Pulled Apart
SixApart, the company that makes the software that runs this blog, have introduced a new version, and a new price. Up until now, MovableType has always been free for personal use; from the latest version, they will start charging somewhere between $70-150. This probably won't affect users like @james, as a single user/single blog is still free, but it will affect users like me and (I believe) @jd, who run their other half's blog on the same installation.
Now $70 is quite a price-hike, and it's also a shame. I have no moral grounds for this - they've worked hard, it's good software, and they are entitled to charge for it, but their previous policy of only charging businesses seemed fairer. To a business $70 is nothing. To an individual, it starts you looking for alternatives, and in these days of open-source software, a thriving community of enthusiastic users is the lifeblood of your product. They may be killing the golden goose here. But, like I say, they are entitled to do so.
I don't have a particular argument, except to say that I won't be upgrading, and so I won't be paying, and I am looking for alternatives. Maybe it's a good thing: I have a few gripes about MovableType, and the hunt for something new may address this.
Anyhoot, for the non-geeks who don't know what I'm talking about (assuming there are any of them still reading), here's an interesting thought from the geek world: There are two types of free: Free as in beer, and free as in speech. With free beer, you're entitled to use it without charge. With free speech, you're completely free - you can take it and change it, quote it or corrupt it, distribute it, combine it and shout it from the street corners. And a thousand different versions may be found in the wild, and the best will thrive.
http://www.asymptomatic.net/blogbreakdown.htm
A true Jedi would make his own lightsabre!
I suspect it depends more on whether or not one can admit one is wrong.
Maybe a touch farther down the line than is necessary - have you considered 'I suspect it depends on how much one knows'?
The accepted spelling is programme for a programme of events, and program for a computer program.
According to...?
While Americans may dispute the former, the latter is globally accepted as correct.
In which case 'programme' for events is not 'accepted' except by champions of British English.
As for 'the latter is globally accepted as correct', is there a web citation for this? I can't find one, though I'm fully prepared to accept I may not be looking in the right places, and I also accept that 'program' is more widely used.
I apologise if this seems impertinent; I subscribe to my father's opinion that just because someone is far more likely to be knowledgeable on a given subject than I, that does not mean that they should feel offended (not that I'm suggesting you are, just think it worth mentioning) by someone questioning something within their sphere, and nor does it mean that said more knowledgeable person is always going to be right.
I suspect it depends more on whether or not one can admit one is wrong.
The accepted spelling is programme for a programme of events, and program for a computer program.
While Americans may dispute the former, the latter is globally accepted as correct.
I suspect the spelling may depend on whether one is a die-hard stickler for British English or whether one has given in and adopted US spelling. I can find several references to "computer programme" on Google, so the spelling is at least in use.
Gosh, you're not wrong Mr Casey. Though I was aware I've been griping about the blogging engine for a while, I'd completely forgotten that I'd rejected MT in the past.
I guess, as always, that the only real way to find out what happens next is to stay tuned...
(Oh, and it's 'program' for computer programs, by the way.)
Yeah, just get on with doing it. You mentioned considering writing your own programme ages ago, but obviously haven't got round to it.
Not to mention your deciding that MT wasn't for you - on Nov. 18, 2002.
I thoroughly appreciate the pointer, Mr Johns...however...I've made up my mind that the next system will be Java-based. As much as I have a fondness for it, Apache just doesn't cut it when it stands next to Tomcat. Hence, my current first-runner is to contribute to the JBoss Nukes Project after it releases v1.1 next month...
And, for the record, I like Apache. And I like Perl. But Apache + Perl sucks, and PHP me no PHPs , because I demand MVC...
If I promise not to delete everything or jump around too much, can I please still have a nice blog like I have now without having to do anything?
I'm prepared to offer raisins - if you throw them around the room a lot, they turn into java beans, and we all know how useful java beans are... yes.
Just had a count up and it's two users and six blogs, if you include the couple of test areas I have. Yikes!
I certainly can't think of any reason to upgrade at present. I think the Rebuilding doodat is currently requiring support from somewhere or other, but aside frae tha, all the files are on me server.
I think sticking with 2.x is the way to go - as far as I can tell, the main new feature in 3.0 is that it makes more money...
Pants. I have two authors on three blogs. Of course, I could just stick with the current version which does more than I currently use anyway...
Well, can't you pretend one of your authors is actually a blog? Then you'd be all right... I think it's best you do it, rather than Fran. She might jump around a bit too much and spoil the disguise.
Jim, you're right. Their free license allows for one author, with three blogs. What I want is two authors, two blogs.
Yes, I could have Fran & I signing in as the same author, but...and without wishing to sleight Fran's techie skills...I feel safer knowing she can't accidentally press any of the buttons marked 'Delete Everything'.
A true Jedi would also be able to spell 'lightsaber'.
Can't I just be signed up as a single user as well? Or will that involve me Needing to Know Techie Things.
I thought I read somewhere that you were allowed three blogs on MT before you had to start paying...
Post new comment