Why Create Something Free?

On Wednesday we learned about CrowdSourcing and I was amazed at how many sites there are out there that allow people to collaborate and use software for free! Some don't of course, but a great majority of them do.

I very much respect someone who will use their skills and talents to develop software or a website and then let people use it free of charge. Developing something takes hours not just to write the code, but to decide on the best tools to write the website/program in. And before that, to brainstorm. And then later to troubleshoot. And finally, to get it just right! The creators have every right to charge people for what they painstakingly created, and yet they just put their stuff on the web for anyone to use.

Why?

I have a few guesses. Some are based on research, others are based on my own speculation.

(1) To Build Their Resumes

When someone is just starting out in the techie world, they usually don't have a lot of experience:
something employers really look for. Before hiring someone, a company usually wants to see what projects a prospective developer has completed or worked on so that they can get an idea of how advanced the developer is in his or her skills. Therefore, it is very common when someone is just starting out  to make free programs or websites just to show prospective employers what they know and what they can do.

(2) To Improve Their Skills 

For those who are with a company and don't plan to leave it anytime soon, building a resume is not as big of a priority. However, moving up in the company or being placed on new (and possibly higher paying) projects is. Therefore, these developers will generally continue to learn new languages and codes to be able to move up or over. Showing a project manager a project they have completed that works is a great way to get to where they want to be.

(3) For Fun

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, a free operating system/software system (in simple terms), wrote a short email back in 1991 declaring he was doing a new project “just for fun.” On the Linux Foundation's website, they write: "Today, Linux powers 98% of the world’s super computers, most of the servers powering the Internet, the majority of financial trades worldwide and tens of millions of Android mobile phones and consumer devices. In short, Linux is everywhere."

 And he did this "just for fun." There is more on Linux under #5 "Because They Really are Just Good Samaritans."

(4) The Company They Work for Tells Them To
Sometimes companies want their employees to get involved in open source projects.  Google, Twitter, and Netflix sponsor major open source initiatives. Why? Possibly for the tax write offs for charitable donations. Also, getting involved in open source projects encourage outsider's to collaborate on that company's code, thus making the code better. It also gives the company prestige: they get their name out there.

(5) Because They Really Are Just Good Samaritans
While there are rumors that Linus Torvalds isn't the nicest person to meet on the streets, there is no denying that he could fall under the category of a "good Samaritan." The underlying source code of Linux may be used, modified, and distributed—commercially or non-commercially—by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License. What does this mean? Basically, anyone can download, use, or sell Linux and Linus Torvalds will not see a dime of it. Linux is trademarked under Linus Torvald's name, but that is it.

I have yet to find anything that says Linus Torvalds developed Linux as a public service. More of what I read tells me that he developed it for himself, for fun, and then put it on the web for others to download. Still, there is no explanation from Linus himself why he doesn't charge for an initial Linux download. He certainly could have. Microsoft and Apple did.

Other founders like Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) and David V. Kocher and Yves Langisch (Cyberduck) fall into this category as well.


How These People Support Themselves

Sometimes free software or free websites actually do make money. Facebook is free to use, but they make money off of advertisements. The same goes for Twitter, YouTube, and Google services. Other sites, like GitHub and DearElder, are free websites to use, unless you want to use their premium site: then they charge you. Sites like Amazon, Ebay, and ODesk are free to use and buy products, but if you want to sell something, you usually have to pay them a 10-15% fee. And then there are other sites that adamantly ask for donations like Wikipedia and CyberDuck.

For Linus Torvalds, the Linux Foundation sponsors him so he can work full-time on improving Linux. The Linux Foundation is supported by corporate donations although they do not adamantly ask for donations.

Learn More

For more on this, check out these sources. Yes, some are Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is a great springboard for further research if you're interested.

Free Software vs. Open Source: Yes, there is a difference.
 
Linux Frequently Asked Questions 

Why Corporations Are Happy To Donate to Linux

Exploration

In the spirit of exploration and technology, I've been thinking about digital media that inspires us to try new things and document. Although this isn't as cool as sending something into space, its really neat to think about the new technology that is available to give us a different interaction with the world around us! 

I really enjoy the videos like the one I have posted below because they really capture the spirit of adventure. It motivates me to step outside my comfort zone and see the world differently. All of a sudden I want to do something that I've never done before.

Check it out!

It's not only amazing that this -shall I call it recreational activity- exists but it is also amazing that it can be seen and virtually experienced to create wonder. This spirit of adventure is alive and well in the virtual community and it's there for us. Recently, my husband and I have been into hiking and backpacking. It's amazing how I can go online, research trails and read reviews so that I can get the most out of my experience! Crowdsourcing has been so helpful to me personally I have been able to get information from people who have an interest in the outdoors just like I do!

My hope is that we can all explore the world around us a little better. Maybe explore a long-lost interest. Or maybe be like me and explore Tahoe, California. You'll be grateful you did!!

My view of Lake Tahoe this summer

#Structure

I'd like to enhance the argument that Ishmael's narrative is, indeed, technology. I really enjoyed our discussion of Moby Dick's structure being a form of technology. In summary we talked about:

• Chapter Headings
• Capitalization - aesthetics of the font
• Symbolism versus Metaphor

These tools build ideas, images, emotions, opinions. Just as these mediums form transitions in thought and significance, the digital culture we engage in offers similar opportunities. We can use more tools than ever to deliver the message, whether boldly or subtly. If a picture gives us a thousand words, maybe that day we're feeling Instagram. Maybe you found a hilarious video and YouTube is better. Maybe you need to message an old mission companion from Brazil and Facebook is easiest. 

The incredible nature of digital culture, as we glimpsed last week during Dr. Burton's prezi, is rooted in its endless resources. There are tools for just about everything we could ever wish for in regards to communication and information. Melville is extraordinarily ahead of his time as he structurally caters to the information he's providing. 

For example, we discussed the play-like manuscript portion in Chapter 40 where we find that the dialogue is portraying the lack of individual emotion and narrative that is missing when comparing a play and novel.

What an innovative way to explain something that we could've learned from a boring, straight-forward, historical paragraph. Bringing together the idea of the new and Moby Dick's structure we see that things we've never encountered before can make us think critically like we never have before.

The digital structures available to us issue us a challenge. Here it comes... with great tools come great responsibility. Let's use digital mediums uniquely to enhance what we're conveying.

Aren't you glad I wasn't structurally innovative enough to make you read my post like this?

Entertainment

We've been talking a lot about categories and where Moby Dick should be placed. In my previous post about it, I claimed it to be a novel because that's what I understood about it at the time, but as I continued reading it I found myself thinking over and over, "Melville could have used a good editor." I found myself balking at encyclopedia type entries, the wandering attitude of the narrator and the changing of writing style. I felt like if this book were to be published today, it would never get through. A publisher would tear it apart, cut it in half, and then tell Melville that he needs to take out another 2/3 to get it publishable. "Nobody will read it," I can imagine them saying, "it's not entertaining."

We know that Moby Dick wasn't really popular when it first came out, but somehow it started to get attention during WWI. I don't know anyone who was alive during WWI so I can only assume what they must have been thinking. Perhaps they liked the rambling, perhaps it connected to them in a way that it hadn't connected before, but now? Today? We're still studying it, yet every time I've taken it out to read somebody has commented, "Wow, you're reading Moby Dick? That book is so boring." Now, a few of them mentioned that they enjoyed the scholarly aspect of it. A lot of us commented when we first began the book that we're all enjoying it a lot more than we thought we would, but is the book entertaining? Is it enjoyable for a lazy Sunday afternoon when we're just looking for a fun, high speed adventure?

No.

So could Melville have used a good editor? During class, I compared Moby Dick to a Wikipedia article gone wrong. He was using publishing as categories for whales, jumping to theater and stage writing, along with other seemingly random dashing about, like a bunch of links that we had no control over. They just continued to be clicked. But how much information is there if we, or more appropriately -- I, had just been willing to calm down, focus a little more, and stop trying to race through it? How much entertainment can be found within those difficult, rambling passages?

I could never guess at exactly what Melville was wanting to express when he wrote the book, and perhaps he could have used someone there to tell him to cut back. But on the other hand, maybe he was trying to do something completely different. Something uncategorizable. Something that's a bit like the Internet. Or, maybe he was just trying to write a metaphor about how difficult it is to read Moby Dick.

The White Whale of the Digital Humanities Will Never Be Caught

About two weeks ago, Professor Wickman asked a question that really stood out to me: "Is the digital really new or is it actually super old?"

On Professor Burton's blog, Moby Digital, he says that his blog is all about "chasing the white whale of the digital humanities."

Moby Dick was published in 1851.

The internet was born in the mid-1980s.

Geocities, one of the first social media sites, was invented in 1994 (it is now no longer available).

How do all of these seemingly unrelated things relate? Well, we must return to Professor Wickman's question: "Is the digital really new or is it actually super old?"

Amber, Victoria, and Brittany each discuss the categorization of the novel and whether or not Moby Dick fits into that category. They talk about our need as humans to categorize. Extending this idea to the digital humanities, can we categorize the digital humanities? I suppose we do in a way by broadly calling written material online the "digital humanities" and then by subdividing these humanities into blogs, status updates,  posts, notes, tweets, even online encyclopedias, dictionaries, and poems...but never a novel. I mean,  if someone wrote a novel and posted it online in a form normally reserved for blogs, would it be considered a very long blog or a novel? Does a 40,000 story have to be in print in order for to be considered a novel or is the online medium I just mentioned okay?

These are the kinds of questions Melville explored without using a computer. Moby Dick does not fit into any one category of print. What is it? What can we call it? What should we call it? Moby Dick is digital culture before the digital was invented. And people rebelled against it. They called it an "ill-compounded mixture" and not "entirely comfortable." (See my blog post here for more information on what people thought of the book in 1851).

This is much the same with the digital humanities: blogs are not cited in scholarly papers because they are generally viewed as an "ill-compounded mixture" of one person's thoughts generally not based in hard research or even written with much skill. We are not "entirely comfortable" with the digital humanities. Yet we chase after them anyways. We love our blogs, our tweets, our status updates, etc. We cannot just let them rest, much like Captain Ahab cannot let Moby Dick rest.

Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick

 The digital humanites are becoming a part of us in a very real way (e.g. Facebook updates are sent to our phones which are attached to our hips), and that scares us. Just take a look at Shelly's latest post. Sometimes we rebel against them by not getting on a social media website just because everyone else is on it: there is something very unsettling about that. If we are a part of it, we feel a need to categorize the digital, to control it, to master it. And in some ways we have: We've categorize things into tweets, blogs, Google + updates, etc.We select what stays and what goes. Geocities didn't make the cut for us. But that doesn't mean Geocities didn't influence future social media sites. We got rid of it, but we didn't get rid of its influence. Will we soon learn that we are dealing with a force much greater than ourselves? Should we continue to try to control it? Or should we just let it be much like Captain Ahab should let Moby Dick be? Let it be whatever it is and whatever it will be?

So let's answer that question: "Is the digital really new or is it actually super old?" I say, it's actually super old. Moby Dick cannot be truly categorized, and neither can the digital world. Moby Dick, the whale, cannot be controlled and neither can the digital humanities. It is in their nature. Each will change according to the understandings and changes of each generation. Categorize it if you will, but that category will soon change. The white whale of the digital humanities will never be caught.

Children and Social Media

I recently posed on a question on my Google+ site regarding youth using social media: How young is too young? 

Last year when I returned home from serving my 18 month mission for the church, I decided to stay off of Facebook. I don't think Facebook is bad if it's used wisely, but I really enjoyed the 18 month break I had from it. I felt happier, I had more free time, I felt secure. When I went home for Christmas and explained that to my younger siblings, they were shocked. My 10 year old sister could not believe that I didn't have a Facebook. I couldn't believe that she had one!! Then just last week my 8 year old brother was equally shocked to find out that I didn't have an Instagram! He really wanted me to see the pictures he was taking of his Minecraft skills, so he taught me how to sign up for my very own Instagram account. The next morning I woke up with a clear mind and thought how bizarre it was for my younger siblings to be teaching me how I needed to be more connected in the interest. Because as my sister told me, "People won't know you even exist if you don't go on Facebook." 

I'll save the internet identity issue for another day. Right now I want to focus on my original question of, "how young is too young?" I talked to my parents and apparently they set up accounts-with their parental monitoring- for my younger siblings. 

I personally think they're way too young for these sites. There are so many risks of exposure to adult content that a child could easily stumble upon. I found a great article from a parent website that addresses my question as well: 

http://www.thirdparent.com/kids-teens-and-social-media-how-young-is-too-young/

Do you think parents typically follow COPPA laws? If you were a parent, would you allow your underage children to participate? Why or why not?