Ted Leung on the Air

10 Years of Apache

Published on October 30, 2009 in apache, community and open source. 0 Comments

November is just around the corner, which means that once again it’s time for ApacheCon US. This year is a special year for the Apache Software Foundation – its 10 year anniversary. Since I got involved with Apache just a few months after the foundation was created, it is also my 10 year anniversary of being involved in open source software.

This year I am going to be speaking twice. On Wednesday I’ll be speaking on the Apache Pioneers Panel, and on Thursday I’ll be giving a talk titled How 10 years of Apache has changed my life. I owe a huge professional debt to the ASF and its members and committers, so in my talk I’ll be interweaving important events in the life of the foundation with my own personal experiences and lessons learned.

Unfortunately, I’m not going to be there for all of the conference this year – I’ll be arriving Tuesday afternoon and flying out on Thursday evening. If you want to meet up, I’m in the ApacheCon Crowdvine, and I’ll be around with camera in hand (and on the LumaLoop).

The LumaLoop

Published on October 29, 2009 in photography. 1 Comment

Back in September, my friend James Duncan Davidson stopped to visit me and the family here on Bainbridge Island. Duncan has been working on a new design for a camera strap, and during that visit he showed me one of the prototypes of the LumaLoop. I spent a good portion of our time playing with the strap, and was quite taken with the design. Needless to say, I didn’t really want to give it back to him when it was time for him to go.

The following week at DjangoCon, I lost the strap portion of my Upstrap quick release strap. I liked the Upstrap, but it wasn’t ideal. The Upstrap was great because of the non stick rubber pad that they use – it really won’t move. But like most other camera straps, I found that I was constantly getting it fouled in my arms or something, especially between landscape and portrait modes.

Duncan had promised me one of the early prototypes of the LumaLoop, so I put the official black and neon yellow strap on the D3 and waited patiently. Yesterday, my LumaLoop arrived, and I quickly installed it in place of the Nikon strap. The LumaLoop is a “sling strap” similar to the Black Rapid R-Straps that have become popular recently. The Black Rapid straps screw into the tripod socket on your camera, which is a problem if you have any kind of heavy duty tripod plate mounted on your camera, or if you shoot vertically a lot (this is even more of a problem if you have small hands and a camera with a battery grip). The LumaLoop attaches to one of the regular strap mounts on your camera, and once attached, you can slide the camera up and down the strap. The mounting loop is attached with a quick release clip, so swapping cameras/straps is easy as well. Duncan has a series of blog posts that detail the reasoning behind the design:

Here’s a quick snapshot of mine:

You can see the loop part that goes on the camera, as well as the quick release between the loop and the rest of the strap. It’s a bit harder see the padded non-slip shoulder pad.

The LumaLoop is going to be available from Luma Labs sometime very soon (Duncan gave me perimission to talk about the LumaLoop in advance of its general availability). You can follow Luma Labs on Twitter to keep up with all of the news and the official announcement. I’m excited to have a strap that both holds my camera securely and stays out of my way when the action gets going.

Concurrency => Parallelism

Published on October 6, 2009 in concurrency, programming and programming languages. 3 Comments

I wanted to clarify a point from my post The Cambrian Period of Concurrency.

I made the statement

From where I sit, this is all about exploiting multicore hardware

because I’ve seen a pile of actor and other concurrency libraries which have not taken parallel execution of the concurrent program seriously. If I am going to go to the trouble of writing a concurrent program, then I want that execution to be parallel, especially in a multicore world.

Simon Marlow from the GHC team said that if programming multicore machines is the only goal we ought to be looking at parallelism first and concurrency only as a last resort. Haskell has some nice features for taking advantage of parallelism. However, I explicitly stated that I was not as interested in highly regular or data parallel computations, which is what Haskell’s parallelism tools are aimed at. These are fine ways to get parallelism, but I am interested in problems which are genuinely concurrent, not just parallel. In a Van Roy hierarchy, these are the problems with observable nondeterminism. I also specifically called out reduction of latency as one of my goals, something which Marlow says is a possible benefit of concurrency. The GHC team is interested in a different mix of problems than I am.

Van Roy in short

I also forgot to mention Peter Van Roy’s paper Programming Paradigms for Dummies: What Every Programmer Should Know, which includes an overview of his stratification of concurrency and parallelism (and other stuff). If you don’t have time to read his book, the paper is shorter and more digestible.

The Cambrian Period of Concurrency

Published on October 5, 2009 in concurrency, programming and programming languages. 18 Comments

Back in July, I gave an OSCON talk that was a survey of language constructs for concurrency. That talk has been making the rounds lately. Jacob Kaplan-Moss made referred to it in a major section of his excellent keynote Snakes on the Web, and Tim Bray has cited it as a reference in his Concur.next series. It seems like a good time for me to explain some of the talk content in writing and add my perspective on the current conversations.

The Cambrian

The Cambrian period was marked by a rapid diversification of lifeforms. I think that we are in a similar situation with concurrency today. Although many of the ideas that are being tossed around for concurrency have been around for some time, I don’t think that we really have a broad body of experience with any of them. So I’m less optimistic than Tim and Bruce Tate, at least on time frame. I think that we have a lot of interesting languages, embodying a number of interesting ideas for working with concurrency. I think that some of those languages have gained enough interest/adoption that we are now in a position to get a credible amount of experience so that we can start evaluating these ideas on their merits. But I think that the window for doing that is pretty large, on the order of 5 to 10 years.

What kinds of problems

The kinds of problems I am interested in are general purpose programming problems. I’m specifically not interested in scientific, numeric, highly regular kinds of computations or data parallel computations. Unlike Tim, I do think that web systems are a valid problem domain. I see this being driven by the need to drive down latency to provide good user response time, not to provide additional scalability (although it probably will).

It’s not like Java

Erik Engbrecht, one of Tim’s commenters said:

To get Java, you basically take Smalltalk and remove all of the powerful concepts from it while leaving in the benign ones that everyday developers use.

I think there’s something to be learned from that.

This presupposes that you know what all the good concepts are and what the benign ones are. It doesn’t seem like we are at that point. When Java was created, both Lisp and Smalltalk had existed for quite sometime and it was possible to do this kind of surgery. I don’t have a clear sense of what actually works well, much less what is powerful or benign.

The hardware made me do it

From where I sit, this is all about exploiting multicore hardware, and when I say this I mean machines with more than 4 or 8 hardware threads (I say threads, not cores – actual parallelism is what is important). The Sun T5440 is a 256 thread box. Intel’s Nehalem EX will let you build a 128 thread box later this year. Those are multicore boxes. If you look at experiments, you see that systems that seem to work well at 2 or 4 threads don’t’ work well at 16 or 64 threads. Since there’s not a huge amount of that kind of hardware around yet, it’s hard for people to run experiments at larger sizes. Experiments being run on 2 thread MacBook Pro’s are probably not good indicators of what happens at even 8 threads.. This is partially because dealing with more hardware threads requires more administrative overhead, and as the functional programming people found out, that overhead is very non-trivial. The point is, you have to run on actual hardware to have believable numbers. This makes it hard for me to take certain kinds of systems seriously, like concurrency solutions running on language implementations with Global Interpreter Locks. See David Beazley’s presentation on Python’s Global Interpreter Lock, for an example.

Comments on specific languages

At this point I am more interested in paradigms and constructs as opposed to particular languages. However, the only way to get real data on those is for them to be realized in language designs and implementations.

Haskell – Functional Laziness aside, the big concurrency thing in Haskell is Software Transactional Memory (STM). There are other features in Haskell, but STM is the big one. STM is an active research field in computer science, and I’ve read a decent number of papers trying to make heads from tails. Among the stack that I have read, it seems to be running about even between the papers touting the benefits of STM and the the papers saying that STM cannot scale and will not work in practice. The jury is very much out on this one, at least in my mind.
Erlang – I like Erlang. It’s been in production use for a long time, and real systems have been built using it. In addition to writing some small programs and reviewing some papers by Erlang’s designers, I spent a few days at the Erlang Factory earlier this year trying to get a better sense of what was really happening in the Erlang community. While there’s lots of cool stuff happening in Erlang, I observed two things. First, the biggest Erlang systems I heard described (outside of Facebook’s) are pretty small compared to a big system today. Second, and more importantly, SMP support in Erlang is still relatively new. Ulf Wiger’s DAMP09 presentation has a lot of useful information in it. On the other hand, BEAM, the Erlang VM is architected specifically for the Erlang process/actor model. This feels important to me, but we need some experimental evidence.
Clojure – Clojure as a ton of interesting ideas in it. Rich Hickey has really done his homework, and I have a lot of respect for the work that he is doing. Still it’s the early days for Clojure, and I want to see more data. I know Rich has run some stuff on one of those multiple hundred core Azul boxes, but as far as I know, there’s not a lot of other data.
Scala – The big thing in Scala for concurrency is Actors, but if you compare to Erlang, Actors are the equivalent of Erlang processes. A lot of the leverage that you get in Erlang comes from OTP, and to get that in Scala, you need to look at Jonas Boner’s highly interesting Akka Actor Kernel project. Akka also includes an implementation of dataflow variables, so Akka would give you a system with Actors, supervision, STM, and Dataflow (when it’s done).
libdispatch/Grand Central Dispatch – Several of Tim’s commenters brought up Apple’s Grand Central Dispatch, now open sourced as libdispatch. This is a key technology for taking advantage of multicore in Snow Leopard. GCD relies on programmers to create dispatch queues which are then managed by the operating system. Programmers can send computations to these queues via blocks (closures), which are a new extension to Objective-C. When I look at Apple’s guide to migrating to GCD from threads, I do see a model that I prefer to threads, but it is not as high level as some of the others. Also, the design seems oriented towards very loosely coupled computations. It will be several years before we can really know how well GCD is working. I am typing this post on a 16 thread Nehalem Mac Pro, and I rarely see even half of the CPU meters really light up, even when I am running multiple compute intensive tasks. Clearly more software needs to take advantage of this technology before we have verdict on its effectiveness in production.
.Net stuff like F#/Axum, etc – There is some concurrency work happening over on the CLR, most notably in F# and Axum. I spent some time at Lang.NET earlier this year, and got a chance to learn a bit about these two technologies. If you look at paradigms, the concurrency stuff looks very much like Erlang or Scala, with the notable exception of join patterns, which are on Martin Odersky’s list for Scala. I will admit to not being very up to speed on these, mostly for lack of Windows and the appropriate tools.

Other thoughts

Jacob’s take away from my talk at OSCON was “we’re screwed”. That’s not what I wanted to convey. I don’t see a clear winner at the moment, and we have a lot of careful experimentation and measuring to do. We are quite firmly in the Cambrian, and I’m not in a hurry to get out – these things need to bake a bit longer, as well as having some more experimentation.

In addition to my talk, and Tim’s wiki page, if you are really interested in this space, I think that you should read Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming by Peter van Roy and Seif Haridi. No book can be up to date with the absolute latest developments, but this book has the best treatment that I’ve seen in terms of trying to stratify the expressiveness of sequential and concurrent programming models.

DjangoCon 2009

Published on September 12, 2009 in python. 3 Comments

Last week I attended DjangoCon 2009 in Portland. Due to scheduling conflicts, I wasn’t able to attend DjangoCon last year, and I was disappointed that I missed that inaugural event. I’ve seen some Django stuff at PyCon, and I’ve written some Django code, being at a conference like DjangoCon helps me to understand the community and technology in a way that just reading the documentation doesn’t.

Talk Highlights

Here are some of the talks that I found notable:

Shawn Rider and Nowell Strite of PBS gave a talk titled: Pluggable, Reusable Django Apps: A Use Case and Proposed Solution. I think that very few people in the Django community had any idea that Django was being used extensively in PBS. That definitely falls into the category of pleasant surprises. One of the strengths of Django is the focus on building small single purpose applications which can be used to build up larger applications. Doing this is harder than it sounds, and Shawn and Nowell described some of the problems that they ran into, as well as showing some ways of dealing with those issues. There was some crosstalk between the PBS guys and the Pinax developers, who are also doing a lot with reusable apps. I hope that these folks will work to share and combine their knowledge and then disseminate that to the broader Django community.

There were a number of talks which followed the theme of “how not to use parts of Django”. It’s interesting because people like Django, and even if they don’t like some parts, they want to use the rest, and are willing to work to make that possible. You would expect people to just walk away from the framework in cases like these.

Eric Ocean, one of the developers of SproutCore gave what I considered to be a pretty interesting talk. Unfortunately, his talk didn’t have much of a connection to Django, other than to suggest some things that Django could do to support SproutCore better. I know from watching the IRC and Twitter back talk, that people were put off by the style of presentation (a little too like a commercial), and the weak connection to Django. SproutCore is interesting to me because it’s at a different level than most of the Javascript frameworks. It’s at a higher level, which I think will be necessary as browser based applications become more sophisticated. I know that I am going to be taking a closer look at SproutCore, and I hope that a useful Django/Sproutcore collaboration will emerge from the sprints.

Simon Willison gave a keynote about Cowboy programming. The big piece for me was his description of how the Guardian built an application to help the public scrutinize the expenses of British MP’s. There’s something about these situations that appeals to me, against my knowledge and better judgment of “sound software engineering practices”. I guess it’s a guilty pleasure of sorts.

Ian Bicking gave a keynote which might be described as “a free software programmer’s midlife crisis”. Ian was very philosophical and reminded us that free software (as opposed to open source software) was rooted in a set of moral (not economic or process) imperatives. It was a very thoughtful speech, and I think that its worth several reads of his text (something which is hard to do on a train ride with an iPhone) and some additional ponderings.

Avi Bryant’s keynote took its root in his experiences building Trendly. As one might expect, Avi started building Trendly using Seaside. But by the time he finished, he noticed that very little of Seaside was actually being used. He attributed this to the fact that Trendly’s architecture involves loading a single HTML, with a ton of Javascript. That Javascript then manages all of the interaction with the server, which consists of snippets of JSON data. This range true to me because we used a similar architecture for Chandler Hub, the web based version of Chandler (our interaction with the server was based on atom and atompub, not JSON), and it’s the kind of architecture that GMail is based on. Avi also treated us to a demonstration of Clamato, his Smalltalk dialect that compiles to Javascript. Again, another attempt to deal with the challenges of engineering large Javascript applications in a web browser.

There were plenty of other good talks, and many of the slides are already available.

My keynote

I’m afraid that I am not equal to the task of writing out my presentation text in full as Ian and Jacob have done, so you will have to settle for the highlights and wait until the video appears.

My keynote was organized around two major sections.

The first section was a look at what I see in the Django community at present. This includes a look at some pseudo statistics around job postings and a poll of web frameworks being used by startups in an effort to get some view into whether and how much adoption of Django is happening. The short answer is that things look promising, but there is still plenty of room to grow. On the technology side, I pointed out the emphasis on combining applications and the work of the Pinax and PBS folks. The other major technology thing that I called out was GeoDjango, which is undoubtedly the most sophisticated GIS functionality in any web framework in any language or platform. This is going to be very attractive to people building location aware mobile apps, and I showed two examples of augmented reality applications as illustrations. This section ends with some observations about the Django community, using the PyCon sprints as an example. Ok, there are also some lighthearted slides about Django’s mascot, the djangopony.

The remainder of the talk was about the ways that web applications are changing and how Django might adapt to them. There are (at least) three groups of people that will be impacted by these changes. From the view point of users, the two big things are richer, more interactive applications, and access from location enable devices. Developers are going to need help in dealing with these new requirements, and the people who operate web applications need much more support than they currently have.

I see several technologies that will be important in facilitating these changes. The first of these is some Rich Internet Application technology. The second is API’s to web applications. A digression on this point. When the iPhone was introduced, the only way to develop applications was using web technologies. This made a lot of people very angry, and Apple followed up with the ability to build native platform applications. It should be possible to build rich web interfaces on the iPhone. My observation is that given the choice beween a rich web interface and a native iPhone application, users pick the native application. Look no further than the furor over the native Google Voice application. The native applications are talking to the servers using API’s. Those API’s are not just cool Web 2.0 frosting. The last technology is cloud computing, which started out as a deployment/operations technology and is now moving up to impact application development at many levels.

In light of this, what are framework developers to do? I did a quick survey of several web frameworks which have interesting ideas or approaches in them, so that the Django folks could see what their “competitors” are up to. The frameworks that I included are Rails, Lift (Scala), Webmachine (Erlang), Nitrogen (Erlang), CouchApps (CouchDB + JavaScript – this isn’t quite a framework in the traditional sense, but it met the spirit of my criteria), and Javascript. In the case of Javascript, the observation is that the rapid increase in Javascript performance coupled with a good Javascript framework leads to something which is economically attractive (same technology in the server and client).

The talk finishes with a set of proposals for “science projects” that might be attempted in the context of Django. Some of what I outlined is emerging, and in some cases speculative. Django doesn’t need to blow itself up and start over. Instead, what’s needed is for people with Django sensibilities to look some of these problems and see if a Django flavored solution can be found. Here’s the list of projects:

Asynchronous Messaging – if there’s any use of messaging, it’s typically to do jobs in the background. What would happen if we made the use of messaging pervasive throughout the framework?
Comet – I think that the Django+orbited approach to Comet is limited in comparison to what you see in Lift or Nitrogen. Can Django do Comet support at the same level (or better) than these frameworks? What would happen if the Comet stuff were hooked up directly to the messaging stuff I just described? Imagine the equivalent of urls.py that routed Comet requests to messaging.
REST – There are several good packages for dealing with REST in Django. It would be nice to have this all packaged up neatly and made available for people.
Deployment – This is really a mess. Are there changes that could be made to Django to make it easier to deploy, or to work better with tools like Puppet, Chef, Fabric, etc?
Monitoring – Typically frameworks provide very little monitoring information. It seems like there is a lot that could be done here.
Analytics – Once you have raw monitoring information, the next step is to do some analytics on it. Django is famous for creating admin UI’s with a very small amount of effort. What if we applied that same thinking to analytics?
Cloud – If you add up the first 6 items, you are well on your way to what might be a cloud friendly framework. There is still some work to do in terms of making applications on the framework adapt to elastic deployment scenarios, but it would be a good step.
Stacks – A very basic step towards cloud stuff would be to build a preconfigured stack of software to run/develop a Django app. This is a controversial idea, because everyone has their own idea of what software should be in such a stack, and how all the configuration switches should be set. I still that having one (or more) such stack would help more than it would hurt. In my ideal world this stack would be delivered as a virtual machine image that could also be uploaded to cloud providers.

Here are the slides:

All of the talks were videotaped so those of you who were unable to attend will be able to catch up soon.
I had a great time hanging out with the Djangonauts. My thanks to Leah Culver and Robert Lofthouse for inviting me to speak.

Re: Snakes on the Web

Published on September 5, 2009 in python. 1 Comment

Jacob Kaplan-Moss, one of the BDFL’s for Django has published the text and slides for his upcoming talk(s) “Snakes on the Web” at PyCon Argentina and PyCon Brazil. Jacob says that he’s trying to answer three questions:

What sucks, now, about web development?
How will we fix it?
Can we fix it with Python?

There’s some good stuff in here, and it’s definitely a worthwhile read.

Jacob is in South America, which means he won’t be at DjangoCon next week. I was disappointed about that before I saw his talk, and I’m even more disappointed now. I’ll be giving the last keynote at DjangoCon, and I’ll be discussing some thoughts and ideas for where Django (and other web frameworks) might go next. It would have been a great opportunity to carry on the conversation in person. I guess we’ll be doing by blog instead.

One of the topics that Jacob covered in his talk was concurrency, and he pointed to my OSCON talk on concurrency constructs as something that has influenced his thinking. I do think that he got the wrong idea from my conclusion. At the moment I don’t see a clear solution for concurrency, but I don’t believe that the situation is hopeless, either. I think that we are looking at a period where we have a lot of experimentation, and I think that’s a good thing. It is way premature to say that we have a solution, and I’d rather people keep experimenting.

I have some more thoughts on some of Jacob’s points, but those are in the keynote, so I’ll save those until after I’ve actually given the presentation at DjangoCon on Thursday. I suspect that the other keynote speakers, Avi Bryant, and Ian Bicking to have some thoughts in this general direction as well. I think it would be great to have an open space on these topics sometime on Thursday.

Design and Commons Based Peer Production

Published on August 27, 2009 in community, open source and osaf. 6 Comments

On Tuesday, Chris Messina wrote a post about open source and design, where he laments that open source (whatever that means nowadays) and design seem to be opposed to each other. The crux of the problem seems to be that good design requires a unity about it and that since in open source all voices are heard, you inevitably end up with something that has been glommed together rather than designed. This is something that Mimi Yin and I discussed in our 2007 OSCON talk about the challenges of the Chandler design process. Chris is gloomy on the prospects of open source design processes, because he doesn’t feel that there are any examples that have succeeded. I think that this is a legitimate place to be. I don’t really see any successful open source desktop application which was designed in the kind of open design process that Chris or we at OSAF had in mind.

Is organization the problem?

On the other hand, I think that I’m slightly more optimistic about the situation than Chris is. Chris holds up the idea that there ought to be a design dictator, who drives the design and preserves the unity of the design. I’d point out that there are some open source communities where there are such people. Perhaps the best example that I can come up with are the programming languages. A good language is very hard to design. It needs to have the kind of unity that one expects to find in a good design. In some of the language communities, these designers have titles such as “Benevolent Dictator for Life”, and the community as a whole has recognized their giftedness and given them the ability to make final binding decisions about design issues. This isn’t end user facing desktop or web software, but it’s also not bunches of libraries, or implementations of JSR’s, IETF RFC’s, W3C recommendations or POSIX standards. These situations are very delicate mixes and their success is highly dependent on the particular individuals who are involved, so they tend to be rare. Nonetheless, I do think that its possible for communities to work even if there is a chief designer.

I also don’t think that there needs to be a single chief designer. Chris cited Luke Wroblewski’s description of the design process at Facebook. Very early in that post you read:

The Facebook design team works on product design, marketing, UI patterns, branding, and front-end code. The team consists of 15 product designers, 5 user interface engineers, 5 user experience researchers, 4 communication designers, and 1 content strategist. 25 designers in a company of 1,000.

Design can be done by teams. I think that we all know that, but in many of the discussions that I’ve had on this topic, the focus seems to be on the need for a dictator. The dictator model works, but so does a team model.

I think that the organizational challenges of design (dictator vs team) can be dealt with. If you bootstrap a community with a DNA that is committed to good design, and to the value of a good designer, and if the designer has won the respect of the community, then I can see a path forward on that front.

The problems that I see

In my mind the problems are:

How do you find a designer or designers who want to work in this kind of environment? We know that not all developers are well suited to distributed development. I’d venture that the same is true for designers. It’s much easier for coders to self select into a project than it is for all other types of contributors, including designers.

How can a non-coding designer win the respect of a (likely) predominantly coding oriented community? If you believe that open source projects should be organized around some notion of merit, then what are the merit metrics for designers? Who evaluates the designers on these metrics? Are the evaluators even qualified to do so? In my examples of communities with designers, those designers are all coders as well.

Can we actually do design using the commonly accepted tools of e-mail, version control, wiki’s and bug trackers? The design process relies very heavily on visual communications. The code (including design and architecture of code) process is predominantly a text based process. It is very difficult to do design efficiently in a distributed setting using the existing stable of tools. This is going to be a challenge not just for designers but for many other problem domains that could benefit from commons-based peer production.

What’s with you and that long word?

I prefer to use Yochai Benker’s term “Commons Based Peer Production” instead of the term open source. The problem with the term open source is that everyone means something different when they use it. Some people just mean licensing. Some people think of a particular community’s set of practices. Others think that it means some kind of fuzzy democracy and mob rule.
One of the reasons that I went to work at OSAF was to see if it was possible to design a good end-user application via some kind of community oriented design process. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out.

OSCON 2009

Published on July 27, 2009 in open source. 7 Comments

It’s time again for the annual OSCON report.

The conference

Every other OSCON that I’ve been to (since 2003) has been in Portland, and in some ways the two have become synonymous for me. I’m not taking the move to San Jose very well. There are a variety of little things, like the fact that you could end up walking 1/4 of a mile to get from one talk to another only to end up reversing the trip for the next session. At the end of Thursday, I bagged going to a talk because I was tired of walking back and forth. I had a bad experience (much worse than usual) with the WiFi connection in the hotel where I was staying, something that I don’t tolerate very well. The fact that the hotel acknowledged the problem and then offered drink vouchers as an apology didn’t help any. I had to ask the checkout agent to remove the charges for the days that I got under 20kb/s. If you take the view (which I do) that OSCON really starts at 6pm and ends at 3am, then downtown San Jose doesn’t really hold a candle to downtown Portland. My understanding is that OSCON only has a one year contract for San Jose, so maybe we’ll get something else next year. I hope so.

Another thing about OSCON relates to the attendees themselves. I was unsurprised to hear that attendance was down. The combination of the economy and the move away from Portland could explain some of that. The lunch hall seemed pretty full (and the food was very good for a conference lunch – maybe the best I’ve ever had), and it seemed a decent size to me. What I noticed was something else. Normally when I show up at OSCON, even on the first day of tutorials, it is pretty hard to go very far before I run into someone that I know. This year that was not the case, and I don’t feel that it improved that much once the conference proper began. In combination with the move to San Jose, this had a pretty major impact on the value that I got out of the conference.

The talks

This year I wound up all over the map session wise. I took in some sessions on tools: The SD distributed bug tracker, and Theo Schlossnagle’s talk on his new monitoring system, Reconnoiter. I also attended Tom Preston-Warner’s talk on github. His talk ended up being much more about git in general. I was hoping that he would have more to say on the social/community behaviors that they’ve observed on projects on GitHub. There’s not a lot of data on how the use of DVCS’s is impacting the social/community dynamics of open source projects, and the folks at github are in a unique position to observe some of this. Maybe next year.

I also continued to gather more information on things related to cloud computing. In this case there was some storage stuff in the form of Neo4J and Cassandra. Adam Jacob’s s talk on Chef was well attended despite being in the last session block of the conference, and people stayed well past the ending time for the Q&A. Reconnoiter also falls into the cloud tools space. I attended Kirrily Robert, Yoz Grahame, and Jason Douglas’ talk titled “Forking Encouraged: Folk Programming, Open Source, and Social Software Development“, hoping to glean some insight or data into “fork oriented” open source. That wasn’t really what I got. The talk was fairly philosophical for a while. The most interesting (and surprising) part of the presentation was a brief demonstration of Metaweb’s new Freebaseapps.com, which is a development environment for Freebase which embodies some of the principles discussed in the philosophical portion of the talk. From my cloud computing oriented point of view, it looks to me like an “IDE for the cloud”. I need to dig into this a bit more.

One topic which was brand new to me this year was R, which is a functional language for statistical computing and graphics. I’d been hearing a little bit of buzz on R via Twitter, and I was just invited to join the advisory board for REvolution Computing, a startup that is working to foster the R community and to support those users that want a more commercialized offering of R. Since I didn’t know much about R, I found Micheal Driscoll’s talk “Open Source Analytics: Visualization and Predictive Modeling of Big Data with the R Programming Language“. Analytics of all kinds are going to be much more important as the amount of data in web applications grows. If you are interested in big data, and don’t know about R, that seems like a problem. I know that I am going rectify my own personal lack of knowledge.

My talk

As in previous years, I gave a talk at the conference. One of the presentations that I’ve done in several places has a large section about the problem of programming concurrent systems, motivated by the arrival of multicore processors. For OSCON, I took that section of the talk and expanded it into a session of its own. Despite two one hour out loud run throughs, I still got the pacing a little bit wrong and had to rush at the end to get all the content in. If I’m not careful this is going to wind up turning into a three hour tutorial. I’ve embedded the slideshare version for those of you that are interested.

A Survey of Concurrency Constructs

Photography

OSCON is a significant event for me photographically, since OSCON 2005 happened days after I got my first digital SLR. It’s also one of the times that I usually see my friend James Duncan Davidson, who has been one of the people that has helped me along my photographic journey.

This year things were a little different. Regular readers will know that I am getting a little burned out on conference photographs. I’ve been to a lot of conferences and shot a lot of pictures. After a while, they start to look and feel the same. It’s hard for me to both concentrate fully on the conference, the talks, the hallway track, etc, as well as concentrating on doing stuff that would be interesting photographically. All of which is a long way of saying, “I shot less. A lot less”.

One other reason that I don’t feel bad about shooting less at OSCON is that Duncan is there. Or normally he is. This year, he was absent because he got the nod to be the main stage photographer for TED Global 2009. Those of you who follow Duncan will know that when he needs a second camera he turns to Pinar Ozger. They’ve been working together for a while, but I’ve never met Pinar in person, because I don’t usually end up at the two camera events, and the one time that she, Duncan, and I were all in the same place, we just never ended up meeting. So this was the year that I got to meet Pinar – we bumped into each other at the OSCON speaker’s party and had a great chat. This was also my first time to really get a sense for her eye. When you second shoot for someone, you try to follow the lead of the main photographer. So I am the most familiar with Pinar’s work when she’s working with Duncan. Since she was the lead this year, I (and everybody else) got to see her eye at work. There are some wonderfully artistic shots in her coverage of the show.

One person that you’ll see in Pinar’s set is photographer Julian Cash, the head of the Human Creativity Project. I first met Julian at ApacheCon in San Diego back in 2005. At the time, I didn’t really know much about photography, and I didn’t really get to see much of what he had done with his light painting portraits. Today, I have have much better appreciation for his light paintings. He did one of me at the MySQL conference earlier this year, and he did a bunch at OSCON too.

The photographic tradition at OSCON is going strong.

Bar Camp Seattle 2009

Published on June 17, 2009 in Seattle. 2 Comments

This past Saturday I hopped over to Seattle for Bar Camp Seattle 2009. I wasn’t able to make it to last year’s event, and since we haven’t had many Bar Camp’s in Seattle, I wanted to see what was happening. As usual, there was a wall where the schedule was developed as the day went on.

I was happy to see that there were a number of people involved in organizing the event. Those folks were easily distinguishable by their red and yellow propellor beanies.

The Bar Camp / Foo Camp structure for a conference is pretty liberating when compared to the usual pre-planned, eyes forward conference. However, it’s not enough to guarantee a good event. I’ve attended a number of these kinds of events, and in my view, who actually turns up is just as important as how the event is structured. Bar Camp Seattle had a lot of people who were interested in talking about various social media related topics. I have no idea if any of those sessions were any good, because I didn’t end up going to any of them. I ran into and met some developer type people, but not as many as I hoped to. Despite the use of Pathable’s cool registration / attendee matchmaking system, I didn’t find it that easy to make use of the information printed on my badge. I would have loved some clever mixer based on the badge labels or something along those lines.

Brian Rice and I (but really mostly Brian) ran a session a session for people interested in programming languages. I was pretty happy because the session was very interactive, but the session length of 30 minutes made it hard to get very far during the allotted time.

The best session that I attended was a session that was literally and figuratively off the grid. Brian Dorsey put up a session for sitting outside under the nearby bridge. The weather in Seattle was really beautiful last Saturday, so it really begged for being outside. There were about 9 or 10 of us who wandered out and sat talking about a wide range of topics. I enjoyed the sense of flowing from topic to topic, shifting naturally with the flow of conversation, the changing of roles of various participants as the topics changed, and so forth.

I think that I am at a crossroads as to the value of these generic, unstructured events. I helped organize the first Seattle Mind Camp, and I am glad to see that there is now a Bar Camp in Seattle as well. At the same time, I’ve frequently left these events feeling unsatisfied. Beforehand I am filled with excitement at the possibility of meeting new people from other tribes / fields and somehow stirring the pot of creative juices. Most of the time, I end up leaving without that stirring having occurred. If I look back over the last four or five years worth of conferences that I’ve attended, only a handful of “unstructured” events really stand out. Those events were Foo Camp and the Scala Liftoff, and in both cases, I would say that the particular sets of people involved made a huge difference.

Thoughts on WWDC

Published on June 9, 2009 in misc. 5 Comments

Some thoughts on yesterday’s announcements:

MacBook Pros

The laptop refresh was a surprise to me. I wasn’t expecting anything until Intel’s Nehalem based laptop CPU’s and chipsets hit the market late summer or early fall. The basics of the machines haven’t improved that much, and won’t until that happens. I’m wary of the unibody built in battery – I had to have my MacBook Pro batteries replaced recently, and the built-in battery would make that a lot harder. As a photographer, I like the wider color gamut of the LCD, but I don’t like the glossy finish. I also find there replacement of the ExpressCard slot with an SD card slot odd. It would have been more “Pro” to at least use a Compact Flash slot.

In any case, I’m not in the market for a new laptop, so the minor changes and the nice price reduction don’t mean much to me at the moment.

Snow Leopard

Snow Leopard, on the other hand, is of great interest to me now that my primary box is a Mac Pro. I’m eager to have OS X taking better advantage of the all the hardware threads in the box. I was disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion of this in the keynote, but I also understand that having more than 2 cores is still a bit out there. I’m also disappointed that there was no mention of ZFS in either the workstation or server editions of Snow Leopard.

I guess that Snow Leopard is not as ready as many people (including me) thought. It won’t be shipping until September. Apple has taken a very reasonable approach to pricing the upgrade. The biggest issue for me is that I’ve been having problems with 10.5.7. I uninstalled it from the MacPro, and my work laptop wigged out on me last week during JavaOne, and I am very suspicious that the problems are 10.5.7 related. Jeffrey Zeldman is chronicling his own set of problems with the update. It’s going to be a long time between now and September if Apple doesn’t sort this out.

iPhone 3.0

The iPhone 3.0 stuff was pretty much a rehash of what was previewed back in March. The only surprise was the “Find My iPhone” feature, which really ought to be a standard feature. I’m not sure if I’m going to buy MobileMe just to get this ability. Everybody is going to get an upgrade to this version of the software so there’s nothing but happiness all around.

What’s not so happy is that some of the features will be unavailable because AT&T isn’t ready to support them: MMS and Tethering. I’m not really sure that I would actually use the MMS. I do most of my picture sharing via Twitter or Facebook. I am pretty sure that I would use tethering, either when riding the ferry or when traveling for work. However, if AT&T adds another $30 a month for the privilege, I probably won’t do it. I can get a Boingo account form $10 a month. True that it won’t work everywhere, but it will work on the ferry and in major airports. Does AT&T really think that we don’t know how to comparison shop?

iPhone 3GS

The iPhone 3GS is a nice upgrade. I’d be happy with the speed, but I’m going to get a speed increase (supposedly) from the iPhone 3.0 software. Faster 3G data would also be nice. The battery life improvements don’t cover the 3G radio usage, which is how I pound my iPhone.

There are two features which really stand out to me: the compass and the camera.

I travel a lot, and I get mixed up a lot. Having the compass to help decipher directions would really be a help to me. I can think of several occasions in the last 6 months, where I could have saved some aggravation if I knew what direction I was pointed in.

The improvements to the camera look really good. Chase Jarvis is calling it the photographer’s iPhone, which is pretty much a no brainer. There was no mention of speeding up the amount of time it takes to get the camera to come on, which is one of my biggest gripes with it. Is it really a decisive moment camera? No way. But it looks like it is a much better camera than what we have now. I could probably justify $199 to upgrade my 16G iPhone 3G – it’d be a lot cheaper than a camera.

Unfortunately, I’m not going to get to do that. At least not until December 2009, due to the subsidized pricing of the iPhone. Lots of people are complaining about this, but that’s the way that the carriers have always worked. It’s not something new, in fact, its a sign that AT&T has a little more pull on Apple that we thought. So I’ll be waiting at least until December. The problem is that if I wait till December, I’m only 6 months away from the next iPhone product launch (if they keep to the current schedule), and as TechCrunch points out, if Apple lets its exclusive contract with AT&T expire in 2010, then you’d actually have carrier choice. That would be a good thing, and since getting onto Verizon’s huge network can only help iPhone sales, I’d bet that the iPhone is on Verizon in 2010. That’s not an impossible thing. Verizon made its first appearance ever at JavaOne this year, a sign that things are starting to change over there. I guess I’m going to wait and see how AT&T treats me between now and then. But they should be painfully aware that people are buying the iPhone, not the carrier.