Interesting in the context of the discussion of the difference between blogging and regular journalism, below. It turns out in my own blog complaining about some of the blogging, I made a major boo-boo. I originally wrote "The best summary of the keynote talk I gave at the Open Source Conference in Portland yesterday is actually Rob Macmillan's interview for eWeek. While it wasn't actually a report on the talk, I made all the same points in the interview."
But Peter Galli pointed out that Rob Macmillan doesn't write for EWeek, and that I linked to his story on EWeek, not to Rob's interview with me, which was for Infoworld.
I did mean to point to the InfoWorld interview, but when I jumped by mistake to Peter's article, it was quite good, and I somehow managed to think it was the interview. So it goes.
Anyway, both Peter's report on the talk and Bob's interview are good summaries of my ideas. I'm debating whether to leave the original blog as it was or just leave the comment here. Only problem with the comment is if it gets pushed down the stack, people may not see it. Probably the best is to do a PS to the original blog making the correction.