Recently there has been some discussion of operating systems becoming irrelevant as applications and data move to the web. This begs the questions of (a) are operating systems becoming irrelevant and (b) how can Linux stay relevant?

First of all, operating systems can never become completely irrelevant unless computers become irrelevant, because you need an operating system to make a computer work. They can, however, get to a point where they are so generic that it does not matter what operating system you use. I don’t think that even that will happen, though.

What will, quite likely, happen, though, is that operating systems as managers of many applications will be transformed into operating systems as web browsers. Does that mean the end of innovation in the OS? No, not at all. It does mean that open-source operating systems, such as Linux, will have an advantage due to Firefox (and/or Firefox-based browsers such as Flock) being both open-source and currently, I would say, the most innovating browser(s). Plus, you can take some of Linux’s features, such as multiple desktops, and apply them to the web browser.

So operating systems are not going to become irrelevant, but they are going to change a lot and when that change occurs, Linux is quite likely to turn out on top.

Brilliant Brainstorms is a weekly summary of some of the best/most interesting brainstorms from the Ubuntu Brainstorm site.

Media with DRM (Digital Rights Management) from a source such as iTunes is unlikely to play in other media players, on Linux or on any OS, so to avoid confusion and promote DRM-free media, it would be a good idea to put a small warning next to DRMed media.
Whatever you think about Windows, a lot of people know to press CTRL+ALT+DELETE when something freezes. Just making this shortcut open up GNOME System Monitor (or an equivalent application for KDE), would make a lot of new users more comfortable.
Sometimes it is necessary to modify files outside of your home folder. Often, you currently have to do this from the terminal, or at least change permission from the terminal such that you can modify files from nautilus. It would be much better if you could press a button, enter a password, and have an instance of nautilus with root permissions (essentially the result of “sudo nautilus”.)
Normally, I would be against including a piece of beta or RC software in a final release, but OpenOffice 3.0 introduces a very important feature - support for Microsoft’s new formats. For that one feature alone, I think it would be a mistake to delay OpenOffice 3 for another 6 months.
A place like labs.ubuntu.com would let everyone see the cool and innovative projects going on that might become part of a future release. This would help everyone see the future of Ubuntu.
Suppose a newbie was trying to figure out how to install some piece of software. They might find malicious instructions that told them how to add a malicious repository and, thus, the newbie might accidentally get a piece of malware instead of the program they were looking for. If, though, when they went to add the repo, they were warned that that repo was know to be malicious, they might go look for better instructions.

We are in an exciting time for technology and cloud computing. While web applications are not yet replacing desktop applications on a large scale, web applications that are capable of competing with their desktop counterparts are appearing on an almost daily basis. Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all moving, some faster than others, to the cloud along with hundreds of smaller startups. Right now we are seeing the future of computing - cloud computing.

Looking into the future, I see two main possibilities. Either a large company will dominate the web applications market, much like Microsoft currently dominates the desktop, or there will be a set of open standards that let every application compete on a level playing field and talk to every other application.

If one dominant company emerges, there may be some third party developers creating web applications under the dominating company’s rules and there may be some smaller companies trying to compete with the dominating company, but essentially one company will have a monopoly. If, on the other hand, we get a well-established set of standards for web application to interact and communicate, there will be hundreds or thousands of applications by different companies fiercely competing with each other. Obviously a set of open standards would be far, far better. If there is going to be an established set of standards, though, those standards need to be created very soon.

Right now, no one company dominates the web application market, but before long, that may change. Now is the time for someone to establish a set of open standards for web applications to interoperate.

Recently, I read an article describing some of the things people say about the author’s Ubuntu laptop. The post described the funniest quotes, not the most popular, but I was still interested to see that many people seemed to think that the Ubuntu laptop was running Mac OS X or a new version of Windows. While this is not all that surprising, since many people have never heard of Linux, it is unfortunate that people might see cool effects on someone’s Linux laptop and attribute it to OS X or Windows.

Luckily, there is a simple solution: just add an Ubuntu logo to the wallpaper. Though some might dislike having too much branding on their otherwise clean background, the logo could be integrated into the wallpaper such that it was not annoying. Additionally, there could be an alternative wallpaper without the logo. Plus, lots of other distros already have branding on their wallpapers.

Having some sort of simple Ubuntu logo on the Ubuntu wallpaper might help the less tech-savvy to correctly attribute anything that they like, or dislike, about an Ubuntu laptop and would help get Ubuntu’s name out there.

A little while ago I did a tutorial on upgrading to Flash Player 10 Beta. I still recommend most Linux users do this, since it fixes a problem with drop down menus disappearing behind Flash content, however I noticed one issue today. The issue is, in fact, quite funny. When clicking on a CNN.com video, I was presented with this error message (I am on Ubuntu running Firefox 3 with Flash Player 10 Beta):

Interesting error message...

Hmmm… “This CNN.com feature is optimized for Adobe Flash Player version 8 or higher. You are currently using Flash Player 10″

Last time I checked 10 was greater than 8. Anyway, for anyone who watches lots of CNN videos, don’t upgrade to Flash Player 10 quite yet. If you already upgraded, don’t worry. Just install an older version like you would install version 10 beta and you should be fine again.

I checked most of the other major news sites and they seem to all be fine with Flash Player 10 beta.

I have always been a big fan of web (or cloud) applications, because they make it easy to switch freely between computers and between platforms. With web applications, your applications don’t tie you to any platform, leaving you free to choose whichever platform suits you best. Recently, though, a Linux.com article and a post on a Clipperz blog got me thinking about how open-source and the cloud go together, or don’t go together.

As I first began to think about it, it seems putting the two (open source and web applications) together would be a challenge, but I soon realized that they are, in fact, a natural fit for each other.

Perhaps the best example of open-sourcing a web application is Reddit, which recently open-sourced all of their code. The biggest argument against open-sourcing code with an application like Reddit is that everyone can copy what you have done. That is true, but anything based on, for example, the Reddit code must be released back as open-source, assuming the original code was released under a GPL-like license that requires this. So for an application (if you call it an application) like Reddit, open-sourcing seems to make a lot of sense. This basic logic can also be applied to most other more traditional web applications, such as word processors.

In the case of partially or fully businesses-oriented web application, a further step could be taken by selling a subscription update service for businesses that wanted to host the application themselves.

You could pretty much summarize the last two paragraphs by saying that the arguments for open source in web applications are essentially the same as the arguments for open source in traditional applications, but there is one more (or at least one more) reason for open-sourcing web applications:

One frequent concern with web applications is privacy. How do I know that Google is not reading everything I make in Google Docs? Done correctly, it should be completely possible to encrypt the data before it leaves the client’s computer such that Google (or <insert name of web application company>) cannot possibly read it. Even if a web application provider claims they have done this, though, how do you know for sure? The answer is that you really cannot - unless the application is open source. If it is open source, tech-savvy people will almost certainly go through the code and ensure that your data is safe, but if the application is closed source, you just have to trust the company.

So for these reasons, I see the aruments for open source in the cloud as even stronger than the arguments for open source on the desktop. I just hope that the web application developers agree.

Like it or not, one of the most important features of any Microsoft Office alternative is being able to read Microsoft Office files. With the recently released OpenOffice 3.0 Beta adding support for importing Office 2007 (AKA OOXML, AKA .docx) files, I decided to test how it would handle files created in Microsoft Office 2007 saved in both .doc (the older version) and .docx (Microsoft’s new format.)

To do the test, I used three different files, one with basic formatting (highlighting, font size, bold, italics, underline, etc.), one with changes tracked, and one with charts and pictures and that sort of thing. Each file was also saved both in .doc and .docx. Overall, particularly for a beta, I was very impressed with how OpenOffice handled the files. As you might expect, there are really no deal-breakers on the .doc side. On the .docx side, there are, unfortunately, some, but these will, hopefully, be resolved soon. (Keep in mind, this is still a beta version.)

Problems I noticed with .doc (older, but still the most common) files:

• Formatting changes did not appear to import correctly. For example, if you are tracking changes in Office and you make a piece of text bold, the text will be bold in OpenOffice, but there will be no indication that that is a change.
• Bullets do not always display correctly. For example, in Office there might be a little check mark for a bullet, but in OpenOffice that check mark might be replaced by a box.

Problems I noticed in .docx (newer, but not widely adopted yet) files:

• Text does not always wrap to the next line at the same point. For example, if a line ended with the word “cat” in Office, it might end with a different word in OpenOffice.
• Changes are not correctly imported. For example, if you had changes tracked in Office, they do not show up in OpenOffice. Comments are there, but there are weirdly inserted into the body of the document and totally mess up the formatting. Hopefully this is just a bug in the beta.
• Word Art, charts, and elements of shapes do not work correctly/at all. For example, Word Art, shapes, charts, and other similar objects may not show up correctly or at all in OpenOffice.
• Bullets do not always display correctly. See above.

Yes, there are still some issues, particularly in the .docx format, but these may well be resolved before even 3.0 is shipped. To put things in perspective, I will be following this up with a look at how Office handles ODF files. Oh wait, I guess I will have to wait until 2009 to do that. At least they are doing it.

Today I saw the news that Cirgon is shipping a Fedora-based HTPC. I was glad to see the news, but, unfortunately, I was not impressed by the implementation.

Ideally, a Linux-baed HTPC could be a killer product. It would be a small, inexpensive, low-power computer (all of which Linux is very good at) that you would place under your TV. Most people would buy it for its ability to stream/play music, videos, and photos. Perhaps it would also have some TV functionallity. This alone would be pretty cool, but if you just add WiFi, and ethernet port, and a little software, this device could hook up to the internet and let you surf the web, watch YouTube videos, and, perhaps best of all, play Hulu TV shows and movies. A device like this, at least in my opinion, would be incredibly attractive.

In addition, since it would really just be a customized computer, you could easily make desktop functionality such as a web browser and office software available. If you are thinking “who would ever use their TV like a computer?” you have probably never tried it. It is really useful/entertaining to be able to look something up quickly and, better yet, be able to show people something without everyone having to stare at a small laptop screen. People might not buy the device for its computer-like abilities, but they would probably find them useful in the long term.

Once people get used to doing computer-like tasks on their Linux-based HTPC, they might even try out Linux on their regular desktop. My point is, a Linux HTPC could be really great. Unfortunately, the Cirgon device, called the Encore Media Server, didn’t quite do as well as it could have.

First, the $2000 price point. How is this $2000? I can’t figure it out. If you can, please leave a comment. Second, there is no WiFi and, presumably, no web browser. Great.

So when I saw the headline, I was excited, but after look closer, I looks like nothing more than some random box that a few people might buy. Oh well. Perhaps I am missing some hidden perk, but I doubt it.

Brilliant Brainstorms is a weekly-ish summary of some of the best/most interesting brainstorms from the Ubuntu Brainstorm site.

In order to promote sharing of really cool themes and to help anyone who likes to switch between a couple of different themes, it would be great to include an easy way to save a complete theme.
An easy way to provide some choice of theme would be to simply keep the old theme as an option for anyone that wants it. Eventually, a reasonable collection of themes could be available, just by including the old themes.
In the case of root applications and Wine applications, the theme on them often does not blend in well with the system. It would look much better if there was a theme for those applications that made them blend in, possibly with some indication that they were WINE/root apps.
When your screen is “locked,” either manually or by the screensaver, you just see a grey login box. Instead, it would be much better if the box was themed to match the rest of the system.
If you can have themes for your windows, why not for sounds, too? Now you can switch between lots of different annoying sounds. Can I have a “silent” theme?

The Ubuntu Eee project has just announced they will be selling SD cards pre-loaded with the latest version of Eee Ubuntu. This SD card can then be inserted into the Eee PC and you can run Eee Ubuntu right off of it. This is a great idea, but it would be even better if the cards were sold in stores along with the Eee PC.  Imagine this scenario:

A user walks into a store (or goes to an online store) to buy an Eee PC. They look at the options available and choose the model they want and then see that they can get either Windows or Linux on it. Familiar with Windows, and having never heard of Linux, they decide to go the “safe” way and pay the extra money for the Windows version. One more potential Linux user never gets to try Linux.

Now imagine that before that user walked out of the store with their new Windows Eee PC, they noticed a $40-50 little card that would let them easily switch between Windows and Linux on their new Eee PC. There might even be a discount if you bought both the Eee and the card together. Now a user who is curious about Linux, but does not want to risk trying something new can easily try Linux and decide which OS they prefer.

With this card, anyone can now try out Linux on their Eee PCs without any technical knowledge. I just hope that some company recognizes this good idea and helps get these cards on store shelves.