Most of you have probably heard of the OpenMoko, a phone that is completely “open” from the software being open-source to the hardware being easily hackable, but many of you may not have heard of two similar recent announcements. First, the Open Graphics Project recently announced that their ODG1 open-source graphics card is now available for developers. The idea behind this card is similar to the idea behind OpenMoko - design a piece of equipment that has fully-documented hardware and runs on completely open-source software. Similarly, VIA has just announced their OpenBook laptop/UMPC. Here VIA has released CAD files of the case-design and, naturally, the laptop is Linux-compatible.

So what does this new “open hardware” mean for the future? I think open hardware has the potential to set a gold standard for Linux-compatible hardware. If you think about it, proprietary drivers seem to cause problems. They cannot, generally, be distributed with the distribution, making out-of-the-box support limited, and when there is a bug we just have to hope the manufacturer fixes it eventually. On the other hand, the Linux community does a great job of making sure that hardware with open-source drivers works really well out of the box or with just a few clicks. So, logically, when a device, be it a laptop or a graphics card or a phone or anything, is completely open, it should work incredibly well with Linux. My hope is that, eventually, it will be possible to use only “open” hardware and avoid any company that does not fully support Linux and open-source. Then other hardware manufacturers will be forced to either create their own open hardware or ignore Linux users, something that is getting harder and harder to do.

If this open hardware trend continues, it will set a gold standard for Linux support that other hardware makers will have to meet.

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.

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.

Due to Adobe’s AIR, a technology that lets web applications be run on the desktop on Linux, Mac, or Windows, it seemed like Adobe was headed in the direction of platform independence. Now, Adobe has made those plans official with their Open Screen Project.

I view the project, which is intended to bring Flash and Air to everything from TVs to PCs to handheld devices and UMPCs, as an official statement from Adobe (and a number of other prominent companies that are also involved) that they believe, as I do, that cross-platform internet-connected applications are the future. Because Adobe is seeing this so early, they will likely become a great supporter of Linux, even if they don’t try to.

As cross-platform applications start to take off, thanks to AIR and other similar projects, the barrier to adopting Linux is going to shrink and quickly disappear. At that point, I think we will begin to see more and more switchers to Linux and other smaller operating systems.

Because of this, Adobe is going to play an essential part in destroying a key barrier to the adoption of Linux.

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.