• Print

Four short links: 27 May 2011

Twitter DB, Data Reliance, Open Source Architectures, and Short-Form Bullying

  1. flockdb (Github) — Twitter’s open source scalable fault-tolerant distributed key-store graph database. (via Twitter’s open source projects page)
  2. How to Kill Innovation in Five Easy Steps (Tech Republic) — point four is interesting, Rely too heavily on data and dashboards. It’s good to be reminded of the contra side to the big-data-can-be-mined-for-all-truths attitudes flying around.
  3. Architecture of Open Source Applications — CC-licensed book available through Lulu or for free download. Lots of interesting stories and design decisions to draw from. I know when I learned how Perl worked on the inside, I learned a hell of a lot that I could apply later in life and respected its creators all the more.
  4. Bullying in 140 Letters — it’s about an Australian storm in a teacup, but it made me consider the short-form medium. Short-form negativity can have the added colour/resonance of being snarky and funny. Hard to add colour to short-form positive comments, though. Much harder to be funny and positive than to be funny and negative. Have we inadvertently created a medium where, thanks to the quirks of our language and the way we communicate, it favours negativity over positivity?
tags: , , , , , , , ,
  • Stefan

    The relevant information for FlockDB would have been graph database :-) FlockDB is not just another distributed key value store, but a distributed graph db.

  • http://nathan.torkington.com/ Nat Torkington

    Thanks, Stefan. Apologies for the brainfart–have updated the post. In other very reliable news, Twitter is yet another photo sharing site, retweeting is an online dating craze, and “following” is how young people trade “whuffie” for drugs. :-)

  • http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel Karl Fogel

    Glad to see the “Architecture of Open Source Applications” book listed! I’ve been enjoying it too.

    Licensing note:

    You said “CC-licensed”, but it might be worth mentioning that the book is specifically under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). So the book itself is truly open source. I.e., it doesn’t have any of those non-commercial or no-derivatives limitations found in some other CC licenses, that would have made it non-open-source / non-free.

    I try to avoid saying just “CC-licensed” these days, because it’s so non-specific. Better to specify the actual license, or just say “freely-licensed” if it’s a CC Attribution (CC-BY) or Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. You’d be surprised — or maybe you wouldn’t? — at how many authors and artists think that all CC license are the same and/or that they’re all free-as-in-freedom. I’ve met people who put out their work under a CC license but *weren’t sure which one*.