Recently the issue of synchronizing open-source software releases has come up quite frequently. Stories are being written about it. Shuttleworth (founder of Ubuntu) has stated his opinion on the topic. Seigo (from KDE) has also given his input. Basically, the topic is becoming a point of a lot of discussion and controversy.

Before I launch into my ideas on the topic, what is the whole synchronization idea? (Feel free to skip this part if you already know.) The idea of synchronizing open-source software is that all the Linux distributions will release their new versions on the same day and upstream projects (projects whose code goes into Linux distributions) will time their releases according to the distribution schedule.

Now onto my ideas: The debate seems to come down to a single major issue. There may be side topics, but the core issue seems to be time-based releases versus feature-based releases. Time-based releases, as you may know, are releases based on a set time schedule. For example, Ubuntu does time-based releases, because they release a new version every 6 months. Feature-based releases, as you may also know, are where the software is not released until all the features have been implemented.

The advantage of time-based releases is that they offer predictability for businesses and software developers, goals to force the developers working on the software to keep moving, and easier scheduling of how long support for each version will last. On the other hand, though, time-based releases may discourage major new features and allow bugs to slip through the cracks and make it into the final release. As you can see, there is no clear best option.

So how is this related to synchronization? Synchronization would force projects into a time-based release schedule. This seems, at least to me, to be the biggest issue surrounding synchronizing releases.

Personally, although I don’t have a strong opinion, I think time-based releases are the best way to go because they make it easy to see that development is progressing steadily and encourage steady development. Also, with good management and the help of version control software, it should be possible to still introduce new features and keep bugs out.

Even though I prefer time-based releases, I recognize that it may not be the right choice for some projects. Initially, I made the argument that if the features were not ready in a piece of software or there were still bugs, that piece of software would just skip that release date and release at the next date. The problem is that a piece of software might finish with months left before the next release date. That is why I think optional OSS (open-source software) synchronization is the right way to go.

What I mean by optional OSS synchronization is that the projects that already use time-based releases would all synchronize, while feature-based release projects would continue with their way of doing things and their code would be incorporated as needed when it it possible. This would allow a major synchronization effort, without stopping the projects for whom feature-based releases work better.

Additionally, I suspect (correct me if you think I am wrong) that most of the projects that are serious about getting mainstream adoption will go with time-based releases, because of its appeal to businesses.

For all these reasons, I think optional OSS synchronization–having the projects that already use time-based releases synchronize while the others remain as they are now–is the best solution to the synchronization question.

Recently the YouTube Ubuntu Developer Channel has been launched. The channel currently has four videos from the Ubuntu Developer Summit (UDS) that is going on this week. The videos interview various people involved with Ubuntu and discuss that person’s views, what the person does, and what the person sees in the future of Ubuntu. I don’t know where the idea for this came from, but I think it is a great idea. It gives people a chance to get an idea of what is going on in Canonical and Ubuntu and to get some idea who the main Ubuntu developers are.

Because the interviews are with developers, though, they tend to be fairly technical. Because of this, it would be great to have another channel that shows off the best promotional videos for the less technical. The two channels could then link to each other. This would help prevent new users from being intimidated or scared off by the level of technicality, but also let users who wanted to learn more about the developement of Ubuntu see more detail.

Microsoft news related to open-source software is not uncommon. Sometimes it is frustrating. Sometimes annoying. Occasionally it is good. Rarely, though, is it comical.

The Register recently reported this:

The recently appointed head of Microsoft’s global Linux and open source team hopes the company will have a clear and comprehensible open source strategy by 2015.

So as Microsoft realizes that open-source software is becoming a real threat, they respond by saying they will have a real plan to respond in just 7 years. And, if Vista is any evidence, it might be more like 9 years 20 years 1,000 years never.

Seriously Microsoft? Come on. In 7 years when you finally come up with a plan you might be suprised to see how much of your empire has been conquerered by open-source. Then you might have to spend the next 15 years coming up with a new plan.

A lot of focus is put on the Linux desktop. “Is Linux ready for the desktop?” “Will this be the year of the Linux desktop?” “Is the Linux desktop usable by regular people?”  All of this is, generally, asking the same thing. When is Linux finally going to be commonplace on the desktop? The average user’s experience is not all that matters, though. Developers must also be attracted to Linux before it will become commonplace on the desktop.

As shown by a recent Fortune article, Linux already is appealing to the developers, but it is important that Linux becomes not just appealing but irresistible for developers. Why is this so important? Because with developers come applications that have previously been Windows only. As developers switch to Linux, applications that used to be a reason why some could not use Linux as their only OS will become cross-platform or even Linux only.

Look at the Mac. Do you think it would have come as far as it has if Microsoft had not brought Office to the Mac? I don’t. Even though OpenOffice/NeoOffice would probably have worked for many of the people that bought Office for Mac, people are just more comfortable using the exact same application they are used to.

So how can Linux appeal to developers? There are a number of ways that come to mind. Of course, the best thing to do would be to ask a developer, but seeing as I am not a developer here are some ideas:

The most obvious, of course, is to make it easy to develop for Linux. There are other things too, though. Easy application distribution of free and commercial applications through systems like CNR is a definite plus. Also, providing a good introduction to programming on Linux would be helpful for those just switching to Linux.

Because of these sorts of advantages, hopefully more and developers will switch to Linux and bring users along with them.

One of the most common complaints about Ubuntu is that there is just too much orange/brown in the default theme. Although this might seem like a simple matter of changing the theme, it is not.

For one thing, there are also plenty of people who like the default Ubuntu themes (myself included.) More importantly, though, Ubuntu has developed very good branding and marketing and the orange/brown is part of that. Dropping the orange/brown color scheme could even confuse people who associate Ubuntu with orange/brown.

So what can be done about this problem if changing the theme is not an option? A lot. Luckily, some of it has already been done.

I propose leaving the Human theme as the default but including or providing easy access to a small number, no more than 4 or 5, of other themes.

This capability to do this is really already around. Just launch synaptic package manager and install blubuntu-look. Then go to the Appearance windows and switch to Blubuntu. Unfortunately, Blubuntu is not well promoted and should be simpler to install.

This is why I propose creating a place in the Appearance window where one of a few themes can be selected to be installed and used. Of course, third party themes can still be installed, but, hopefully, fewer people will find the need to use a different theme.

So where are these themes going to come from? Well the normal thing to do would be to assign it all the Art Team, but instead I think the Art Team should focus on just the default theme and leave the alternate themes to a competition, as some people have suggested should be done with the default theme.

In order to make the competition more structured, I also think that there should be categories and one theme from each category (the one with the most votes) should be included. The categories don’t have to be specific. For example, there might be a green category, a blue category, a dark category, a plain category, and an other category.

Finally, to make it easier to submit entries, a new function could be added to Ubuntu so that once you had come up with a theme you liked you could easily submit it with the press of a button.

Through this idea, I believe Ubuntu can overcome the color concerns of some people, appeal to more users, and not lose branding and marketing work, all at the same time.

Brilliant Brainstorms is a weekly-ish summary of some of the best brainstorms from the Ubuntu Brainstorm site. In the beginning it may not always come exactly once a week or on the same day, but, if it becomes popular, it should become more regular.

Nautilus, the default file manager in Ubuntu, is fine, but it offers very few innovative features. Bringing more features to Nautilus could really be an advantage over other operating systems.

Since I already suggested this, I, naturally, support this idea. Basically, since voting on features has worked out so well, why not also vote on which bugs should get fixed first?

Another idea I already suggested. Canonical already operates Launchpad, so why not just integrate Brainstorm into it so all projects can use it?

Ubuntu, and many other open-source projects, have tons of translations, but what about people who speak two different languages or who are trying to learn a second language? Enabling an instant language switch would be extremely useful to anyone who speaks two or more languages. In addition, it might even be a benefit to schools with students learning a non-native language.

Although most people will probably never use it, easy encryption is a nice thing to have ready and waiting for the time when it is needed. This would be particularly cool if it was well integrated into Ubuntu so that you could just right-click on a file or folder and choose to encrypt it.

Again, most people might never use it, but a PDF editor is the kind of program that you might randomly find yourself needing at some point.

By far the hardest part of installing Linux has to be partitioning. While I don’t know exactly what the right solution is, there needs to be a solution to make partitioning easier.

Unfortunately, updates in every operating system break things. If an easy way to uninstall updates was provided, people would feel safer installing updates in the first place.

When you finally finish installing your new OS, what do you want to do: use it or wait for it to install updates. It would be better to at least give everyone the option of doing the updates before the install is finished.

I don’t know if this is technically possible, but it would make WiFi card setup much easier if NDISwrapper could be automatically set up.

And finally, one idea I don’t like:

“Get the facts” is the name of a Microsoft advertising thing where they pretend Windows Server is more secure than Red Hat’s server by comparing the number of reported bugs and lots of other illogical arguments for why Windows is better. If Ubuntu starts doing anything like it, I will be extremely surprised and extremely frustrated.  Still, I understand that an advertising campaign promoting Ubuntu is good, just don’t call it “get the facts.”

If you have been following the Linux news as I am sure most of you have been, you probably will have noticed two trends: Linux is taking over mobile devices such as UMPCs and Linux is becoming increasingly well positioned, though Google Android and LiMo, to take over the phone market.

If you have been paying any attention to the Windows news, as I am sure fewer of you have been, you may have seen Microsoft’s announcement a little while ago about Live Mesh. If you don’t know what Live Mesh is, you’re just like the rest of us. I am, quite frankly, not sure if anyone really gets what it is supposed to be. OK, I am sort of joking about no one knowing what Live Mesh is. Part of what makes it so confusing is that Live Mesh is in a very early “tech preview.” Basically, as best I can understand it, Live Mesh is a kind of synchronization tool. The idea appears to be to keep all the devices people use in sync with each other so that you have your files and stuff wherever you go. I am sure people who understand it better would disagree with that level of simplification, but that is how I understand it right now.

So what do these two apparently unrelated pieces of news have to do with each other? Lots. Live Mesh attempts to connect your computer with your phone with all your other devices, but what if your phone and your devices all run Linux, a situation that seems entirely possible by the time Live Mesh really comes out.

This pushes Microsoft into one of two possibilities. Embrace other operating systems or fight them. It is difficult to predict what Microsoft will do if a situation like this comes up. Personally, I believe that choosing to fight would be a mistake, but Microsoft has made similar mistakes before and may do so again.

NPR station WBUR Boston has announced that it will begin streaming content in OGG format. This is great news since now another major organization has embraced open formats.

While the people most excited about this announcement are almost certainly going to be the Linux users, everyone should really be excited about it. For some reason it seems like open formats are Linux community vs. big companies when really it should be everyone vs. big companies. Even a person who loves Windows and hates Linux should support open formats. Think about it. What con is there to open standards? What pro is there for proprietary formats?

There is really no reason why the issue of open formats vs. propriatary formats is only a Linux issue. Hopefully through the work of the FSF and through places like NPR adopting open formats, this will become a bigger issue that gets more attention outside of the Linux community.

Fedora 9 is here and it is one stinky release. (Sorry, stupid joke. Fedora 9 is codenamed Sulfur.) Seriously, Fedora 9 looks anything but stinky. Of course there are plenty of new features in the new release (see here for details), but the one I am really the most excited about is not really even a feature at all.

One of the things the Fedora distribution is best known for is the incredible themes that come with each release. Fedora 6 has the DNA theme, Fedora 7 had the balloon theme, and then Fedora 8 had a much simpler and flatter theme that, in my opinion, was not quite up to the standard of Fedora 6 or 7. It was fine, just as good as most other distributions, and also brought a cool new feature where the background changed based upon the time of day, but I always felt that it was just not quite as great as before. Now, with Fedora 9, I am happy to say that the theme included is once again very impressive. This, perhaps more than anything else, is why I  am planning on playing with Fedora 9 as soon as I can.

As I have not yet had time to install Fedora 9, I don’t have much more to say, but I suspect I will be posting more about it later on.

For a long time the question has been going back and forth: is Asus messing with us and making the Linux version of the Eee PC more expensive than the Windows version? Previously the numbers have all been speculation, but now, finally, we have real numbers to look at!

So now that the Eee PC 900 is out, it should be easy to get to the bottom of this mystery, right? Naturally, no. For some reason, only a few places seem to be selling the Eee PC 900. Worse, those prices are not all the same. Basically I was only able to find three places that sell both the Linux and Windows versions: Buy.com, Newegg, and OnSale. (I also found both at one more place, but from that store both cost more than $600.) So what are the prices?

Eee PC 900 Windows: $550, $550, $595

Eee PC 900 Linux: $590, $550, $550

Groan. It has been so long. Couldn’t you just give us numbers that make sense??? All I can assume is that Asus is really selling both versions for the same price and Buy.com and OnSale are just making one version or the other more expensive for some reason. Especially since Newegg has them both for the same price, I think that is the best assumption.

So in summary, because the Linux version has more storage space, which cancels out the price of Windows, I think Asus, at least in the US, has done the right thing and made them both cost the same so that no advantage is given to either OS. Now I just wish OnSale, Buy.com, and anyone else messing with these prices would just make them both cost the same as they should.  That way, the price advantage of Linux will be clear to all shoppers.