Modify Colors
Posts in Opinion
Your Hard Drive in the Cloud
Cloud computing may a little over-promised, but it isn’t “worse than stupidity,” as Richard Stallman would say. In fact, it’s really a very positive change in the way we use computers. Not only does it eliminate many of the barriers to using any operating system you want, but it also takes the responsibility of storing and backing up data off of the user. This is all in a very early stage, but the glitches should be worked out in a few years.
Unfortunately, it’s very hard for people to create successful web applications without backing from companies like Google and Microsoft. The problem is that when you start using, for example, Google Docs, it is very hard to switch to Zoho Office. You certainly can’t use both to edit the same documents as you could if they were stored on your hard drive. This means that you are locked into using a single application, naturally leading most of us to pick the one we trust the most. This problem also blocks out a lot of the hobbyist open-source projects that might otherwise appear as web applications.
What we need is a “hard drive in the cloud”: a personal storage space from which documents could be opened with any web application. For example, someone could create a document in Google Docs and save it to their “hard drive in the cloud.” Then, they could open that document from Zoho Office and continue working on it there.
The problem with this plan is that it would require an established web application vendor to adopt it before anyone would bother to use it, and no major web application vendor has an incentive to adopt a system which would make it easier for their customers to switch the a different service.
How will we get data portability in the cloud when companies like Google have it in their interest to prevent any such project?
In the future, every wall will be a multi-touce interface, there will be no buttons to confuse our little brains, and everyone’s arms will be sore from holding them out at the wall to type on their computers.
We already knew Apple didn’t like buttons, but I don’t think anyone saw it coming when they announced a new mice with not one, not two, not three, but zero buttons. With zero tactile feedback, zero division between the left and right buttons, the same pointless 360 degree scrolling you never used before, and an insanely high cool factor, the Magic Mouse is clearly something that will be desired by…
For years Apple’s mice have been the least practical part of Apple’s line of products. In answer to $20 ergonomically comfortable mice with two buttons, a scroll wheel, and smaller back and forward buttons for easy navigation, Apple has introduced the $70 Magic Mouse that promises to work just like a normal mouse, as long as you imagine the tactile feedback and remember where the left and right buttons are. On the plus side, it is pretty.
I applaud Apple for trying something new, but a buttonless mouse is not ready to be a real product.Perhaps in ten years we will all have touch mouses, but its too soon for that now. Deliberately decreasing usability in an effort to create art is not a good tradeoff when it comes to our mice. Sorry, but I still like buttons.
Blog Action Day ‘09: Lighting the World with LEDs
This is a post for Blog Action Day 2009, an effort to unite bloggers to discuss one topic for one day from many different perspectives. This year’s topic, chosen by a vote, is climate change.
Remember the big push for everyone to switch to compact fluorescent, or CFL, light bulbs? Many people advertised them as the easy solution to all of our energy problems. Ignoring the other impracticalities of this claim, there are still two problems with CFLs. First, the murcury in them is a potential household risk if a CFL ever breaks [PDF]. Second, unlesss they are properly recycled, that murcury ends up back the in the environment, where it damages ecosystems, eventually making its way up the foodchain to humans.
Luckily, there is a fairly new technology that solves both of these problems: LED light bulbs. LEDs have been around for a long time, but until recently LED light bulbs were expensive and dim. With LED ligth bulbs that are neither expensive (well, not too expensive) nor dim, let’s look at some of the benefits of LED light bulbs:
- Long lasting – The EvoLux LED light bulbs advertise a 50,000 hour lifetime compared to most incandescents that advertise lifetimes in the range of 4,000 hours. Practically speaking, that’s a 1 to 2 years compared to 10+ years.
- Sturdy – A lot of an LED bulb’s casing is made of plastic and LEDs are pretty hard to break in the first place, so your LED bulbs shouldn’t be breaking unless you’re really mistreating them.
- No mercury – Even if an LED bulb does breaks, there are usually no toxic chemicals to clean up.
- Even less energy usage than CFLs – The (advertised) equivalent of a 100W compact florescent CFL bulb usually sucks 20-30 watts, while (advertised) LED equivellents can be found in 12-13 watt range. (I haven’t actually checked with a light meter.)
The only significant problem with LED bulbs is the cost. As opposed to an incandescent or CFL which can be purchased for a few dollars, an LED bulb costs around $50. It does pay off in evergy savings, though.
I compared the approximate cost savings of an EvoLux LED bulb over a standard incandescent and found that the LED bulb would pay off in the fourth year.
Amount of money saved over time by using an LED bulb (Each mark on the X axis represents one year.)
So if you’ve been holding out on CFLs or are just looking for a way to save even more energy, try an LED bulb. I chose to try an EvoLux, but don’t limit yourself to that. Find the best deal you can and try it out.
Of course, you can also download the LED vs incandescent light cost savings spreadsheet. Plug in your energy cost and see what happens. (The graph is on sheet 2.)
Happy Blog Action Day!
How do Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu fit in?
In addition to the highly popular Ubuntu operating system, Canonical also sponsors several “official” derivatives of Ubuntu, aimed at different types of hardware, different user preferences, and different use cases.
- Ubuntu – The main OS that everything else is based on
- Ubuntu Server Edition – Ubuntu without any GUI (by default) and designed for use on servers
- Kubuntu – Ubuntu with the KDE desktop
- Edubuntu – Ubuntu with additional applications aimed at education
- Ubuntu MID Edition – Ubuntu with a customized interface and various other tweaks for mobile internet devices
- Ubuntu Netbook Remix – A customized version of Ubuntu MID Edition for Netbooks
(Please note, the omission of Xubuntu is not a mistake. Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, and Ubuntu Studio are not supported derivatives.)
Ubuntu Logo
The list above includes every one of the Ubuntu derivatives that Canonical sponsors (at least all the onces I am aware of). In bold are the terms used to differentiate each variation from Ubuntu. The problem is that three different methods are used (edition, remix, and prefixes [ku- and edu-]) with no clear distinction. Why isn’t Ubuntu Server Edition called Serbuntu?
The Remixes
According to Ubuntu’s Trademark Policy:
We recognise and encourage the concept of a “remix.” Remixes are derived versions of Ubuntu, and it is intended that any software and hardware certifications will apply to a Remix… These changes can include configuration changes through the existing Ubuntu configuration management tools, changes to artwork and graphical themes and some variance in package selection.
According to this excerpt, the term remix applies to a distribution that incorporates only minor changes from one of the other official derivatives. This explains the choice of remix in Ubuntu Netbook Remix, as UNR is closely related to Ubuntu MID Edition.
Edubuntu Logo
Prefixes vs. Edition
Each derivative’s page on the Ubuntu website reveals a pattern between prefixes and edition.
Kubuntu is an official derivative of Ubuntu using the KDE environment instead of GNOME.
Edubuntu is a officially supported derivative of Ubuntu that is customised for Education use.
Both Kubuntu and Edubuntu are apparently considered derivatives, while Ubuntu Server Edition and Ubuntu MID Edition are considered part of Ubuntu.
Kubuntu Logo
Huh, why?
After a fair amount of digging, it is possible to make sense of all the names and terminology, but it certainly isn’t easy to understand.
Understanding how each bit of terminology is currently used, how could the naming scheme be simplified?
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and their respective logos are trademarks of Canonical.
One of the most painful parts of writing this blog is the necessity to read mainstream news sites trying to describe free software. For example, this CNN article titled “Microsoft takes on the free world”:
(All emphasis has been added.)
“But now there’s a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it’s being cast by Microsoft (Charts, Fortune 500). The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft’s patents.”
If Microsoft issuing a press release casts a shadow on free software, I don’t think free software has ever seen sunlight. That’s not the point, though.
It doesn’t take long to tell this is going to painful:
“The conflict pits Microsoft and its dogged CEO, Steve Ballmer, against the “free world” – people who believe software is pure knowledge. The leader of that faction is Richard Matthew Stallman, a computer visionary with the look and the intransigence of an Old Testament prophet.”
I very much object to the idea that Stallman leads everyone who is part of the “free world.” Actually, I object to the idea that you can define a “free world” at all. Is every Firefox user part of the “free world” or only people who write code?
“(Stallman insists that “GNU/Linux” is the proper name, and he refuses to give interviews to reporters unless they promise to call it that in every reference. In part for that reason, he was not interviewed for this article.)”
Why am I not surprised… We haven’t even hit the halfway point and the “free world” is already sounding like a bunch of bickering idiots.
“Popularly, “open-source software” became an umbrella term for all FOSS, but, again, Stallman bars reporters from using it that way as a condition of being interviewed.”
No comment. Moving on…
“Thus there is a schism in the free world between the more business-oriented advocates of open-source software – who simply think that community authorship makes for better, cheaper software – and the more ideological champions of free software proper, who see themselves as advancing a social movement.”
I actually have to complement the author or figuring this out. A lot of people just figure everyone worships Stallman.
“Linus Torvalds – a near-deity in the FOSS community”
A deity? Really? I agree with a lot of what Torvalds says, but I wouldn’t call him a deity.
“(Torvalds has gravitated toward the business-friendly open-source camp of the FOSS world and has openly criticized Stallman’s agenda in some contexts. In a March e-mail interview with InformationWeek he wrote: “The Free Software Foundation [Stallman's group] simply doesn’t have goals that I can personally sign up to. For example, the FSF considers proprietary software to be something evil and immoral. Me, I just don’t care about proprietary software.”)”
Once agian, I appreciate that this article includes another point of view. Many don’t.
“In free-software circles, though, the Microsoft-Novell entente was met with apoplectic rage.”
Sadly, that’s an understatement.
All in all, I have to give Roger Parloff, who wrote the article, some credit. I have read similar articles that made it sound like “free software advocates” were all part of a cult, whose leader was Stallman.
Mainstream news sources look for someone who can serve as a representative of the “free world.” The problem is that there is no one who can do that. Most authors end up finding Stallman, who is perfectly happy to talk like he represents everyone involved in free software projects, as long as you only talk about GNU/Linux, not Linux.
This is a difficult problem to solve. Even if you substituted a different person in as the figurehead for free software, an equal number of people would be dissatisfied.
How would you want to see free software and the people involved in it described?
With Bing, Google, and Yahoo (well, until the Microsoft deal takes effect) all competing for our searches, how do they differentiate themselves? The obvious answer is their search results, of course, but do results really matter?
Try using a site like Blind Search for a few searches. There are a lot of similar sites, but they all basically do the same thing. They strip away the extra formatting and features and just show you the search results, without telling you which results come from which site. I tried 12 searches and choose Yahoo for 3, Google for 4, and Bing for 5. That may seem like a clear difference, but every single set was close. At least 50% of the links on just about any search are the same, just in a slightly different order. They’re just not that different.
Less scientifically, I certainly do not choose any search engine because it delivers better results. I, along with most of the world, happen to use Google, but neither because of it is the default for most people nor because it has better results. What, then, determines the quality of a search engine?
There are two factors for me in looking at a search engine. First, how are the pages formatted. Yahoo employs the most complicated pages, followed by Bing, and, trailing far behind, Google. While I know people who can’t stand the spareness of Google’s home page, instead choosing to use Yahoo, I like the simplicity and speed of Google. Bing has chosen a sort of middle ground. There is much less white on Bing, yet it is not as crowded as Yahoo. Partly as a consequence of this, I have spent much more time trying Bing out than Yahoo.
Second, the ‘extra features’ of the search engine. One trick every major search engine can do is to act like a calculator, recognizing equations and solving them for you. Other common tricks include finding movie show times, directions, or snippits from image or video results.
Ultimately, I don’t think search results are that important anymore. Short of somehow allowing other search engines to improve their algorithms for years without doing anything to your own, the most important thing for search engines is to have a page design that people like and the ability to detect special searches that should be handled differently (10+5 or 15cm in miles).
Matching Microsoft On Interoperability
Microsoft’s concession to offer a so-called “browser ballot” in the European version of Windows 7 has been covered extensively. European buyers of Windows 7 will, except when the OEM has a separate deal, be presented with a choice of browsers, ordered by estimated market share. Microsoft has also released a less covered document [.doc] that extends the idea of a ballot to file formats in Office 14:
“Beginning with the release of Office 14, end users that purchase Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications in the EEA in both the OEM and retail channel will be prompted in an unbiased way to select default file format (from options that include ODF)…”
Microsoft hasn’t exactly been friendly to open standards in the past, but this is a serious concession that will, if properly implemented, change the balance of file formats.
As much as the FSF would like to continue framing Microsoft as the bad guy in every situation, they aren’t. The Microsoft of today is very different from the Microsoft of 5 years ago, and supporters of open standards should start to match their moves towards interoperability.
The best reaction to this news would be for OpenOffice.org and other prominent open-source desktop productivity applications to offer a file format ballot as well.This ballot would offer ODF, Microsoft’s .doc binary formats, and OOXML.
This proposal will, undoubtably, be contriversal. This move would have a number of benefits, though.
First, it offers more choice to users. Why shouldn’t I be able to choose to use Microsoft’s file formats if I prefer? In fact, I do use Microsoft’s older binary file formats most of the time, since it is essential that I am able to open files I create with unknown versions of Office when I don’t have my computer with me. I’m am completely in support of open-standards, but I am also in support of choice.
Second, matching Microsoft’s moves towards interoperability would cast free software advocates and users in a better light. Thanks to the FSF’s childish campaigns (see the instructions) and the blatent FUD of unnamed anti-Novell sites, free software advocates are usually viewed as borderline insane extremists. If OpenOffice publically recognized Microsoft’s positive steps and offered their own ballot, it would help remedy this situation. (The FSF does a lot of great work and, as he is fond of pointing out, without some of Stallman’s work we wouldn’t have Linux as we have it today. That doesn’t excuse anything, though.)
Free software advocates can’t just continue to pretend Microsoft is a big evil corporation. Perhaps they are, but they’re a lot less evil and a little less big than they used to be. Instead of dismissing every move Microsoft takes as a trap, let’s admit it was a good move and thank them for it.
Would you like your notebook in pink or with Windows?
I have sort of a love-hate relationship with Dell. On one hand, I appreciate that they occasionally sell Ubuntu machines, but I am really sick of their avaliability games. The number of avaliable computers, and the options that go with them, changes randomly from day to day. For new readers, I am not a fan of these variations. Today, the selection has moved from annoying to almost comical.
If Dell did as much market research as asking one person, they could learn that people buying their Ubuntu computers are very largely:
- Tech-savvy,
- Smart,
- And male
Given these attributes, why on earth do you make your two non-netbook computers a laptop that costs about $60 more than the Windows version and a semi-discontinued laptop that comes in exactly one color: pink.
I’d be great if Linux users, and technologically-centered people in general, were more balanced in gender, and I believe we are getting there, but the reality is that Linux geeks are still mostly male. Heck, I’m not even sure if it has to do with gender. There is nothing wrong with pink, but I’m not sure I know anyone, male or female, who would actually buy a pink primary computer. How many Linux geeks do you know who love pink?
Of course if you don’t want a pink computer, you can of course buy the Insipron 15n, which offers a range of colors. Unfortunatley, you pay an extra $60 or so to have Ubuntu pre-installed. Since the vast majority of potential buyers are tech-savvy and reasonably smart, why wouldn’t they just buy the Windows version and install Ubuntu?
The bottom line: market research fail.
If ISPs don’t dictate everything, why do cellphone carriers?
For the most part, your ISP provides a service and you are free to use that service as you wish. Of course some exceptions exist, such as bandwidth caps and occasional throttling of heavy users, but, in general, your ISP doesn’t care what you do with your internet connection, as long as you stay within the law. Imagine, though, (and imagine it quickly before it becomes a reality) if your ISP blocked Hulu because it duplicated the functionality of (competed with) their TV service for which they had been trying to get you to sign up. No problem. Competition will fix it. It’s the free market, after all, so these problems just solve themselves thanks to all the competition… Wait. What competition? Most of the time, your cable/DSL company has a monopoly.
Luckily, we don’t have that situation (yet), except that we do in the cellphone world. Cellphone carriers, and to a lesser extent cellphone makers, control what data flows over their precious networks very closely. You can get internet on your phone, but you can’t have a teathering application, because your supposed to buy a special plan, even though you’re already paying for internet on your phone. You can’t have Google Voice, either, because the unified phone number makes it easier to switch carriers and the voicemail transcription system makes visual voicemail less important. There is, at least, a little more competition in the cellphone world, yet long contracts prevent easy switching. Besides, who would you switch too when every carrier is doing the same things?
You wouldn’t let your ISP get away with blocking Hulu, so why do we let our cell carriers dictate what we do on their networks?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have hundreds of distros competing for our hard drive; in fact I think that sort of competition is quite healthy, but do we really need a new distro for everything?
Apparently Watt OS thinks so. Now in its third beta, WattOS is an Ubuntu-based distro aimed at having low power consumption. I’ve already got a distro for saving power, though. It’s called the off button.
Saying I need a distribution just to save power is like saying I need a distribution to keep my cat off of my computer. Saving power or keeping the cat off my keys isn’t very useful unless I can do the other things I want to do.
It just doesn’t make sense to offer a new distribution for a small improvement on an existing distribution. I’m sure the power-saving work WattOS is doing is great and it is certainly needed, since Linux is rather lacking in power management, but it would be far better as an application, not its own distribution.
Update: One of the developers of WattOS, iggykoopa, responded:
“The point of a distribution is a focus on desirable applications and functionality in one grouping.
For WattOS, the focus is on power saving and lightweight environments (not as much stress or power consumption on a CPU, is the theory). This is intended to show, if you want what they consider to be lightweight and “green” software, how to get this all in one package.
The idea is good; you most likely can use the same utilities and such in your regular distribution. This CD just packs it all into one live and installable grouping (a distribution).”
That’s fair enough. I’d choose a different packaging (application instead of distro), but great work regardless.