain's will to restore what was lost. The struggle is against the status-quo of three centuries after the fall. Captain Hunt, his ship, and the crew exist to restore a balance, to do more than just let things stay the way they have become.

Can the goals of Star Trek stand on their own? Certainly, I’m not denying its role as entertainment alone. But, should it stand on its own? To be honest, an exploration mission (no matter how long) on its own will always be trumped by the goal to restore something that was lost, to rebuild, to fight against a darker agenda (a demon-like, dark-souled spirit, engineering the collapse of freedom from the shadow realm).

The Ending or Moral of the Story.

The plight of civilians, commerce, and industry are also important. Star Trek doesn’t promote the personal freedoms that citizens of the republic which is the United States of America and its partner country Israel live under. But the Andromeda universe is full of civilian and commercial endeavors, and not in the liberalist “capitalism is evil and must be destroyed” kind of mental bent. I am fully appreciative of the freedoms allowed and opportunities offered by the freedoms of belief and choice, and the right to voice such opinions, even if it differs with mine.

I’m not trying to drag current political agendas into this; it's just … as plain as the nose on your face. Whether you subscribe to the "Star Trek is Socialism" mindset or not, it certainly tends to lean on the semi-socialist/semi-utopian trope a bit in places. Trek morality seems to hide a lot of the diplomacy and politicking that must be going on behind the curtain in order for civilization to develop; further, aside from "the Borg" or "Q" or occasional skirmishes, there's no true overarching villain (except that each movie had its own villain) throughout all series.

The Andromeda storyline, on the other hand, was built from the ground up to be a struggle against the aforementioned dark spirit and dark forces that did its bidding. All indications were that this spirit was focused on controlling, on corrupting, and on destroying when matters did not go its way. Much like the progressive-minded political pursuits which seems to be working “behind the scenes” today….

I'm ... back. Among ... others?

2010-12-15T20:56:00.004-06:00

... with a new poll ... at the top.
Okay, enough with the horizontal ellipses. Yeah, it seems like every so often I roll back around to check on what is left of my blog. I've been thinking of the Internet memes that pop up out of nowhere, some staying with us for longer than we would presume possible. The poll perhaps alludes to some of the things that leapt out at me.
But for those who are waiting for me to finish something with either my writing or my software for writers, believe me I have not forgotten; I've just been feeling a little lost lately. I've got to get started again somehow; so, let this be the verse.

Okay, now that's just plain mean...

2010-04-04T10:28:00.004-05:00

... two years it takes me to get back into writing for the blog, and what shall I write about? I dunno; but start somewhere I shall.
First, a new poll to come, something for the roleplayers out there. Scroll all the way to the bottom of the site, if you're interested.

[2008-04-24 11am] ~ and Four Months Later, Another Post.

2008-04-24T11:21:00.001-05:00

Yep, I've been lax at posting to this weblog. Well, here's the new leaf being turned over. (Just hope it doesn't blow away in the wind.)

Notice that I'm trying to streamline the visual layout of the blog. While I'm keeping the dark theme as the color scheme, I will be working on updating various elements. The two old polls have been pulled out, to be replaced by just one at the top of the page, to be posted soon. Other, smaller changes will follow.

[2007-12-28] New (Old) Polls.

2007-12-28T09:39:00.001-06:00

Earlier this morning I checked back with my blog, and upon seeing both polls had expired, I first chided myself for not being more on the ball with matters. Then, I dug in and replaced both polls.

Now, it might seem unfair for me to have started over with the first and second polls, respectively, but I have a feeling that this coming year is going to be full of new happenings, new details to post, so a little repetition for the present shouldn't really hurt anyway.

C'est la vie.

On a sad note, my last living grandmother did pass away earlier this month. She will be missed; however, my beliefs are such that I am awaiting a resurrection, to reunite with her on a paradise Earth. In the meantime, I have many years of positive memories to draw upon.

In the past, I've been unsure of how much personal detail to post about my personal life, what with my hoping to make this blog primarily about software (mine and otherwise), writing, and roleplaying. But circumstances being what they are, I have a growing need to reconnect -- with family and friends I haven't seen in a while, with people who share my circumstances and interests, and with the better parts of the world in general.

In the near future I'll be posting a few details about the more public aspects of my life; so, for example, if my cousins really wanted to stay in touch (as they say they do), they can check this blog occasionally.

[2007-11-20] A (Belated) New Poll and Post.

2007-11-20T12:15:00.001-06:00

Yeah, yeah, it's been longer than I wanted it to be since the last poll and post. Belated apologies; life and other matters get in the way sometimes. (My grandmother, my last remaining grandparent, has an advanced brain tumor that is taking over.)

I think the new poll at the bottom may, in particular, be of interest to people who roleplay, especially in the endeavor of science fictional settings that includes multiple levels of detail in the universe. While science-fictional RPG settings for Alternity, Traveller, GURPS Space, or others exist, they tend to keep matters to within a few contiguous, small sectors of space to travel within. This poll is my attempt to find out exactly how far do you want to go today? (Speaking in roleplaying distances, that is.)

As a side note, I have tried the demo of AstroSynthesis 2, a commercial software program that does much to manage certain aspects of creating a custom roleplaying universe. But, I did notice that in creating a sufficiently vast roleplaying universe, more than a couple dozen light-years in its dimensions, it bogs down the system in computation cycles (even with a current processor). And, as I've mentioned before, I've got plans for creating a set of location modules, on up to universal level (and beyond, if so desired) that handles organizing the fictional universe in a completely new fashion that should be more responsive that AstroSynthesis was.

Therefore, I am open to hearing from you. Vote in this simple poll, or email me, whatever is your choice. My GMail address, gregory.cheyney, is waiting for some bits to munch on. (Don't fret if I don't respond immediately; that "stuff happens" is sometimes more immediate a concern than answering all email, but I will get to it soon.)

"Nuke 'em from orbit; It's the only way to be sure. . . ."

2007-10-09T06:06:00.001-05:00

I read this titular quote in a document online, and had to laugh; not because it's funny — well, it is, as if said by a fictional "hyper-manic" starship officer orbiting a terror-laden world, but that's not the point — but because we've all known those types of people who deserve a little justice, and perhaps even know one or two people with the wherewithal to call the Wrath of God on those who Just Don't Get It. (I've been one of the former, as well as the latter.)

Where the quote originally came from, I'm unsure. I only know that fellow writer John Ringo used it, in an article in which he tells of his experiences while on a panel at a writers' convention (RavenCon 2006, just shy of 2 years ago, but I only just found the story). Only those who do not offend easily need read that article, due to subject matter; he manages to make what I believe to be a very fine point four-fifths of the way through the pdf, but I'm not going to spoil it here. A word of caution, for those still interested in reading it: he is, in his writing, somewhat blunt and vulgar in relating his psychological and verbal warfare with panelists that were against him. On the plus side, it's worth it, if only for the subtle battlefield metaphors in the broken narrative. (Had I been there, I would've supplied reinforcement from the figurative fo'c's'le. Although, never having been to a con before, those experiences have warned me off them.)

In any case, Message Received, John. Understood, loud and clear, even two years later.

... and When I'm Mistaken, I Admit It. . . .

2007-09-29T18:24:00.001-05:00

I occasionally re-read my past posts to determine how readable they are, and admittedly, in the third post I meant to find out the story behind OpenOffice and StarOffice, but forgot sometime between writing that, reviewing the text, and pushing the publish button. Not that I'm a perfectionist — well, sometimes — but I wanted to set the record straight. So, I took it upon myself to look a little deeper into the origin of OpenOffice and StarOffice.

The web site to visit, of course, is www.openoffice.org which has a straightforward About page. Those who are interested in the details can follow links for more information — if you're interested in any way in replacing the word processor or office suite that came with your computer, it's worth the time in downloading and installing.

Changes to the Polling.

I've also retired the first poll, and then bumped the one at the bottom to the top. Second, I've added the newest poll to the bottom; this is the process I'll be going through any time I add new polling content.

I would also like to add, for any and all interested, that I've got a text file on my hard drive in which I collect all my thoughts for future polls. It is great to be prepared; that teacher was right, a little preparation really does save a lot of scramble-work at the last minute. You never have to worry that I'll run out of ideas, only that I'll forget to put them up in a timely manner (life sometimes gets in the way). However, if you've got a question you're wondering about, be it about writing, roleplaying, or my programming efforts, that can be posed as a question with five or more possible answers, I'd be glad to host it in a poll for you.

. . . And in Other News, Roleplaying and Writing Help Each Other. . . .

I haven't really mentioned roleplaying in any depth, so I thought I might give it a mention here.

I have mentioned that I write science fiction; more particularly, I'm writing a full five-plus book series that is full of everything a science fiction reader will love. (I won't bore you with the finer points just yet.) For some of the plotting, I occasionally use a role-playing system to set up a situation, then test-play a situation or two. Now, I know not every writer uses roleplaying elements in their writing, but I'm betting I'm not the only one, either.

For my purposes, I use the Alternity Science Fiction Roleplaying System, with a few personal modifications. This roleplay system was - to my way of thinking - unfairly dropped by The Company Who Shall Not Be Named.

The aspect of this system of most importance to me is the Warships supplemental, which helps me to play out interstellar travel situations and combat. But since it is, admittedly, left incomplete in the latter chapter, and because its chapter organization could have been handled much better, I have written a replacement document (which I personally think of as my own Warships The Next Generation). The original document follows the Star*Drive setting closely, but for my writing and roleplaying I needed something more like a Star Wars meets Star Trek style of technology for something nearing the equivalent of Y3k, Earth-approximate time. Also, in my story, I've got massive ships and stations, far larger than what are in the data tables, though less numerous than one might think. So I've also re-worked the hull size categories up to nine, and adapted movement rates as per these specifications, which suits the feel of my story universe.

Of course, other roleplaying systems may or may not have merits for use in testing a writing setup; some time in the future I may discuss one or more of them.

The Beat Goes On...

2007-09-20T10:21:00.001-05:00

I'm not attempting to reference the Beatles so much as just let you know that work on the design of my application is proceeding.

In my eager examination of the program specifications, I've thought it through to breaking up several modules into further modules more numerous in quantity. The number one case was examining the Locations module and seeing that the hierarchical nature of details meant it would possibly be better diverging them into two or more modules. Right now, I'm breaking it into the following:

One module for all details above the star system level. This is for reasons such as how a stellar civilization might organize the multitude of star systems into sectors, sectors into provinces, provinces into greater galactic divisions encompassing larger range of travel, et cetera.
One module for all details of the star system and associated planets, moons, and other orbital phenomena; this also includes functionality to generate the details associated with specific locations on the world, potentially all the way down to street level for site planning.

A secondary case might be merging the Civilization Builder and the Technologies modules, as the former uses the latter, and not many other modules will have need to use the latter. The Technologies module will provide information for a culture's tech level and tech tracks, as well as showing what technologies are available, and possibly extending to incorporate the economic technologies and resources – all details that could be handled by, and may be moved to, the Civilization Builder module.

Further Exposition on the New Project Wizard.

Java's Swing style of components certainly have a lot of pluses going for them, creating wizard dialogs being but one, which is another focus of my attention right now. In further thought to the previous post about how to functionally style the new project wizard, I've been working on designing and implementing the overall theme of how the wizard might look.

The wizard has a number of content pages to be designed. At the beginning, it will have an introductory page to kick off the process, and at the end, it may have a page indicating successful completion, as well as possibly one or more pages for different potential failure to complete the wizard steps. Even more involved, the steps in the middle of the wizard may be quite numerous; I'm looking into seeing how far the wizard can be broken into separate modules.

I already started with a new module just for the New Project Wizard, which will be host to only that wizard. I'm starting with nine pages for the wizard dialog, which should allow for a dynamic-enough experience in generating the project file to a point where you're ready to start from. These are the wizard dialog's pages as I see them, at this point:

The Introductory page, with generalized text found in other wizards like a brief text paragraph describing the function of the wizard.
A page for selecting type of writing project. (Optionally, this may be merged with the introductory page, as many people tend to see text-only pages as a rather moot step.)
A page for selecting the writing project's genre, sub-genre, and theme.
From the above, a page that itemizes which data the user may want to have automatically generated (locations, lifeforms, powers/fx, characters, organizations, technologies, civilizations, chronologies, plotting, et cetera - generally in this order, due to latter modules depending on former ones). I'm not incorporating individual introductory pages for each of them; each module for which data is generated will have its own wizard pages that will plug into the main wizard dialog.
Up to three pages to be used for various error, failure, or malfunction information, at least one page of which may potentially allow the user to recover against data lost from an error.
One page for any other unexplainable malfunction or failure to complete, that cannot otherwise be fixed or worked around. With proper design, the user may never need to see this page, but I'm including it as a precautionary step (read: a more sane way to bail out of the wizard than having a default "scary" error dialog pop onto the screen).
The final page, indicating the wizard dialog finished successfully; this point is reached only when all desired requirements have been satisfied, and all generated data has been written to disk.

Of course, this is all long-winded exposition which the end-user probably never needs to worry about, but I needed to write about something and it was quick to come to mind. . . .

Extended polling, and other changes.

2007-09-10T04:06:00.001-05:00

I've extended the duration of the poll above my posts, because to date mine is the only poll vote, and I'd like to see more feedback than that. So, you get until the end of the year to put or change a vote there.

Also, I've added a second poll to the bottom of the page, just for fun. It's probably the more interesting one of the two, but eventually the one at the top will expire, and I'll trade their places.

It has occurred to me, of course, that if I'm designing with support for roleplaying games, that I'll also be supporting the design of RPG campaign settings, adventures, and scenes. These are slightly different from a fiction book's chapters, scenes, et cetera, and so I'll have a second plotting module for the roleplaying structural elements of the writing project.

Finally, the module for creating Powers and FX might be in development limbo, right now. Much of the details I'm thinking it could keep track of might better be kept within either the Lifeforms or the Characters module. However, both of those modules might get bulkier with the addition of options for creating Hybrid species, Mutant individual characters, and other designs, should a particular genre or sub-genre require them. In any event, keeping Powers and FX as separate from Characters and Lifeforms is the current method of design.

About the Genre and Sub-Genre types.

I mention this in passing only, that I'm trying to design for customizability. As you may have guessed, I consider all of the data and text that goes with a story (or story series, if it goes that far) to be a writing project. This includes the modules and data I've been listing in previous posts, such as:

Locations
Lifeforms/species
Characters
Organizations
Civilizations/cultures
Chronologies and timelines
Technologies
Plotting
Powers, FX, and other "forces" (the term "magic" makes me cringe, I think it's demonic, however you could use it for such)

When you create a new writing project, the framework of a completely new story, I want to start with a program wizard where you can select some starting options, as shown in the following list.

First, of course, would be whether it's a fiction book or series, roleplaying game campaign setting, or whatever else this application can be extended to support. I have had the thought that someone could use this to create an autobiography (the true-life story about oneself), memoirs, et cetera.
Second, the story's genre. Ostensibly, even a roleplaying game campaign could have a genre, as not all roleplay is inherently Fantasy genre; for me, my default choice is Science Fiction genre. Remember, the vastness of literature includes many fiction genres such as Contemporary/Modern, Fantasy, Horror, Mystery/Thriller, Romance, Science Fiction, and Western. I could add Historical, but so many of them end up either Mystery, Romance, or Western, that it's a moot point. Also, each genre may be subcategorized into a number of niches, which are even more specific in nature. Imagine my surprise in the fact that Western could be broken down to over 40, yes, more than forty, different sub-genre categorizations, as listed in one literary resource.
Third, setting what realm this story or series takes place -- that is, realm pertains to whether this story universe will be focused on one world only, or be open to space travel among the galaxy. In my examples, I write a science fiction series in which a fraction of our current galaxy has already been colonized. However, nearly all fantasy stories would be limited to one world, one realm -- although, I wouldn't doubt the inventiveness of some authors to merge fantasy and science fiction.
Fourth, the selection of how much automatic generation of data to start with. This depends to some extent on previous choices in this wizard; id est, creating a contemporary modern-day romance very likely won't be needing the Lifeforms or Powers/FX modules to be enabled. I think Characters may be the most used. While you certainly already may know the key players to the story, you may want to let the program automatically create some background characters that are also within this fictional town.
Fifth, go ahead with the auto-generation, as set above. Say you want to create a story about a fictional town, on a fictional world, somewhere on the opposite side of this galaxy. Generate a solar system, its planets, and the main world's sites, as well as perhaps other nearby star systems for the inhabitants to be coming from or going to. Do the same with lifeforms (depending on how many species you want running around on this world), characters (as many as you want, even if they never appear in the story), organizations (governmental, military, social, whatever), throw in some technologies (perhaps agricultural, commercial, industrial, military, or civilian use), and whatever else might make for a good civilization or culture.
Finally, finish up and close the wizard; I'd optionally like to let the user view what data will be added to the writing project before continuing, in case the results are not as expected. All that should be left to the user is the writing of the story, and perhaps adding what more detail cannot be auto-generated.

This is how I envision the application's "File -> New Writing Project" wizard to react, if done right. Give me some feedback, whether you're impressed, or aren't sure this will work for you.

Addenda to the last addenda to the first post

2007-09-03T10:07:00.001-05:00

If you've been reading since post number one — I know, this is only the third one in — you're aware I'm a serious software developer-slash-programmer, writer of science fiction, and neophyte blogger. At times, certain issues may be brought to my attention, and I just as readily may expend a few words to voice my view of the matter. This post is no exception.

It occurred to me that certain people have preconceptions that open source software is, somehow, "less valid" or even "stealing" something, or in more likely circumstances, don't really understand all of what open source entails. Please don't expect me to explain everything about what open source is; enough information is already available elsewhere. However, I've encountered the doubter and misguided hater a time or two, and opinions like these unnerve me. So I'd like to clear up some of the doubts, lies, and misconceptions about open source and freeware, with a comparison to closed-source programs, where applicable.

The following headings and paragraphs list some obvious misconceptions as well as my thoughts on these, in no particular order but what I deem relevant.

"Nobody worthwhile really uses open source software."

This is absolutely absurd, bizarre, dismissive, and a heinous insult. Sad to say, someone really said this. Okay, the word 'worthwhile' could have been left out, but the speaker's derogative intent still would have come through loud and clear. First and foremost, in one sentence, the speaker of this blasphemy has single-handedly slurred countless national, state, and local government offices, innumerable corporations, non-profit organizations, and home users, any one of which may be from almost any nation around the world, who are making a switch to popular open source software or who are growing up knowing only free and open software. Another paraphrased Leo Laporte-ism which I adapted: "you get a computer, you just want it to work." This concept I apply to operating system and software, inclusive of both their design and usage.

And I tend to wonder, just how much of today's computer software that people use have benefited from open source code. How much does the average person take for granted, neither assuming nor knowing whether they're using software made by or with code or other software that implements open source code? Codecs, dynamic libraries, third-party software dependencies, complete applications, even entire operating systems, anything's possible. . . . Yeah, it's really true.

Also, the broad spectrum of usage is wider than you may know. From software for business productivity, to education and training, to entertainment and games, to dynamic and static libraries, scripting, and other middleware code, . . . the range of products and services is astounding, exhilarating, and welcoming. It's open source, and it's here to stay, permanently.

It's often not only the cost but also the availability or ease of accessibility that makes it a more attractive "purchase", which can be illustrated in countless ways. For closed source commercial software, the problem is that (aside from software piracy, and legitimate online sales downloads) the quantity of a particular software that you can purchase is limited to however many thousands or millions of copies get made by the publisher, further limited by how many of that number get delivered to the software stores in your area, further limited by how many other people in your vicinity want or need to buy the same software. Whereas, with open source software, release and distribution to the public is often made easier, via legitimate methods for free and open source programs: developer's and community web sites; inclusion in books, magazines, and other trade publications; making copies for friends; and peer-to-peer file sharing methods. Yeah, you read right.

Or, perhaps this attitude comes from people thinking open source software is (stereotypically) developed by a lone person who doesn't have, um, shall we say, much social grace or opportunity. As a developer of a software project I'm purposing to be open source, I can admit that, in a few cases, yes it can sometimes be that, but far fewer than you might think. Many other open source software developers in reality have been proven to be competent and likeable, as well as generally socialized on- and off-line. Such a discriminatory attitude should not exist; in reality, the person on the other end of that code could be any or all of the following: of either gender, from any country in the world (including those that are otherwise impoverished), very intelligent, and likely cannot be stereotyped as unsocialized.

"Stop! It's putting me out of business!"

First, calm down, stop and take a deep breath. Look outside, or at whatever calming view is nearest you. Then, repeat these words, if not out loud, at least to yourself: DON'T PANIC.

This is, of course, a possibility — that an open source software project and its related community could feasibly do so well that it impacts a corporation's financial statement. Personally, from what I've seen, I don't quite think Big Business Execs et al "get it", or if they do, they can't buy or sell the concept. Certain unnamed individuals within certain unnamed corporations both big and small can, and have, launched FUD attacks against either the concept at large or their particular competitor who uses or develops an open source software. These attacks can, and have, been both public and private wars against what they perceive to be the "Enemy". To which I say, "Enough!"

Let's again take a step back, and breathe. I don't want to tell any company how to run its business, because that would be counter-productive to both me and you. But, some altruisms are a good idea to ponder. Remember, money is not the most important thing in life. I borrow a phrase from Suze Ormon, who most people could agree is a financial expert, where she says, "People first. Then money. Then things."

I would also like to examine the status of commercial and open source development agendas often being at odds with each other, at least viewed from some business perspectives. Let me re-state that, as far as I'm aware, developers in open source projects and communities don't have some vendetta out for their corporate equals, and aren't maliciously trying to put them out of business. Most see the reality that corporate developers must feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and family, something they don't know how to do other than selling the software at sometimes-exorbitant pricing, because they don't yet see a better paradigm. Open source supporters aren't trying to take away business income from them, because meeting financial needs is usually a situation that they, too, have to face. While a very minute fringe, hardly worth mentioning, of open source fanatics may exist who wish a more confrontational stance — I vow that is not me, thus my "as far as I'm aware" assertion.

On the flip side, neither am I trying to say "OSS rulz! Comershal sofwarz sukz!" — No. Nothing so immature, objectifying, and puerile. Commercially-developed software, closed source or not, can, and does, have a place; and I can, and have, supported this truth by buying software. It's a reality that commercial software will be here today, tomorrow, and yeah possibly the next day. While I believe that in the future most everything worthwhile will be free, commercial software isn't anywhere near dying out today. There is still time to find a common ground to agree on.

So, let's just say then that we're not trying to force a battle over the commercial interest, but over freedom to design, distribute, and collaborate on the software itself, instead of business model or financial profit. Dispute this if you must, but don't discount it as a belief; the same as was for the media networks on their way out, fighting against blogging, podcasts, and more, so too is the corporate model bound, to either change with or die unto extinction, to the reach of open source software.

And finally, to allay any fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Aware that some in business are, or may become, in essence Luddite, resenting technology because it may or has forced change in circumstances, I would never try to give you a false sense of hope. Rather, I would hope that anybody affected, negatively or otherwise, by technological advancements could find ways to adapt to whatever new situation comes their way. Perhaps what you think of now as a disaster, could be an opportunity in waiting. In truth, you don't know what tomorrow will bring, until you get there. . . .

"Is it . . . legal?"

Certainly, entirely, and whole-heartedly. I almost hesitate to include this, but since this is the mental point at which many people are stuck, I believe it a worthy addition. Developing, and using, open source software is inherently safe legally, ethically, and even spiritually (if you believe as I do), because of the openness and visibility of the whole process, and the willingness to share with others.

No law can be made against the concept of open source software development, only perhaps against development of a few extreme cases which might break laws on usage of copyrighted or trademarked materials, some technical security/terrorism/threat guidelines, or other minutia which you or I will probably never have to worry about. Again, I am not a lawyer, I don't claim to know the full verbiage or intent of every law, so if you're worried, it falls to you to examine the laws of the land. I know I won't have to worry in my case; I'm not developing anything that could be technologically threatening (only for a fictional aspect, not real-life), and I intent to follow copyright and license standards as matter of principle (while they exist a short while longer).

"With open source software, the user is left alone with the final product, it's a product without support, or I have to compile it myself and I don't know how."

As a rule, it's untrue that potential users are left alone. It behooves all software developers, whether of open or closed source projects, to support their product. Supporting their work says, at its core, that the developer believes in this work, the resultant program and future user base, and will expend a fair and proportional effort in helping users who may have issues or questions. Or, risk alienation by the current and future customer base.

Therefore, you'll commonly find articles, documentation, mailing lists, sample source code, tutorials, and/or whatever web site has been designed for the project. In the very least, if the developer(s) cannot or will not be available for support or has not done well with documentation, likely a larger community of fellow users is available that can be of help. Never be afraid to seek help from such communities, whose users have often been in the same state of requiring assistance; in many cases, that's why some of the more devout community members give such free support, because they know what it's like to need it.

Also, the producers of commercial-grade software, entire corporations even, have on occasion been known to go out of business, or go through a messy process called Mergers & Acquisition where software can become a casualty, or just disappear for whatever reason, leaving untold numbers of software users in the lurch. With no chance to communicate with the developers or the technical support branch of the company (most of whom are busy finding work elsewhere), an end-user would be otherwise left to fend for themselves, if not for user's communities. Therefore, I hope you would agree that commercial software doesn't inherently mean more stable software, or support.

But the sad cry that a potential user believes he or she has to compile the whole codebase is, over all, untrue — However. It is possible but entirely counterproductive for a developer to leave only code for a prospective customer to wrangle, to be forced to handle on his or her own, with no compiled binary ready to run. Again, don't panic or be scared; in the event you do come across such a project, try messaging the developers (calmly, patiently) why a binary format has not been released, and perhaps when a prospective binary build of the software may be available. Try doing a web search for the name of that program; it's possible that other developers have made a compiled version readily available on their own site. As a last resort, look around for alternatives.

"Open source software is of poor quality, design, or is inherently non-securable."

Again, mostly untrue, and subjective. While I might make a disclaimer that a fraction of available open source projects are of lesser quality or design usability, the truth is that even published, salable software might be riddled with buggy code and/or unusable designs. This is, again, not to say that open source software is inherently better; indeed, a lot of open source programs fall by the wayside, and often never get completed for one reason or another.

On the charge of their being inherently insecure or non-securable, this is sometimes true but usually not. It depends on what the developer is doing that might require security functionality, and if he or she is knowledgeable about it. In the realm of open source network libraries and software, at the worst, nobody can guarantee that a hacker could not crack whatever steps were taken to secure the project — but again, this is equally true of commercial, closed-source software, perhaps more so because the majority of hackers seem to love hacking and cracking those types of software (it's like a gold mine to them). In the end, only the end-user can say for sure if the project is or is not fit for their use.

Granted, aside from hackers, a few less-than-honorable developers may be out there, but don't let them taint the true power of free and open source software. Besides, once found out, you can consider that developer's career effectively over; word spreads fast. (Think I'm kidding? Does information ever die off the Internet? I know Sir Elton John sure hopes so, but likely for different reasons.)

"The developer a) won't accept it, b) must give their source code away to the public, c) cannot make money from an open-source project, et cetera."

The mere idea that programmers won't accept the concept of open sourcing a project is preposterous. While not every developer goes this route, more and more developers are willing to do so, as evident in the occasional poll results of developer's surveys that circulate from time to time. Other reasons exist for using open source libraries and code as middleware or support functionality for the project they're working on; most notable of arguments being that it frees them up to create and debug other code and aspects of the program that would take longer, if they had to create and debug the replaced part on their own.

On giving away the source code, it's not always true; it depends on what licensing implementation the developer has chosen to run under. Similar to the choices of available programming language, an adequate list of software licensing methods are available, and under certain conditions the developer might not be required to release all or most portions of the code. But then, releasing your source code doesn't mean that you lose control over the project whether or not it's still being developed; it does mean that, while you're developing your implementation, you're allowing others to develop their own implementation, starting with the same code base with perhaps as few or as many code changes as necessary. However, releasing code and allowing for such dispersed collaborative efforts can be advantageous — the more eyes that can see the code, the more quickly that potential bugs can be found and eliminated.

About not being able to make money off of the project, this also in many known cases is untrue. Take, for example, Sun Microsystems, the company that has developed the Java technology and the StarOffice suite. While formerly being closed source, both technologies are partially being released as open, with — as I understand it, don't sue me if I'm misunderstanding — the majority of parts being held back are encumbered by license or copyright controlled by other parties. The closed source StarOffice has released the unencumbered portions to the open source community, which became OpenOffice.org — which they still use, OpenOffice as the core plus the managed portions, as the basis of the still-potent StarOffice product.

Sun Microsystems still makes money, at least from selling still-viable StarOffice and corporate support for their software technologies, which most if not all licensing does not prohibit. And, they're not the only big business to do so, and successfully.

The conclusion.

In review, I hope you've gained perhaps a little insight into what the open source concept is, and is not, at least to my informed opinion. In places, I've had to rein in a snarky comment or something, but what you'll find is still an honest appraisal, sprinkled with a personal touch of humor and humility. And, hopefully, you aren't still clinging to a belief that commercial, closed source software is inherently better than freely-available open source software. If I missed any misconceptions or questions, feel free to drop me a message, and I'll do my best to give an honest response. Again, in the end, only you can decide if an open source solution is right for you; don't fall victim to either FUD or hype from a competitor, negative misconceptions from misinformation or uninformed opinion, et cetera. But I have a feeling you won't be caught unaware; you're reading this column . . . aren't you? :-)

Oh, drat. I only wanted to write a couple paragraphs. Darn me . . . ?!

;-b

I'm finding subsequent posts hard to start. . . .

2007-09-02T17:43:00.001-05:00

It's true, I'm no blog-head. I can't just start writing about anything and everything like a lot of other people manage to do daily (or for some, hourly). Perhaps it's because I'm not sure I have much to say that is constructive to add to the universe; or just maybe any time I've tried to start another post, I've gotten a temporary form of writer's block.

Well, this time, at least, I won't let me get me. . . .

And so, I'm going to force myself to write something, anything, that is not directly connected to my story series. I still can't say how frequently, but I'm sure it'll be in the three to four times in a month range.

Someone suggested breaking up long posts into a series of shorter ones, but it doesn't work for me. As a writer, I'm trying to go for content, and once I get the urge to write, I've gotta take that hill, charge up its slope, and plant my flag at the top with whatever thought processes survived the insurgence against writer's block, as a contiguous post.

Post 1, Part 2.

As an addenda to the first post here, on developing writer's software, I will say I've also been using OpenOffice.org since, oh, around version 1.1.2 -- and I will always continue to find a use for it. However, it still doesn't have all the features I need to write stories (those features I mentioned as targeted for development). Only for the briefest of moments did I consider writing an OpenOffice extension for some of these details, but the reality of the idea would have been more than I could've managed at the time.

I had been using a developer's IDE for a while before that, and looked into the feasibility of developing a writer's software suite to mitigate all the writing details I had planned to keep track of. The IDE that I mentioned went by the name of Borland C++ Builder, version 3, which I picked up in a bargain bin for only about four dollars and tax. I liked the WYSIWYG-style of developing program forms and stuff, but got sidetracked with all the additional third-party pieces I would have had to add just to develop the thing. Not really a big problem, if developing just for my own self, but 1) I was also learning about the benefits of open source and what it had to offer the programming community, and 2) some of those third-party extensions were under particular licensing modes that might not translate into open sourcing components and code. Further, 3) the few available writer's software that I could find in my Internet searches (circa 2000 to present) either a) were costing more money than I had at the time or would consider necessary for a writer's software type of thing to cost; b) were specialized to one particular task of story writing or were otherwise "locked in" to some details or sub-set of what I envision software-assisted writing to be; c) did not do their features well, had a "clunky" interface, or otherwise confused the user; d) were on a different operating system than I had, with no indications that a port of the program would be made; or e) if the project was open source or code made available, wasn't licensed clearly with something like the GPL.

If you go the route of 3.b. above, you often have many programs installed just to handle the different aspects of one story. Which means, in the end, you end up with files all over the hard drive for the same story; further, many authors like to save versions of their stories, inherently increasing the size of data exponentially. Now, current computers can handle this, and even in older computers the data can often be compressed to an archive or burned to a CD as backup. But it feels like a waste of efficiency and energy to have multiple programs for different aspects. At one point in cleaning up files on my system, I accidentally deleted several files that much later I realized I needed, but couldn't retrieve because the space was overwritten. This was but one more straw on the camel's back that led to the process I'm in today.

I thought about what I wanted to do about it all, and finally came to the decision: a) I wanted to develop something that would be able to handle whatever aspect of writing that might come to mind or be required for the genre I write; b) it should be easy to navigate, to write and design the fictional world or universe that is the milieu of the story, to the point that writing with this application is perceived as smart design; c) the whole entirety should be available as an open source project, and designed to be cross-platform, which meant it could be run on any operating system or platform with little to zero additional configurations; and d) should have a common-sense approach to matters, or allow for such to be made.

At the turn of the century, I hadn't really been too concerned over what programming language(s) to learn, beyond having a distaste of my community college's attempts to teach me COBOL, FORTRAN, and other languages that were becoming obsolete. But for the last half of my decision, I needed to find something that could work on multiple platforms and be easily licensed. My search would eventually lead to Sun Microsystems' Java runtime environment as a platform, and a consideration of the GPL as a license.

Another good thing about the openness of software -- as differs from but relates to the concept of open source software -- is that developers are more open to the idea of creating and implementing an open format for their program's data. I believe in this, and will be creating my writer's software suite's data in files of plain text and XML, which makes it easier to find problems if one might arise.

More modules I've forgotten to mention.

In my checklist of modules and features I listed in the first post, I forgot to include some modules in the list. From an overhead perspective, modules will either be purposed for 1) the writing project itself, as well as management of any abstract data, prototypes, and other templates; 2) user's tools and utilities that don't necessarily map to features in the writing project, but often are auxiliary features that the writer can and will use anyway; and 3) certain utility modules of use for exchanging data between other formats that are already available and in use.

Of those listed in my first post, they are of the first category of modules. Those listed here are ancillary modules which equate to some small utilities you may or may not be using already. Most notable of them, I've been designing a series of modules for keeping track of the submission of manuscripts and material to publishers, as well as miscellaneous time and costs of doing so.

Additionally, a module for keeping track of writing agenda, reminders to self, and literary to-do lists might be worthwhile; but I'll hold off on this one until I know it is needed, and in what capacity to design the interface for it.

The rest, of course, would be the third type of modules, but by necessity I cannot code and implement them until I have my own codebase implemented. Once my own stuff is underway and running well, I can get started on this one. (No sense trying to design the data-exchange procedures until I know what maps to what in the data files.)

Towards current and future development.

Perhaps you're wondering exactly where my software project stands right now, and where I'm going with it. Okay, here goes an attempt to explain:

The project itself is a Java application, but more than that, it's being built on top of the NetBeans Platform, which means I don't have to write the bootstrap/startup code as well as a lot of other behind-the-scenes window handling, because the NetBeans Platform has done it for me; I only have to develop the individual modules, menu items, and toolbars that provide the features I implement. This is great because it means the entire application is inherently modular; making changes to one module doesn't mean the whole application needs to be recompiled, only those which have changed due to the new code. The concept also means that another developer can add in their own modules if I missed any features that other writers want or need.

I've got the project space for it on SourceForge, which provides the version control repository for code as well as other developer's and user's tools. I'm having a slight issue with code checking into the repository, however, but I'm continuing to work on it.

And, yes, I actually do have the code that I've started developing, and a good number of the forms and a strong understanding of where I intend to go with the code and visual design. It's not some 'pie in the sky' project that got started and will never get completed. However, along with the above concerns, I've been holding on certain aspects of the development, as well as planning future steps. One hold on the project is in doing the graphical interface well, as well as implementing the features in code and determining what will work.

More intricately, I'm facing the inherent problem of how much detail to handle for each module. How much detail does the writer keep in their writing project at minimum, average, or maximum levels? For example, other programs usually have a way to describe the character with a name, a short bio, and perhaps a bit of story-forming and typecasting (like Dramatica does). Some writers (namely, myself, but perhaps others) would like to see different text boxes and detail forms for inputting different aspects of the character's bio, and perhaps would like to apply different methods of categorizing or typecasting the character. Knowing these details will allow me to create a better interface and code.

As for my needs, I'm quite ready and willing to code for the most detail in each module that I would use. The neat thing about getting more specific about each module's data is that I'd like to implement cross-linking data to other data, with everything indexed and searchable for possible story ideas you might gain from the effort. Character A, born on Planet P, working for Organization O under the boss Character B, in a relationship with Character C, et cetera, ad infinitum. . . .

Also, I have, on occasion, roleplayed my characters in certain situations, and therefore, am trying to consider how authors could plug in statistics and other roleplay mechanics into their records.

The problem, as it were, turns up to be licensing, and the willingness of roleplaying game system development companies to treat you like a criminal for using what they consider 'too much' of their copyrighted material. Whether you would want to use AD&D, d20, or other forms of roleplay mechanics as the core, I will not willingly include data that the developers of those RPG systems do not wish to be released in the program -- I feel that their choice is self-defeating, but cannot legally do something other than whine and moan about it. Their loss, not being more open to usage.

Therefore, I propose a concept, of sorts; the most daring thought I have, which I hope to be a solution, is of creating my own abstract roleplay system, generic enough to allow translation to those other systems via import and export filters, yet allow for enough intricacy that the finer points of transport to those other systems will not be lost. I like this idea, and even the thought of the magnitude of it doesn't bother me. I've even made a start on the process, but won't release this particular aspect until I've got more of other details implemented. Optionally, if another system were already developed that could handle this for my functionality, I might possibly be persuaded to go with that -- but the core requirement would be that stats and details from other systems would have to be easily imported and exported without the end-user worrying about losing features from their roleplay system.

And I just realized how much I've typed already. Wow, what a long post.

Introduction to Me; Reading Writing Written Wroten Rotten. . . .

2007-08-29T09:55:00.001-05:00

As to the first part, I must mention I started a blog in Windows Live Spaces, but haven't gotten any responses. After a while of thought, it appeared perhaps a better choice would have been to start here. Here I am. Anyway, if you wish to read the 2 posts over there, go to GregoryTechSoft's space.

Otherwise, if you didn't catch my intro from that blog, here's the short intro: I am Gregory, a reader, writer, programmer, analytical thinker, family guy fan, and role-play game aficionado. Sometimes these interests cross paths, sometimes not. In future blogs, just to keep things lively, I may also sneak in references to pop cultural trivia from anywhere in the last century to just yesterday (although, likely not references to certain misguided youths, social heiresses, et cetera et cetera et cetera).

As for writing, I've been rather lazy particularly of late, at least until last week. However, after being urged to keep at it by family and friend, I resurrected some old hardcopy of stories I've started but not gotten around to finishing, just to refresh my memory. Readability? Salvageable; it'll take some editing, so not a total loss.

My current coup de gras, the six-book series I'm neck-deep into writing and editing, is genre science-fiction, of the interstellar warfare type. Yeah, I know what you might be thinking; but I feel I've got a fresh take on it. Without giving any plot away yet, let me categorize it as a light mixture of literary and televisual thematic types: Star Wars, Star Trek, Miles Vorkosigan/Naismith, and Honor Harrington, with a hint of Dark Angel. An interesting blend, without anything overpowering the others — yet it all fits (at least in planning), in my head and on paper. Now, if only I could beam the entire concept from my brain cells directly to my computer, taking the movie in my mind and committing it to print, and save a few finger-strokes. . . .

But back in the real world, I've still been working on programming, developing the writer's suite, the software to help maintain all the story details I'm juggling (or fumbling, in some instances) for my writing. It's a lot of details, a whole universe of 'em really (technically, galaxy, but who's counting?); I'm trying to push the limits of what's available for story writers, role-playing game masters, et cetera, to new heights. And it'll be released as open-source software, simply because I believe in the concept.

The amount and types of data I'm wanting to maintain for each writing project is a wide and deep river. Locations, hierarchically from meta-galactic to planetary sites, down to street level, check. Lifeforms and species of the sci-fi universe or fantasy setting, check (within permissible usage where borrowed from other settings, of course). Characters and all the details they entail, big whopping check-a-roony. Chronologies and timelines, check (optional, but on the list). Civilization building and planning (again, optional, but it'd be nice to have), check. Objects and technologies those fictional denizens would have or know (optional, same as civ-builder), check. Organizations that the story's characters usually find themselves aligned to, a member of, or working with or against, check. The story text itself, with different implementations for fictional books and series, role-playing game campaigns and settings, and/or screenplays, hmm, cha-ching! Kitchen sink, . . . d'oh! that's on backorder.

Basically, I'd like to complicate the bantha pudu (slight Star Wars reference there) out of what a story crafter of any genre can do when he or she has the right tools. I want this to be an integrated suite kind of thing, where all modules work together all in one interface. (As a writer, I've looked for such things, and couldn't find any. Separate tools for separate jobs, yes, but that's not the same.) Also, I'm neither trying to pat myself on the back, nor hoisting myself up to a solitary pedestal; like tech maven Leo says, I'll paraphrase, we just want the computer to do what we want it to do — so, my objective is to make a great tool for writers to do just that. It's being implemented in Java; we should never have to worry which operating system it requires, as long as the system is up to date.

Hint, I may occasionally refer to Leo and his podcasts, as I did above. That person is Leo Laporte, who is a very intelligent, funny, and engaging show-host. He has a number of podcasts covering many subjects with his many friends he's warmly surrounded himself with, and has a fan base of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people (?). Google either leoville, Leo Laporte podcast, or twit Leo -- and his link should be the very first in the result list.

(P.S.: Oops, I think I've been editing this post for four solid hours; time to put it to bed. Didn't I say elsewhere that I tended to write long posts?)