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.

With OpenMoko’s new Freerunner phone now available, Google’s Android scheduled for the end of this year, Symbian becoming open-source, and LiMo phones already entering the market, it looks like the time when a significant portion, perhaps a majority, of smart-phones will be completely open.

Apart from being any Linux/open-source enthusiast’s dream, this will also be a chance to see how much the average smart-phone buyer values an open-platform.

While most users are unlikely to pick a phone because they like the idea of openness, as things play out, the open phones are likely to become the best phones. Instead of being locked down with third-party applications only avaliable from one censored source (*cough* iPhone), applications will be developed and distributed without limitation. Plus, the platform itself will be improved by hundreds or thousands of developers who are coding because they want to, not because they are being paid to. In the end, this is likely to lead to a better platform and, thus, a better phone. Of course, that is just my opinion. With so many open phones entering the market, we will soon get to see what the rest of the world thinks.

This is Linux Loop’s 300th news story.

I can’t say I own an Eee PC, an HP MiniNote, or any UMPC, but all I need to do is read what people say about them and use some common sense to figure out that a full desktop OS is not, as a general rule, a good option for a tiny screen. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to agree.

The VAR Guy is reporting that SuSe Linux Enterprise will be shipped on the MSI Wind, a yet another yet-to-be-released UMPC. I have no problem with Novell, well, ignoring the whole Microsoft patent deal thing, but I just don’t think shipping a full desktop OS on a UMPC is a smart idea, especially when you could just use Ubuntu Netbook Remix or Linpus Linux Lite?

I can sort of understand on a bussiness-y UMPC like the MiniNote, but come on, think about your customers and what software they need. Next time, MSI, choose more UMPC-apropriate software.

Reading this week’s DistroWatch Weekly, I was surprised to see an interesting news story I had, apparently, completely missed. Normally, I try not to write about stories that are more than a couple of days old. But considering how many Linux news sources I read daily and considering I never saw this story, I have to assume that a large portion of you also missed this story, so I am making an exception.

This message on the Debian Eee PC mailing list reveals that Asus and Debian are working together, or at least planning to, on software for the Eee PC. This, presumably, means that future versions of the Eee PC could run a modified version of Debian, rather than a modified version of Xandros, as they currently do. While the end-user interface might be very similar, it seems highly likely that if the Debian project was involved, it might become much easier to install software and do other more complicated tasks, beyond what the current Eee PC’s software allows.

A change like this would, hopefully, make those who are trying to do anything beyond the most basic tasks with the Eee’s default software much happier, while not making the standard interface too complicated.

If the Eee PC does switch to Debian as it’s default OS, it would be a great step forward in making the Eee PC’s default software more attractive to a wider audience.

As you know, I am absolutely against making the same hardware cost the same with two different operating systems that don’t cost the same price. So if you take a given PC or laptop, put a free OS on one version and a commercial OS on the other and charge the same price, that is unfair. You may wonder why I am making such a big deal of the same hardware. Obviously you can’t compare across two different PCs, right? Well, apparently not.

A recent Techworld article is titled “Windows same price as Linux in new Eee PC.” When I read this, I thought “Ugg. Asus is messing with prices again.” Then I read the article.

If you look closely, the end of the second sentence says “although the specs are different.” That makes the story completely different and makes the title very misleading.

Just to make sure I am very clear, there is nothing wrong with selling machines with different priced OSs, if there is a difference in the specs that compensates for the price. Please, no more misleading titles.

Windows and Mac OS X are names from the history of early computing, from back when computers used big, bulky slow OSs. Technically, of course, computers still use OSs, but they are simple, small, fast windows to the cloud, rather than full OSs. What people used to call “web browsers” and now just “computers.” WiMax and other similar technologies blanket the globe, providing high-speed data access everywhere. “Desktops” are no longer used, just tiny pocket or bag-size UMPCs as well as the occasional laptop. Instead of using desktop applications, everyone uses web applications.

All of this could come to be reality in the future, perhaps even the not-so-distant future. Think about it. Web 2.0 applications are already competing with almost every desktop applications you can think of. UMPCs are taking off fast. After all, can you think of a major computer company without a UMPC? Apple, HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, and tons more all have them. And, finally, many of these companies are adopting an instant on Splashtop or Splashtop-like system. The technology is all here. And it runs Linux.

With a device like a UMPC, it is difficult to know what interface to put on it. On one hand, it is really mostly meant for just surfing the internet so a simple interface would seem like a good move. On the other hand, it is also basically just a small laptop, so why not put a standard interface on it? A Washington Post article, however, argues that both of these options are bad options. I agree with this, but if a standard interface is bad and a simple interface is bad, what is good? The answer: Ubuntu Netbook Remix.

The reason Ubuntu’s Netbook Remix is a better option that most is because it blends simplicity with the full Ubuntu. Rather than being stripped down, limited, and un-extendable, Ubuntu Netbook Remix has almost the full Ubuntu underneath it, but has a simple enough interface on top of that. Because of this, when Ubuntu’s Netbook Remix comes out later this year, we may see it really take off and potentially propel non-Eee PC UMPCs to success. Based on this and all the other news that keeps flowing in about Ubuntu Netbook Remix, it looks like the end of this year could be an exciting time for Linux and UMPCs.

When Ubuntu’s Netbook Remix was first announced, Ars Technica mentioned that “No major OEMs have revealed plans to use it yet and Canonical is still actively looking for new partners in the hardware space.” This brought up the potential concern of what if no one really adopts Ubuntu Netbook Remix?

Of course, we can be quite confident that Canonical will figure something out, but for those of you who have been really hoping that the Ubuntu Netbook Remix will be widely adopted, it looks like you can stop holding your breath.

In a blog post today, Mark Shuttleworth said that:

The Canonical OEM team has been approached by a number of OEM’s who want to sell netbooks (small, low-cost laptops with an emphasis on the web) based on Ubuntu.

It is great to see cofirmation that Ubuntu Netbook Remix will almost certainly be adopted and I can’t wait to see what happens when it ships on the first devices.

From the perspective of a Linux user and watcher (and I guess in my case writer, too) of the Linux news, it certainly seems like the Eee PC should be increasing Linux’s number of users, but what do the real numbers show?

Unfortunately, it is very hard to know for sure how many people are using any particular operating system, since there is no way to measure OS usage. Luckily, there is some data available from Net Applications. Net Applications uses the information browsers give to various websites to get an approximate idea of OS market share. Here is what the Net Applications data tells us:

• From March of 2007 to September of 2007 Linux gained about .15% per month
• From September of 2007 to May of 2008 Linux gained about .3-.4% per month, with the exception of January to March where Linux lost .3%

Interestingly, the Eee PC appeared around the beginning of November of 2007, or about 1 month after Linux’s market share started going up by .3-.4% per month.

If the timing of the Eee PC’s arrival had been slightly different (one to two months earlier), it would look like the Eee PC made a huge difference, but since the larger increase started before the Eee PC arrived, it does not appear to be possible to show a connection between the Eee PC (and other Linux-based UMPCs) and Linux’s market share.

This is what I would have predicted, though, if I had been forced to guess. The reason is that Eee PCs can only make up a tiny part of all the computers in the world. Thus, the only reasonable way to expect them to increase Linux’s market share is if they cause people who have good experiences with them or hear about other people having good experiences with them to want to try out Linux on their main computer(s). There are two problems with this, though. First, it takes time for people to get around to downloading Linux and time for them to tell their friends (though it would seem like 6 months would be enough time.) And second, people need to know they are using Linux on their UMPC before they can be inspired to try out Linux on their main PC. With most of the current UMPCs, there is no real way to tell they run Linux (assuming they do.)

Will this improve in the future? Yes, it probably will. For one thing, these UMPCs are going to get more press and, through that press, more and more people will learn that they are actually using Linux already on their UMPC. Perhaps more importantly, though, I am hopeful that we will see more UMPC-specific distros or distro-variants that brand themselves so that it is easy to tell you are using Linux. I am particularly watching Ubuntu’s Netbook Remix, hoping that it will be used as an opportunity to promote Ubuntu.

Even if UMPCs are not yet directly affecting Linux’s market share, they are certainly helping Linux get a good reputation with more people and there is hope that, in the future, UMPCs running Linux will contribute to Linux’s market share noticeably.

Acer appears to be joining the ever-growing list of companies that are backing Linux, a list that currently includes Asus, Dell, HP, and others. Acer has even gone beyond many of the companies on the list by not only announcing a computer of theirs that will run Linux, in Acer’s case the  Aspire One UMPC, but also saying “Microsoft has a lot of power and it is going to be difficult, but we will be working hard to develop the Linux market,” according to CNet.

OK, so it is great to see Acer’s support for Linux, but what does that quote, which is from Acer’s Vice President of Marketing, mean? Although it is hard to be sure it is more than just press, I suspect that it means two things:

1. Acer probably has a bias against Microsoft - “Microsoft has a lot of power” certainly seems to imply that Acer feels pressure from Microsoft to use Windows
2. We will probably see more Acer computers running Linux in the future.

Whatever this quote may mean exactly, it is good to see that Linux has another backer. I just wish the name Acer didn’t sound so much Asus - I have trouble keeping them straight!