he said modestly. (great post.)

True story, though: more than a few people were pissed at all the presenters using Mac OS / Keynote at an open source conference.

Regarding “beautiful presentations” though, at what point do we accept some sacrifice of beauty/functionality in order to promote social solidarity? As Dan says, he teaches citizens not workers. If I understand what Dan means by juxtaposing those terms, then Free Software licensing is for citizens while proprietary licensing is for workers.

That pretty much nails though it should be understood that even if proprietary software does what users want at a given point in time, should that change in the future (which is pretty much inevitable) then users are helpless and divided.

Maybe one day we’ll read on your blog of a transition from the proprietary Mac OS to something like GNU/Linux? I’ve never really asked you about this as I’m aware you’re big into video creation/editing – which has been a very weak area for free software. Though, I’m hearing it has gotten much better over the past few years.

Glad to hear you valued Hill’s talk.

This post just made me think of those student “anitfeatures”. We as educators have to be forward-thinking enough to see what out teaching culture could do to a student’s mind 2-3 years a road when out practices might be outdated.

In education, it really seems that people have the best of intentions. The problem is that there is little validation of whatever gets done, aside from a positive feeing about it on the part of the implementers.

It is also worth noting that 15 years ago, when the pattern thing was just getting its wings, the very concept of anti patterns were frowned upon, since patterns were supposed to identify and collect best practices, and collecting bad examples seemed counter to that cause.