Let me say up front: I bear no ill will against SourceForge, and feel that they have done an incredible service for the free software community. That said, their goals and those of free software are diverging. And, while I hope that SourceForge is able to survive, the prospect of SourceForge Enterprise Edition running on Solaris, powered by an Oracle 8i database fills me with no more excitement than Windows XP Pro. That's based on free software too, right? (historically, the TCP/IP stack has been BSD-derived code)
Unfortunately, the SourceForge people aren't being very helpful about the transition. We'd like to preserve SF as a read-only CVS mirror, but they won't do this. I've also gotten no movement from them about exporting the tracker. While Pat claims that there hasn't been much interest in this, it's consistently been our top request. Nice to know our needs count for so much, thanks. Wes Felter said it well: Thinking about various free services that people are worrying about, I realized that I tend to think about the issues from an accountability perspective. I don't want to use a service if the service provider isn't accountable to me.
We'll be able to replace SF at fairly low cost. The server cost $1250, colo is $250/month, and it'll probably take jack about a month working part time to get CVS, Bugzilla, and related stuff running about as smoothly as it was on SF.
The strange thing is that SF's new business model goes directly against the principles of open source. It's one thing if "collaborative development" is a core competency of your company - then you clearly build your own, as a competitive advantage. But if it's non-critical enough that you're willing to outsource it, you might as well save money and use the existing open source tools that are available. That way, you also avoid all the risks of having your vendor suddenly vanish, as well. If the people who implement these systems cooperate and share their fixes and improvements, everybody benefits. This, it would seem to me, is the core of the open source model.
Strangely, LNUX stock is going up a bit. Perhaps Wall Street feels that they have a chance of being profitable once they shed themselves of all that stupid free software deadwood.
The inkjet list (and the IJS project) continues to have a lot of activity. I just posted a rather extensive missive about color management on inkjets, and there's quite a bit of other discussion worth reading, as well (at least if you're interested in inkjets).
Grant's completed notes on the OSDN printing summit are also worth reading. Come now, my IJS presentation wasn't that boring, was it? (I freely admit that it was high-level and quite vague on the details, though)
It seems that people are pretty dissatisfied with printing on OS X, especially with older devices. I'd love to see a really clean distribution of Ghostscript and high quality inkjet drivers, but am not at all eager to take on the packaging work myself.
I'm continuing to collect screenshots from antialiased font renderers. As I remembered, Microsoft Reader's is particularly pretty. I have the feeling that their fonts were carefully hand-tuned for a handful of faces and sizes. For one, I can't easily find any TTF's in the Reader 2.0 installation.
Incidentally, Reader seems to automatically sense the fact I'm on an LCD screen, and so turns on ClearType, with no way I can figure out to turn it off. Anyone on a CRT who can get me the equivalent screenshot without ClearType, or alternatively tell me the magical setting to turn it off?
I also pulled some screenshots from Acrobat 5. Note how much sharper the Type1 Times sample is than the TrueType. The latter is completely unhinted. The former uses a brand-new AA T1 hinting algorithm, not present in Acrobat Reader 4 (which, incidentally, is still the most recent version for Linux that Adobe sees fit to provide).
We're continuing to delve into the PMingLiU mess (actually Peter is doing most of the work). No real resolution yet, but when we do get some we'll share it, especially with FreeType.