SteveStreeting.com

I’m a fan of Tim Schafer. Quite apart from the fact that his Wikipedia page shows him lovingly holding a jar of Marmite (good man), he’s been a writer/designer/coder on some of the funniest, quirkiest games in history: Monkey Island 1 & 2, Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango and Psychonauts. How can you not love this guy?

It’s a terrible tragedy that Psychonauts didn’t sell better – sure its platforming was a little ropey at times and the game was padded out in places with uninspiring sections, but buried within this game were some of the most original, funny and bizarre ideas ever to grace the medium. In what other game can you wander the deranged mind of a conspiracy theorist, a twisted suburban landscape filled with badly disguised secret agents trying to prevent you from discovering the true nature of the Milkman? Or the mind of an unexpectedly sensitive undersea monster where you, as the human representative, are portrayed as a Godzilla-sized klutz of a human, terrorising a civilised city populated by tiny little fish monsters that scream and run away from you in panic? Genius, pure genius. And yet, most gamers just ignored it, the philistines. It was based on this history, and because I felt a responsibility to buy games from people like Mr Schafer in the hope that lights like his won’t disappear from the gaming world to be replaced by more CoD / MoH games, that I bought Brütal Legend.

The Good: From an art direction standpoint, Brütal Legend is a triumph. It’s a joy just to drive around the landscape looking at the towering stone statues of guitars jutting out of the landscape, mountains of bone and metal, and the roiling stormclouds (which give a nice lightning storm sometimes too). The distinct areas have a feel of their own and fade beautifully from one to the next, and the sense of scale is always great. Their goal was to capture a world hewn straight out of the classic metal album covers and posters, and they have undoubtedly achieved that, it looks wonderful. There’s a ‘lore’ story covering it all which is suitably grandiose and over the top, encompassing demons and titans and generally fits the atmosphere very well.

Musically they’ve packed a lot of stuff in here. I’m not a huge metal fan, but there’s no doubt that when combined with the visuals it sets the tone perfectly, and I even started to like many of the tracks that I previously wouldn’t have had time for. There’s some great comedy numbers in there too – such as “Destroy the Orcs” by 3 Inches of Blood which is hysterical (“Kill the orcs, slay the orcs, destroy the orcs!!”), and whenever Master Exploder kicks in I can’t help smiling.

Comedy wise, it’s good near the beginning. The parody elements are amusing, particularly the ’70s real metal’ versus ’80s hair metal’ war that kicks it off. Jack Black is quite funny at times, and not as annoying as you might expect (although I don’t generally find him that annoying anyway, but he is toned down a bit here).

The Bad: It runs out of steam way too fast, in almost all areas. While the art continues to be breathtaking (and mostly why I kept playing), the gameplay elements get very repetetive with basically only about 5 types of side-missions which just repeat ad nauseum and just a series of collect-em-up achievements which get tedious once you’ve explored the admittedly sumptuous world. There just aren’t enough original ideas; the metal parodies are great right up to the end of the hair metal war, then it just repeats the same thing with a Goth / Emo style for the rest of the game and you feel they’ve used up all their jokers already. The comedy script sputters down to embers too, with Black’s lines getting ever more predictable and a tiresome, all basically variations on a theme.

I didn’t like the RTS gameplay elements either. I’m not a big fan of RTS’s anyway, but even I know they need more subtlety than this. I don’t think the console controller worked well at all, and the mechanics here were the traditional scissor-paper-stone of units (which is fine in itself) and a few control points which added little except resources, and that was it. Like the poorest of RTSs most maps could be won by just being the most efficient at working the interface, meaning you’re the first to build the biggest units and the first to capture the resource points. Since there are absolutely no advantages for terrain, nor any fixed emplacements that you can build, it basically comes down to a build-race-and-tank-rush style gameplay, which means really very little strategy in my opinion. These were sections I just tried to get through as fast as possible, which is also the best way to win. A low point.

And, although it’s amusing to see the ‘hair metal’ units mirroring the ‘real metal’ units but with garish headbands, sparkly bracelets etc, in gameplay terms this was a mistake, because it makes telling your units apart from the enemy really difficult at times. Not a problem after the first third of the game but it bothered me early on.

Conclusion: I don’t regret playing it, because it was a good experience, particularly visually and aurally, but there’s no getting away from the conclusion that Double Fine felt they had to create something with a wider appeal this time, and a more recognisable ‘theme’ that was marketable in a way their previous game wasn’t, and that that has become restrictive. I don’t blame them for taking this route – after all both Grim Fandango and Psychonauts were critically acclaimed original pieces that were hard to classify and sold relatively poorly. Brutal Legend fits a marketing strategy in a way that Psychonauts never could, you can grok it very quickly just from the imagery and it has a recognisable star. But at the same time the game definitely feels like it was stuck in its own straight jacket – it had enough ideas to take it through the first 2-3 hours confidently, and then it had just used up all of its best lines and ideas and had to find some way to string that out to 10 hours – compared to Psychonauts where they could just turn on a dime and do something completely different, the Brutal Legend world & canon seems to have become an anchor in the latter sections. The artists did a fantastic job in making enough content for that to be worth your while exploring it right to the end, but from a gameplay and writing standpoint this is not Tim Schafer’s finest hour. If you’re not specifically a Tim Scafer fan (and carry a deep collective guilt like I do that the gaming public ignored some of his best work) I’d have to say this game is worth renting just to experience the visuals, but not buying.

Making a living from open source is hard. Correction – making a living from writing open source software is hard – it’s incredibly easy to make a living from someone else’s open source software of course, which is why that’s what most people do At one time the popular opinion was that pure-play open source companies could make a living from support services, which works to a degree but I know from both my own experience and from that of others that it doesn’t work that well. Again, the best chances of it working are if you’re providing support services for software that someone else writes, because you’re only able to monetise the service, not the development. This actually discourages people from investing in development, and instead merely in deployment and ancilliary services which isn’t actually a good thing for core product development.

The best cases of companies funding open source are where they’re using it to deliver some other product or service which is directly monetised, therefore the open source development comes under their general R&D budget. Google, IBM and others fall firmly under this category, and you can bet that the largest open source software projects are funded this way – Apache, Eclipse, Firefox all pay their core developers like this. But, it requires a fairly significant level of scale to be able to do that, hence why it’s usually the giant corporations that do it rather than smaller companies.

The next favourite option is dual-licensing; the general set-up if you come at this with a commercial hat on, is that you pick a license that a lot of commercial entities will have a problem with extending from (ie GPL), then you sell them an alternative license; the idea being that you get the adoption via the open source license and make money from the commercial license. But, it can be controversial, as most recently discussed by Greg Stein in the Oracle / MySQL case.  The argument is that if your commercial license is just a proprietary license, and can be revoked and otherwise monkeyed with by the issuing company (or perhaps more importantly, its acquirers), you have actually been lured into a honey trap – the lure being that open source comes with certain protections, but that if you rely on the availability of the commercial license you actually have none of those and might as well have bought from a proprietary software vendor.

So, what to do? If you’re a small development company, open sourcing your product will definitely bring more people in, but if you’re not in the hosting / cloud business and don’t want to rely on services to earn your keep (who can blame you), what can you do to earn your keep except abandon open source for your main products (maybe splitting your time between proprietary and open source), or dual-license and face accusations that you’re fibbing about the true nature of your product for your commercial users?

Well, I’ve been wondering whether the problem is that dual-licensing typically falls back on traditional licensing concepts, ie that your commercial license looks very much like a normal proprietary license, which has all the problems of ‘what if my vendor changes the license conditions’ etc – when in fact it really needs to be more like a permissive open source license, with a payment condition. One of the great powers of open source is that it is ‘detached’ from the producer and compeltely predictable and immutable – once the software is out there, it can’t be taken away from the receiver and is always ‘whole’ in terms of the source code so no-one is tied in. There are also cast-iron source & binary redistribution clauses that are known up-front, and are again immutable, which mean everyone knows where they stand, forever. Why can’t the commercial side of a dual-license continue to do this, while at the same time generating a revennue stream for the company?

Maybe I’m being naive. But what about this sort of dual-license set-up for a library or toolset:

• Default is GPL (and obviously free)
• Commercial alternative license available, giving very permissive rights, but with these important rules:
  • The license is irrevocable once issued
  • The right to redistribute unlimited copies of derivative binary works is included with Apache-style conditions
  • The right to redistribute unlimited copies of derivative source to anyone under the GPL (for free) is included
  • The right to redistribute unlimited copies of derivative source under the permissive commercial license conditions is also included, provided the same original license fee is paid per receiver. Critically, the price and conditions surrounding redistribution may not be altered unilaterally by the licensor at any time after the license is issued (so once you’ve bought it once, the conditions and price for non-GPL redistribution are set in stone and cannot be altered unless both parties agree – say if the price is reduced later)
  • All software reverts to the Apache license if the company folds without selling the rights to someone else

This would mean that those choosing to opt for the commercial license would have the same kind of cast-iron guarantee an open source user has that once software is out in the wild and being used under some conditions, that the originator cannot possibly change that, ie take it away or change their right to modify and redistribute under conditions they agreed to at the start. To me, this seems to give the same kind of certainty over not being screwed over in the future as open source does, thus blunting the accusations of proprietary lock-in by the back door, but while generating some revenue for the developer too. It is, in effect, the same as a permissive open source license with the one addition that redistribution of the source to a new party requires either payment to the originator, or reverting to the GPL.

Now, of course there is still potential uncertainty around new versions of the software, but this is no different from open source, where your only guarantee is over what is published right now, not what might happen in future versions.

Does anyone know companies that use this model? My experience is that commercial dual licenses tend to be as restrictive as proprietary licenses, which then can justifiably lead to accusations that the open source license has been used as a shill to get people into a lock-in scenario. Is there really a ‘third way’ or am I missing the point?

Gartner haven’t exactly been the sharpest tools in the box when it comes to predicting open source trends over the last few years, vastly underestimating it until about 2008, by which time it didn’t exactly take a professional analyst to tell you that it was popular. Still, now they’ve woken up to its potential, occasionally they post something useful. In particular, I liked a recent blog post about how open source is “trending towards customer obscurity” – that is to say that while open source is incredibly important to producers of software, the vast majority of consumers don’t really care how their software is made any more than they care how their car was made.

I support this view, and it’s one I’ve subscribed to for a while (although the somewhat condescending tone of the article is typical Gartner, the point is valid). My own open source software is aimed squarely at developers, where I think it adds value; since the users of my software are themselves making significant development investment in products using it, open source has significant advantages – the openness and participation-friendly nature of the development, the fact that the software can never be taken away from them either by company policy or acquisition, the fact that absolutely nothing is hidden behind any curtains so there aren’t any nasty surprises. When you’re investing your own time building on top of a foundation, there really is no substitute for being able to see all the working parts, should you want or need to.

Developers can be quite a broad church too – enterprises for example often have a need to modify and adapt software and that’s why open source has been very popular there too, even if they’re not actually making products of their own for publication.

But there’s also a vast group of people who are more traditional consumers (personally and in companies) – and they have no reason to care about open source if they’re never going to modify the software. There is a group of people who are philosophically dedicated to using free software (more so than open source) even if they never modify it themselves, but they’re a minority in the grand scheme of things. Most people that use open source do so because they feel it gives them what they need as users. Even personally, I use Linux on my servers not because I’m dedicated to using open source over the alternatives wherever I can (although I probably do have more bias in that direction than the average), but because it does exactly what I want in a server – it’s reliable, unobtrusive, cheap, has low hardware requirements and plenty of good software. Conversely, I don’t use Linux on the desktop much because personally I don’t feel it operates better than the commercial alternatives in that environment. I decide on a case-by-case basis what works best for me, and so do all but the most fanatical of users.

Now, of course open source regularly helps developers make better products (by using mature, reusable and adaptable components), which in the end can result in more users using software made from open source even if they don’t realise it. But the important thing to remember is that open source itself isn’t a marketing bullet point except to developers and the enthusiast minority. Like any gathering of like-minded people who mostly talk to each other, we open source developers / advocates can often forget that our enthusiasms aren’t necessarily shared by the rest of the populace. We have to remember that the end result is everything – and while open source definitely has a positive knock-on effect on product quality, it’s often a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. It’s obvious really, but worth keeping in mind.

I’ve been branching out with my hobbies particularly in the last year or so, mostly because my back problems now prevent me from spending every waking hour hunched over a PC, coding. In a way that’s a shame – I lament the sudden drop-off in coding time and hence productivity – but it’s also good to broaden my horizons a bit. I’m 36 now after all, and spent the vast majority of my spare time in the last 8 years on Ogre, so maybe I deserve a break After all, I get to work on Ogre a bit as part of my day job now anyway, if not as much as I’d like.

So, I recently bought a set of electronic drums, specifically the Roland TD-9KX. It took a while for everything to turn up, and quite a lot of time to tweak the setup until I was comfortable with it (and even now I’m still making small adjustments), but it’s been great so far. It’s amazingly expressive for an electric kit.

Now of course, I didn’t buy this kit as a Rock Band peripheral – that would be crazy, I’m learning to play drums properly in the first instance. But still, when you have this expensive kit in the room it feels silly to use the old plastic Rock Band drum kit when we play, so I sought to hook it up. I also wanted to map the inputs as realistically as possible, so for example I wanted to map the closed and open hi-hat separately (to yellow and blue respectively) so I could use the pedal for songs that had that charted (which is most of them).

The first thing I did was buy a MIDI interface – because the 360’s controller inputs are encrypted, you can’t just use a standard MIDI to USB converter so I bought a dedicated box to do it.  If you already have the GHWT drums you can just use the MIDI input on that too, but since I didn’t I decided to get this because it was compact.

The next thing was to configure the MIDI outputs on the TD-9 to properly map to the inputs in the game. Although there is information in many places on the Internet on how to do this, I didn’t find a single place that listed everything together, and I had some issues with the partial information that was out there, so I’m going to set out everything together here.

The first thing you need to know is the MIDI notes for each colour in Rock Band, and what they represent, which is available elsewhere but I’ll include for completeness:

*= in a small number of tracks, e.g. Everlong, the snare and closed hi-hat are reversed. You probably want to use a second kit definition to swap these over when playing these tracks

So, in one of  your kit definitions (typically you want to use kit 50, “User Kit” by default) you need to edit the MIDI out settings to reflect these settings:

1. Press F2 (Func) then F3 (MIDI)
2. In the ‘Pad’ tab:
   

   K	36	C	*45
   S	*38	C	*45
   1	*46	R	*48
   2	*48	B	*48
   3	*45	A	27
   H	*48

   The asterisks which appear in the display, which I’ve included, just mean the MIDI code is assigned to more than one pad, which is fine. Also important is that on dual-triggering pads there are actually 2 of these tables (see whether it says ‘HEAD’ or ‘RIM’ in the corner). To switch, just hit a pad in the appropriate place. Personally I set the rims of the main pads, and the edges of the cymbals to be the same as the main head/bow but that’s up to you. Triple-triggering ride cymbals show up as head/rim on this page, and the bell is the ‘B’ entry, of which there is only one.
   If you do set up your cymbal edges this way, be careful of dual triggering. I found the standard sensitivity settings to be fine but some people have dialed their pad sensitivity down to prevent it. Personally I didn’t want to change the feel of the kit for real playing so didn’t do this. I had originally increased my cymbal sensitivity a notch or two because I felt they weren’t loud enough, but now I’ve been using them a few days I’ve found I don’t need to do that anymore (I’m less shy about whacking them!). I was getting double-triggering when the sensitivity was up, but not now it’s back to standard.
   Some people have also adjusted their other triggering settings to avoid dual-triggering on the main pads and kick pedal for example, because the kit is so sensitive it sends a hit even if you only lightly hit it, or the kick pedal beater ‘bounces’. So far I haven’t changed this because again I want normal operation when playing for real, and I’ve adjusted my kick pedal beater angle to reduce the cases of unintentional ‘bounce’ (which is good to remove anyway) and try to be more accurate on the pads. I figure it’s better that way than to tune your kit specifically for Rock Band triggering.

3. Press F2 to access the ‘Other’ tab:
   

   HH OPEN (BOW)	*48
   HH CLOSED (BOW)	*46
   HH OPEN (EDGE)	*48
   HH CLOSED (EDGE)	*46
   HH PEDAL	0
   X STICK	0

That sets up the separate open/closed hi-hat settings which I wanted to use for yellow/blue respectively. Again note that the hi-hat is dual-triggering (bow and edge) but I’ve set them to the same thing.

That’s all you need to do for the kit-specific settings, now you need to alter some global MIDI settings. So exit out of the kit settings, to get back to the main screen, then:

1. Press ‘Setup’ then F2 (MIDI)
2. On the ‘Global’ tab you should leave everything as the default – for completeness:
   

   Tx/Rx CHANNEL	CH10
   Tx PC	ON
   Rx PC	ON
   NOTE CHASE	ON
   LOCAL CONTROL	ON
   SOFT THRU	OFF

3. On the ‘CTRL’ tab (press F2) you should set the following:
   

   PEDAL CC	OFF
   HH Compatibility	EXTERNAL
   HH NOTE# Border	90

   These settings are very important if you want to use the hi-hat pedal properly. The “HH Compatibility” setting ensures that separate MIDI notes are sent for open and closed hi-hat, rather than just one note for the hi-hat and expecting the receiver system to remember the current state and use the ‘Pedal’ MIDI note to switch between them. The “PEDAL CC” option is also very important – I found that if I didn’t change this to ‘OFF’ then when the hi-hat pedal was depressed (to switch from blue to yellow), there was a delay in the next note which threw everything off – I presume that the HH pedal note was confusing the receiver (even though it’s set to 0 in the settings which should be an ignored note)

So there you go; a complete guide to using the TD-9 as a Rock Band controller – this took me some experimentation and collation of several very large forum posts to get completely right, so maybe someone else will find this useful.

Now I just have to train my brain to hit the note charts properly while still using the correct cymbals and hi-hat pedal as well, and not just falling back on the 4 basic pads as per the Rock Band controller. The hardest for me is the open hi-hat (learning to use my left foot too) and the ride / crash combinations since they’re backwards spatially (on a real standard kit the first crash cymbal is to the left of the ride cymbal). You really need to know the song so you know which specific part to play, but that’s the point – I’m hoping it’ll help me learn a few tracks to play stand-alone too.

I’ve basically ignored Bayonetta for the last 12 months, because it never struck me as something I’d be interested in – I was never that impressed by Devil May Cry and similar games which to me just felt like random button mashers, and Bayonetta seemed to be relying far too much on how much leg and cleavage its main protagonist could show in any given screenshot. I’d pretty much written it off as a cycnical attempt to recycle old ideas but to tap into the frustrated teenage male demographic with guns, kung-fu, the occult, blood and cleavage – clearly a winning formula in that market.

I was completely surprised, therefore, when I read Edge this month and they gave it a 10, citing its inventiveness and variety. I don’t buy Edge for the reviews particularly, but they’re always hard to please  and when they rave about something, it’s often worth taking notice. So, I downloaded the Bayonetta demo and had a go this weekend.

First impressions were a resounding ‘WTF?!!’ – confusion, chaos on-screen and ultimately, death. But, after retrying with the benefit of the tutorials, I started to get the hang of it. And surprised myself with the number of belly laughs it provoked and how much fun it was.

Because make no mistake – Bayonetta is utterly insane. It’s as if the designers have necked a whole ton of LSD and spent 3 sleepless days watching manga, playing Street Fighter and Contra, and doodling images of oversized fantasy anythings that can transform into anything else at a moments notice. Preferably while plummetting from orbit.

At first it seems confusing, but pretty quickly you get the visual and audio cues of when to dodge attacks and how to string together the ridiculous combos. Some of which seem to require the character to generate additional special powers by switching to ‘leotard mode’ (I have no idea), or to weave her hair into a vast slavering dragon. It’s completely and totally bonkers, and I didn’t want it to end because I just wanted to see what other crazy things they would come up with. There’s certainly a lot of button pounding going on, but it didn’t feel anywhere near as random as I expected – a bit like a speeded up & more forgiving version of Street Fighter, where you flit between doing things you intended to do, and doing other random moves that you didn’t intend necessarily but were roughly in the right direction and looked cool anyway, so you can totally tell yourself that you meant to do it, at least on a subconcious level.

There’s so much going on on screen, and even during the demo the ante keeps getting upped to the extent that you’re chuckling at the sheer ridiculousness of it all, that you would think it would get hard to play. At times it does get a bit busy, but they seem to have made the controls and camera angles appropriate such that most of the time it tends to work extremely well. It looks gorgeous the whole time, and the frame rate stays outrageously high given the amount of things going on (note: this was on 360 – allegedly the PS3 version isn’t quite as smooth, so you’ll have to grab it and judge for yourself there). Edge compared it to Super Mario Galaxy in terms of how well they managed to derive a camera angle appropriate for a given scenario, regardless of how outrageous, and I could see that from the demo to a degree.

In short, I never remotely expected to like Bayonetta, but despite myself I’m really keen on it now. That’ll teach me to judge a book by its cover, or rather a female protagonist by how much leather she’s wearing. With it being released on 8th January, next month seems to be the new Christmas.

It’s now almost a year since I decided to try using Twitter, specifically to post about Ogre development work I’m doing and other Ogre-related things (well, most of the time anyway). Seeing as I totally deride the concept that it’s a good thing to share the inconsequential, tedious minutae of your life with the internet and view it as the absolute pinnacle of sad, narcissistic behaviour, joining Twitter was a hard sell. After all, at least on a blog you have to write enough in a post to naturally filter out anything that’s not worth saying (in theory), while Twitter seemingly encouraged you to share whatever crossed your mind during the day. In the end my reason for joining was that there tended to be things large and small that happened in and around Ogre that many people might like to know about, and these things didn’t always warrant a blog post,  a news article on ogre3d.org or even a forum post. Provided I stuck to that raison d’etre, perhaps it could have value.

And in fact, it’s actually been very useful. I’ve almost stopped blogging about Ogre work unless there’s a significant event or something I feel needs greater analysis, because my Twitter feed is a better way to get the word out about things. It’s also been useful to get feedback on certain technical issues and to keep up to date with what other people are doing. Specifically, I tend to only follow people who post about things I’m interested in, rather than just because I know them.

And this tends to work well – I’ve found that Twitter users, or at least the ones I follow, in general tend to automatically filter their content to things that are actually interesting. This is in contrast to Facebook, which is so chock full of the utterly banal that I lose the will to live every time I try to catch up with the feed – there are usually some things in there I’d genuinely be interested in, but it’s so full of crap I can hardly face spending the time to find it. Much of that is due to its insistence that I’m somehow interested in the events of all the Facebook games people are playing, when in fact I couldn’t give a flying toss what new fish someone has just unlocked in some ridiculous mini-game. I’m close to just deleting my account and forgetting all about it – if you want to be social, grab a coffee / drink with me sometime or something – at least then you’re unlikely to keep interrupting to tell me what your level is in FarmVille.

Computer systems are tools, and can be used for good or ill. I’ve come across lots of people that use Twitter in a genuinely useful and non-intrusive way, and I try to do the same, and as such it’s made a firm place for itself in my day – something I would not have taken for granted when I started using it.

Like most members of the male species, and particularly the geekier types, I love gadgets. Complex ones are great, but sometimes the greatest satisfaction can come from simple things that just work really well. Here’s a couple of recent buys for me that fall into this category that I thought I’d share.

Joby Gorillapod

When we’re on holiday I often spend time trying to find places to put the camera so we can do a timer shot with us both in the picture, and when you’re in forests and up mountains finding a level spot is tough. I’ve gotten quite good at it, squinting at rocky outcrops and tree stumps with an almost film director level of interest, but it’s still awkward and sometimes precarious; this year in the Canadian Rockies I placed the camera on a rocky slope and only realised when I had to charge down again how many rocks were between me and the ‘mark’ I had to be at within 10 seconds, and I almost came a cropper, much to the displeasure of my wife.

I’d seen the Gorillapod before but kept forgetting to buy one before we went on holiday, so this time I bought one as soon as I thought about it, even if it’ll be sitting around unused for a while. Basically it’s just a small tripod made from a series of ball joints, each one perfectly stiff under the weight of a camera but easy enough to move, and with rubber surrounds on every joint and on the ends for grip. It’s very bendy and yet very sturdy once it’s set, so you can use it as a regular mini-tripod (but can adjust for uneven surfaces really easily), or you can suspend it from tree branches and poles, secure it up on top of fences or bollards just by bracing it, and all kinds of things. It just clips on to a small tripod mount and folds up really small.

It’s just an incredibly useful little gadget that I wish I’d had for holidays ages ago, and I imagine regular photographers would find it invaluable too.

Bicycle iPod Mounts (for drum kits)

I don’t ride a bike anymore, but after setting up my drum kit I realised I needed somewhere to mount my iPod if I was going to hook it up for practice, rather than having it on the floor or using gaffer tape or something. Surprisingly there didn’t appear to be any standard accessories to do this (a bit of an oversight on Roland’s part I think since this must be a common requirement), so I was nosing around in the VDrums forum and discovered that most people were just using regular old bicycle mountings, and attaching them to one of the cymbal riser arms (since they’re about the same diameter as bicycle handlebars, compared to the main drum frame which is much thicker).

They were cheap so I gave it a try, and sure enough it works beautifully – you wouldn’t know that the mounting wasn’t made entirely for this specific purpose in fact. Score one for the community

I picked this story up via Matt Asay and it pretty much summed up the frustrations I’ve had in the last 10 years when talking to certain people about open source – particularly when I was involved in business software. Peter Gyorgy, CIO of GE made this comment in a recent panel discussion:

“I think open source is great for own internal playground type of things but if it’s running vital mission critical applications – networks running on open source for example – then that is a huge, huge risk to the organisation,”

This would be incredibly funny if it wasn’t so damn indicative of so many CIOs, managers and other closed-minded, overly conservative IT people who have long since given up on trying to stay reliably informed and just believe what their vendors tell them. It’s especially amusing given that GE’s healthcare division runs its mission critical software on Linux, which their CIO seems oblivious of. And I would expect the New York Stock Exchange would be considered ‘mission critical’, and it runs on an open source platform (and interestingly the LSE is switching to Linux too) – so clearly not everyone thinks like this.

The one place where he does have a potential point, albeit skewed beyond all recognition is when he says:

“We are not here to be an IT shop, we are here to be the partner of a business and we shouldn’t put businesses operations into risk by running very low cost solutions,”

That’s a very valid point. However, it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with the choice between open source and anything else! This is such a common misconception. Open source has matured – if you need enterprise-level open source there are companies that are quite happy to take your money to remove the hassle and worry of system stability. They’re really no different from the Microsofts and Oracles of this world, except that the software they’re running your system for you on is open source rather than closed. That gives you an additional bit of leverage because if they suck, or if they try to pull a fast one on prices, you can actually get that enterprise management from someone else without having to change your software too. Try doing that when you switch from Oracle to Microsoft or vice versa for services.

You also have the advantage of not having to wait for a central vendor to hear your pleas for feature A or B, or a bugfix that might be low priority for most people but is absolutely critical for you. Instead of hacking workarounds and seething in the wings while you wait for your vendor to get around to addressing something they think isn’t a priority because it’s not affecting that many people, you can pay someone to fix it for you and submit it upstream, where it will undoubtedly get accepted far quicker than it would have got fixed if only a central vendor was looking after it.

You don’t have to be running an IT shop – although if you do, you have the option of trading your own time for monetary savings and greater agility – your support options are just different. Sure, they can be slightly more complicated if you let them be – particularly if you’re looking to save money or drive things in an optimal direction for your company such as tailoring the software – but if you want to have a simple 1-vendor setup using only standard versions you can do that with open source too. Delegating all support to a third party will cost you more but the option is there. It’s all about choice, flexibility, and empowerment – all things a CIO should welcome, not be afraid of (otherwise he/she’s probably in the wrong job).

I think too many IT managers / CIOs have a mental block which prevents them from being really committed to optimising their IT delivery, in terms of both spend, alignment with the business and agility for the future, because they’re locked inside a box of their own making.

I have to hand it to the guys at the Clan of the Gray Wolf, who are doing a 1,000 song Rock Band marathon for the charity Childs Play, all streamed live on the Internet. Presumably this is linked with the fact that Rock Band itself recently crested the 2009 target of having 1000 in-game tracks – and a month earlier than their deadline.

.

At the time of writing they’re 46 hours in which given that they’ve tackled 615 songs so far, represents not quite two thirds of the way. Even though there’s 6 of them taking shifts (3 playing, one commenting), this is still an ambitious thing to be trying – we haven’t even tackled the 80-odd song Endless Setlist 2 in Rock Band 2 yet, and probably never will! I can’t imagine how bad their blisters are going to be after this, not to mention their vision – my guess is that the whole world is going to look like it’s scrolling upwards for them in the next week.

Anyway, much respect – I encourage you to donate if like me you respect this kind of crazy endeavour which is nevertheless brimming with geek cool.

Something silly for the weekend