BBC News have published an article by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation with a reaction to Bill Gates retirement that then leads onto a full attack on proprietary software.

I can’t of course defend some actions by some companies like Microsoft that have engaged in anti-competitive and other dubious practices however the actions of these specific companies is not a reason to switch everything to open source.

Mr Stallman says “Gates didn’t invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It’s wrong, no matter who does it.”

It’s wrong? What a load of rubbish.

I’ve no issue with open source software - there is excellent software produced under GPL not least WordPress which this very blog is built on! However whether a piece of software is open source is up to the owner and therefore stating that it is wrong is none of Stallman’s business.

If I spent a large amount of my time on a software project I reserve the right to have the sole rights to the source code. If I choose to make it available to general community then again it is my choice.

I’ve got to say my personal belief depends entirely on what the project is. If it is a project that I’m interested in and would just like to share my ideas with others I may well make it open source. However if I felt that it had commercial value and there is a market for it then I’d make sure it was tied up like a kipper so I can maximize the potential of the product for sale.

Wrong? No just common sense for a lot of people.

So free software or proprietary software is a choice for developers and also the end user. The Free Software Foundation is a noble idea and if you are happy with it that’s fine but certainly don’t push it on people that don’t agree.

It’s a constant annoyance to me how bad the Birmingham City Council website. Even with a fairly recent makeover it just doesn’t project Birmingham’s image well (it’s top of Google for “Birmingham” for a start).

I understand the amount of information on the site is massive but surely it could be organised better? Public sector websites of course have strict targets to reach with regard to website accessibility but this is no excuse for a poor design. After all if Birmingham is, as I seem to remember, the largest council in Europe surely it should be able to throw the resource at the website. I’ve given up numerous times trying to find information I need - maybe I’m just lazy but I don’t think I’m the only one to have this problem. An extra bit of investment here might well see costs being reduced elsewhere as the website will be doing it job properly.

Just to prove this challenge isn’t unobtainable take a look at Woking Borough Council’s website which does a much better job of it mixing an excellent blend of simple design, accessibility with usability for visitors.

To be fair to Birmingham City Council they aren’t the only public sector website that fails in fact from my experience the successes are in the minority. However projecting Birmingham as a great city has got to be done across the board and I believe currently this is a bit of a let down.

I’m a strong proponent of web accessibility standards and happened to stumble across the Guild of Accessible Web Designers during my travels around the wibbly web.

Their mission statement is “Promoting a vision of the future that assumes accessible web design to be, relevant, obtainable, and not at odds with successful business practice or good visual and usable design.”

A noble aim but their website isn’t exactly inspiring design wise. As they are trying to dispel the false belief that an accessible website can’t be pleasing to the eye you might have thought they’d spend a little more time on their website design? There are even formatting issues in Internet Explorer 7.

It does however look like members know their stuff and I’m pleased to see membership is selective - you must prove your accessibility expertise before joining.

Virgin media have been given a slap on the wrist by the Advertising Standards Authority because they overstated broadband speeds in adverts.

I understand when it comes to advertising there has to be small print saying people won’t always receive the top speed mentioned depending on time of day, quality of line, etc. but I’m not sure why it isn’t followed through to fair trading after you sign up.

There is a larger issue here altogether meaning that ISPs are misselling broadband entirely. If I get a 8Mb/sec line I expect to get close to that stated speed at some point in the day. If it never gets above 2Mb/sec surely I should be charged the cost of a 2Mb/sec line? OK there are various factors that effect this especially line quality when it comes to ADSL. However I believe that when you are setting up a new broadband connection the ISP should do a line test and provide you with a cost, a maximum speed and a minimum speed. This way it is totally transparent to the customer and if there are problems they have a point where they can complain they are not receiving an adequate service.

I’ve experienced speeds of 256Kb/sec on a 8Mb/sec connection, only 3% of the speed sold, and been told by BT nothing is wrong. Clearly they were under-performing here but I had no way of complaining as there was no technical fault to speak of. Does this sound right to you?

Yes there are many variable factors when providing broadband but these could be taken into account and the contract amended accordingly.

In addition this also brings up the subject of net neutrality - should broadband providers be able to limit bandwidth according to agreements they have with content providers? No! If I pay for 8Mb/sec I pay for 8Mb/sec to every location on the net I choose! Underinvestment in your infrastructure is not a reason to try and screw over your customers to try avoid needed upgrades.

It’s about time the whole issue of selling broadband should be tightened up.