Yesterday Register Hardware reported that a company called BT was offering a bundle that combined an Eee PC running Linux with a copy of Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition. (This appears to have now been corrected.) While this is quite amusing (especially since you only save £1.76), there is another side to mistakes like this: they damage Linux’s reputation unfairly.

Without the bundle, most non-techie users would probably not even wonder if they needed Office. By seeing that bundle, though, potential Eee PC buyers are misled into assuming that they need Office and that it will run on the Eee PC. If those users were tech-savvy, when they realized that Office would not install, they would blame it on BT — but, of course, if those users really were tech-savvy, they would not have bought the bundle in the first place. The point is that the kind of user who might fall for this bundle is likely to blame Asus or Linux for the mistake, not BT, who is truly at fault.

I am glad BT has fixed the problem and I hope it does not happen again. I am tired of Linux FUD being spread due to mistakes like this.

Quick Note: I am not trying to confuse Ubuntu and Linux here. I realize this could be done on almost any distro, but the recent news part is related specifically to Canonical, so I am focusing on Ubuntu.

For most geeks, the key advantages of Linux are stability, security, and Compiz Fusion, but these advantages (excluding Compiz Fusion) are not visible to the average user. How can you tell LInux is more secure or more stable just by using it for a few days. Sure it didn’t BSOD on you, but does that really tell you anything? The point is that you can talk about security and stability all you want, but, in the end, it is very unlikely to be those advantages that pull people to Linux. This is why I am such a big fan of Compiz Fusion and making everything happen smoothly. This, possibly more than anything else, not only looks cool, but also gives you a sense of the system being stable. It may not make sense technically, but if everything is smooth with no flashes of black or anything, it looks like the system is more stable. Because of this and a recent news story I am very excited about the next Ubuntu release.

Ars Technica recently reported on some development being done by Canonical’s (Canonical the company behind Ubuntu) Mirco Müller. He has created a proposal and basic example of a new login screen for Ubuntu featuring slick animations thanks to Clutter (Which is, according to the Clutter website “an open source software library for creating fast, visually rich and animated graphical user interfaces”.)

Now with this, I believe all the tools are in place for a completely smooth, animated Ubuntu experience from start to shutdown.

The Fedora project has already worked on creating a startup experience that is smooth and completely graphical. Some of this should be able to be used by Ubuntu (which is what is so great about FLOSS) to deal with startup and shutdown. Then at login, the recent login screen proposal will take over. Finally, a well configured Compiz Fusion can make the desktop slick, too.

In this way, the next version of Ubuntu should be able to be 100% smooth, slick, and polished, giving Ubuntu a much more cool and professional feel to it that should help convince even more people that Linux is the right way to go.

I was interested to read a recent post on The Open Source Advocate suggesting that all distributions sync their release dates. The idea is that every distribution would release on certain dates, allowing schedules not only for distributions, but also for upstream projects (projects that create software that is incorporated into distributions, for example Firefox) to be in sync.

I think this idea is great, because not only would this make sure that all projects are released at convenient times for other projects, but it would also be great in terms of publicity and unification. Let me explain.

If there were two days per year when hundreds of distributions were released, news sites would look stupid ignoring those two days. It is easy to ignore the release of any one distribution, but how can you ignore the release of 100s of distributions?

Additionally, rather than take away from smaller distributions’ publicity, I think it would help them. Let’s use this site as an example. When there is a major distribution release, I always mention it, but I usually ignore smaller distributions and even medium sized ones if I don’t see much interesting about the release. If all the distributions were synced, I would write a small amount about all the interesting new distributions coming out and I suspect I am not alone.

Another advantage of syncing distribution release schedules is giving Linux more of the appearance of being one unified thing. One common criticism of Linux is that there are too many distros. Syncing all the distribution releases would make it easy for new users to see that Linux distros are not chaos, but rather different people working on different goals while working together at the same time.

I really only see two potential issues with syncing release dates. First, some distributions release every 6 months while others release every couple years while still others have no set length of time between releases. For this reason, distributions should not necessarily release on every release day. Some might skip one or two between releases and others might skip an unspecified number between releases. As long as there are enough distributions that do release every release day, it will still be fine.

The second potential problem is making Linux seem too dictator-like. I don’t want it to look like there is some ruler of all Linux distributions, so instead of having one group that specifies when all distros must release, I say it should just be all the Linux distros that want to getting together and specifying a date. Again, as long as most of the major distros do follow the schedule, if a few little distros want to go by their own schedule, that’s fine.

I am certainly interested in seeing what you think, but right now I am thinking that syncing the distros would be great!

I don’t care what people say, if Linux ever goes mainstream, there will be real security threats to Linux. To be prepared for this, people should be encouraged to let Ubuntu automatically download and install security updates.

Now on to the promotion.

Both of these brainstorms propose something similar: an organized and focused effort to promote Ubuntu. Some projects like this exist already, but they should be better known. The question left is exactly what is the best way (or the best ways) of promoting Ubuntu. Below are some suggestions from Ubuntu Brainstorm. Feel free to discuss which ones you think are good in the comments.

The Idea: Distribute free advertising posters for Ubuntu to schools and stores.

The Idea: Start running ads online, on TVs, on the radio, etc.

The Idea: Create a screensaver that shows off the features of Ubuntu for stores to play on Ubuntu machines. (That sort of video could also be used as a general promotional video.)

If you have not already heard of it, EyeOS is an open-source online operating system. With the release of EyeOS 1.6, a new feature called eyeSync has been introduced.

Essentially what eyeSync does is sync your files between your regular computer (Linux, Mac, Windows) and EyeOS. Since eyeOS is open-source there is a huge possibility for Linux distributions to begin integrating EyeOS with the desktop.

If done correctly, distributions could be made so that it is very easy to set up your “online desktop” which you can use to access and work on your files from any web browser. Not only would this be relatively easy to implement, but it would also be an incredible selling point for the Linux desktop.

One issue that has been discussed a lot in the past few months is the need for better release notes or feature lists for distributions. With the recently released Hardy Heron (8.04), Ubuntu has taken a giant step in the right direction.

When you first go to Ubuntu.com, there is a large space dedicated to promoting Hardy Heron with three buttons to the right of it. Those buttons are “Download,” “Upgrade,” and “Find Out More.” None of this is really new, but what is behind the “Find Out More” link is.

After clicking “Find Out More” you are taken to this page. The page looks very professional and gives a nice description of some of the features of Ubuntu as well as screenshots. Additionally, to the right, is a navigation bar with links to more specifics about certain features. If you have not already seen this, you should really check it out. It looks great.

Although this is a huge step in the right direction, it could still be improved upon. My main, and really only, complaint has to do with the content. It has come a long way in becoming less technical, but it still largely focuses on the ordinary tasks that Ubuntu can do. This has to be a major part of the feature list, but more emphasis should be put on the cool or useful things that Ubuntu can do that other OSs cannot. One notable example of this is the lack on significant Compiz Fusion information. While there are some screenshots, Compiz Fusion is such a cool part of Linux that it should be heavily advertised.

Easy to understand features and advertising are very important towards promoting Linux and Ubuntu, so, although there is room for improvement, I am very happy to see Ubuntu taking a huge step towards creating a better feature list.

Today Ubuntu 8.04 LTS was released! You can download it or read about the features on the Ubuntu website.

I am sure I will say more about 8.04 in the future, but for now I don’t have much to say. I have been running the beta for a couple of weeks now and it has been great! The only problem I have had is with Firefox 3 Beta 4 messing up some sites (including mine), but the final has Beta 5, so I hope the issues are resolved. Other than that minor issue, which is a Firefox bug not an Ubuntu bug, I have been very impressed the release. If you had let me use the beta and not told me it was the beta, I would have thought it was final. Also, the artwork is great!

I would encourage everyone to upgrade or at least try out the new version now that it has been released.

Good job Ubuntu on yet another great release!

I am sure that almost anyone following the Linux news for any length of time has gotten completely used to the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that comes out of Redmond over and over. Sometimes it is outrageous, sometimes it is just annoying, but I have never seen something as blatantly uninformed as this.

Yesterday, Wired reported this: (he is Bill Gates)

“There’s free software and then there’s open source,” he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, “there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”

Open source, he said, creates a license “so that nobody can ever improve the software,” he claimed

What?

Bill Gates is saying that GPL makes it “so that nobody can ever improve the software.” Apparently he does not understand what “open-source” means. With open-source software, GPL in this case, you have the right to modify and redistribute the program. How on earth does that make is “so that nobody can ever improve the software.” Is this supposed to be FUD or ignorance?

Can anyone give a logical explanation for how this could possibly be at all true?

With the semi-recent approval of OOXML by the ISO, an issue has come up over how well Office 2007 implements Microsoft’s own standard, OOXML. Griffin Brown tested the compatibility of the latest Office 2007 with the latest OOXML standard and found that the results were less than perfect. My first reaction, of course, was outrage. How on earth are competitors supposed to implement Microsoft’s “open” standard if even Microsoft itself cannot implement it correctly? As I read through the original post, though, I believe I may have been too fast to jump to that conclusion.

Griffin Brown tested Office 2007 against two versions of the OOXML standard - the transitional and strict versions. When tested against the transitional version (a less strict version) Office 2007’s implementation returned 84 error messages, which Brown calls “relatively few.” Many of the errors, he says, are “all of the same type.” Additionally, in the example he gives, the Office 2007 version uses “on,” which was used in a previous version of OOXML, instead of “true,” which is the current version. Judge for yourself, but this sort of thing seems OK to me as long as Microsoft corrects it soon.

When Brown tested Office 2007’s implementation against the strict version, however, it received many more errors. Apparently, 17MB (around 122,000) of error messages were output. This seems much less justifiable to me. Seriously, 17MB???

Before I make a judgment, I want to know two things:

1. Which version is more important, transitional or strict? Groklaw says about the transitional version that it is “one no one on the planet will be using,” but this statement is not backed up or justified.
2. How common is it to have errors in format implementations? For example, if most implementations by programs such as OpenOffice are perfect, Microsoft’s implementation would seem inexcusable. On the other hand, if almost all implementations contain many errors, Microsoft’s implemenation makes more sense.

There is, of course, an argument that those questions don’t matter and, since OOXML is Microsoft’s own format, it should be implemented perfectly. This, however, seems unfair to me. Instead, I will wait to see how others react to Brown’s findings. I just want to make the point that, no matter how many other flaws OOXML has, Brown’s findings might not be as damning as they seem.

Note: I want to make it very clear that I am not excusing Microsoft, I am simply waiting for more information before judging.

I recently came across a YouTube video created by Blogeee.net which shows both the Windows Eee PC and the Linux Eee PC (I assume each with the same specifications) starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down. It is very apparent in the video that the Linux version is much faster, but, since only the startup is done at the same time for both machines, it is hard to tell just how much faster. I timed each part (starting up, launching Firefox, and shutting down) to see what the time difference really was. Here is what I found:

Startup
Linux: 30 seconds - Windows: 54 seconds
Launching Firefox
Linux: 4 seconds - Windows: 16 seconds
Shutdown
Linux: 6 seconds - Windows: 68 seconds

(Note: Numbers are approximate. Firefox start time is from clicking on the Firefox icon to the dialog about starting a new session and then from the end of that dialog to when the windows appears, or, in other words, everything but loading the web page and waiting for the user to click on new session or resume session.)

Those numbers by themselves are impressive, but they get even more impressive when you look at how many times faster the Linux version really is.

Startup: Windows takes 24 seconds longer. Linux is just less than twice as fast.
Launching Firefox: Windows takes 12 seconds longer. Linux is four times faster.
Shutdown: Windows takes 62 seconds longer. Linux is slightly more than 11 times faster.

Look at it, Microsoft. Vista would barely even run on these things and Windows XP is much slower than Linux. This is very likely to be Linux’s first major success on the desktop.