Owl
AnnexeThis post originally appeared on the Annexe.
This post originally appeared on the Annexe.
This post originally appeared on the Annexe.
This post originally appeared on the Annexe.
This post originally appeared on the Annexe.
Links shared from del.icio.us today:
This originally appeared on the Annexe.


If you'll recall from my earlier post looking at Singapore in the 1970s, I'm fascinated with modern history! Today I unearthed the Historical NSW Railway Timetables website.
Firstly, yes I am aware the image above is clearly not a retro rail map, or even a contemporary rail map at all. In fact, other than a couple of physical train lines entering the bridge there isn't any indication that rail activity is taking place. It's called setting the scene, this is a photo of North Sydney taken in 1980 by nicksarebi on Flickr. Interesting how some things are clearly the same, but so much has changed!
Moving on! Hey, that was a bit of a pun… how come I'm only funny by accident? Don't answer that. The first map here is the suburban network in 1969, go the font!

Now we jump to 1987, when I would have been 1! You can kinda tell from the typeface and simplified, coloured block lines; perhaps a homage to the London Underground? :)

And finally we jump another decade or so to see the map Olympic people would have used to find their way to New South Wales Taxpayer Sinkhole Arena, as it was almost called:

What strikes me about all these maps is just how little things have changed in the intervening decades. Entire networks in other cities have been built from scratch during this time, and Sydney has barely had a dozen new stations introduced.
New map designs and signage, while being incredibly fascinating looks into our modern past, don't hide the fact the state has seen little new investment in public transport for a painfully long time. The new Liberal government claims transport is their "number one priority", but we'll believe it when we see it!
![]()
This is a test, to see if my Slashdot comments automatically syndicate to my blog properly. If you're reading this, maybe it was successful!
Are Third-Party Android Vendors Violating the GPL?
“Google’s refusal to not release Honeycomb source code is kosher because the code in question is released under the Apache license. But the kernel at the heart of Android is GPL’d, which means that code must be released. Google has actually been a good citizen in this regard
Wait wait, hold on a minute. It’s precisely the fact the Apache licence doesn’t compel them to release the source that would make them "good citizens" if they did, rather than just giving it to a select few OEMs.
but many third-party Android vendors, not so much. While Asus has released their code, there are a host of companies that seem to have not done so, and Matthew Garrett is maintaining a list.”
We were sold on Android being an open source and free alternative to iOS and the like, but unfortunately the reality is proving anything but. Part of this is Google going back on their stance on what constitutes open, but also that they haven’t more rigorously enforced compliance of the GPL by their OEMs.
It’s a shame they have to do this for companies other than Asus and Samsung (good GPL folk, IIRC), but companies have proved time and time again their misunderstanding of what their responsibilities are under the GPL at best, and knowingly ignoring them at worst.