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!

Recently, an article appeared on OSWeekly titled “Everex: The Dell of the Linux World.” The article makes a good point that Everex could be what Dell should have been for Linux, but based on their products so far, I am skeptical that they will succeed.

Right now, what they seem to be is what Dell is now. Full of potential, but so far from meeting that potential. Dell’s big mistake, in my opinion, is mostly not publicizing their Linux computers enough on their site. Even if you are looking for Dell’s Linux PCs, it can be difficult to find them. Everex has not made this mistake in particular, but they have made other mistakes.

Their first Linux computer, that I am aware of, was the gPC. The gPC was an inexpensive desktop PC ($200). Unfortunatly, it had two major problems. First, the software (Everex’s gOS) seemed to have lots of issues. Second, and not the fault of the gPC really, many reviews criticized the minimal hardware.

Next, Everex introduced the Cloudbook. From what I can tell, it was a fine Eee PC competitor, but it never managed to get the hype around it that the Eee PC had and still has.

Most recently, Everex has introduced a Mac Mini-ish computer for MySpace users. I think the idea of targeting a small niche is a good idea, but making your computer look like a beige CD drive from 10 years ago is not a good idea. Also, including a DVI port (mostly used on fancy monitors) instead of a VGA port (used on almost all monitors) is not smart, especially in a low-end PC.

So basically, Everex has a lot of potential, but they keep messing small things up and never really meeting their potential. What can Everex do to fix this, though? Below are some of the things I would do to change Everex if I was in charge.

1. Leave gOS behind and use Ubuntu. There are a number of reasons for making this change. For one thing, it would generate a lot of good press and get Ubuntu fans excited. Another advantage is that Everex’s products would no longer be plagued by small bugs that seemed to be a lot of the downfall of the gPC.
2. Instead of taking a lesson from Apple’s software, take a lesson from Apple’s hardware. Recently, Everex has been modeling gOS after Apple’s OSX in many ways. Instead of doing this, since they would be using Ubuntu, learn from Apple’s hardware. Apple is, after all, very good at making a box look pretty and Everex is a hardware company.
3. Consider dropping Windows completely. Without seeing Everex’s sales figures, it is impossible to know if this is even realistic at all, but a well timed dropping of all Windows computers could really bring the attention back to Everex. Imagine that a few months after introducing some new Linux PCs, Everex dropped their Windows PCs completely. It would excite people and bring the hype back to Everex.
4. Don’t make small, but important, mistakes that could easily be prevented. For example, don’t put a DVI port on a low-end PC. It is like saying here is a low-end computer that only works with an expensive monitor. It makes no sense.

Whatever Everex does, I hope they correct some of the problems they have had in the past and start producing great Linux PCs.

HP has announced the rumored HP 2133 Mini-Note PC, a UMPC that runs SuSe Linux or Windows Vista, according to Reg Hardware and HP’s press release. Not much new has been discovered, since almost all the specifications were leaked. For anyone who did not see the leaked specifications, the basic specs of the HP 2133 are 7/9in screen, VIA C7-M processor, 5GB solid state or a hard drive, up to 2GB of RAM, weighs just over 2.5 pounds, and costs around $500.

The most interesting thing about the HP 2133, however, is not the specifications, but how HP decided to target it. Because of the slightly more premium specifications, more professional look, and slightly higher price, I would have expected it to be targeted at a higher end market than the Eee PC. HP is going to sell it to business people (and presumably individuals), but they are also targeting education.

This seems odd to me, since the Eee PC seems so much better suited to the task. HP notes that the 2133 “is smaller and lighter than many math or science books,” but the Eee PC is even lighter. In addition, the Eee PC is also less expensive by at least $100, which makes a big difference when you are buying 1,000 for all the kids in your school. Also, the Eee PC has an interface designed to be simple and intuitive. So why would to choose the HP 2133 instead of the Eee PC for eduction? I don’t know.

It would seem as though there is little left to do in the world of word processing and office suites but fix bugs, ensure compatibility, and add tiny little new features to advanced features no one uses. That is not necessarily true, though.

Imaging you had only ever used a browser that browsed the internet and did nothing else. What else is there to add to that browser, you would think? But, now, if you had a browser that did nothing but browse the web, it would seem like a feature-free browser and you would switch right back to Firefox will all your extensions. The same thing could happen in office suites.

If you have not already figured it out, what I am saying is that extensions are likely to be the next big innovation (or copied innovation from browsers) in office suites. (After all, OpenOffice is already starting to put more focus on extensions.)

It is easy to think “oh yeah, extensions will be great,” but what kind of extensions would you really use in an office suite? Well, for one thing, there are always the time-wasting extensions. You could have RSS feeds, or a media player, or whatever just to waste time have fun. On the more useful side of things, you could have an extension that looks up words on some website and displays the result right inside the office suite. Another example would be an extension that could pull in data, such as stock prices, from a web site.

If extensions do take off, it will give OpenOffice another advantage over Office. Since OpenOffice is already moving in the direction of extensions and Microsoft is often slow to implement new features, it seems almost certain that OpenOffice will get a boost over Office from really supporting extensions. This is turn would give Linux a boost, because the more people who like OpenOffice, the more people who don’t have to worry about Office not existing for Linux.

Ever since Dell announced it would start selling Ubuntu computers, Linux people have been urging everyone to support Dell and buy a Dell Ubuntu PC whenever they need a new computer. Most recently, a Linux Journal article concluded “not only should readers of Linux Journal try to buy systems from Dell and other companies that are offering ready-configured GNU/Linux systems, but we should encourage others to do the same.” To be fair, the conclusion is “buy systems from Dell and other companies,” not just Dell, but still I cannot fully agree.

I am not trying to say that what Dell is doing is bad in any way, but it is just not up to the standards of smaller vendors such as System 76 and ZaReason. Dell hides their Linux systems so well that it can be hard to find them even if you are looking for them. The chances of someone not already familiar with Linux finding the page are very low. Plus, even if you do find the page, you’re first presented with a page that essentially directs new users back to Windows.

I suppose I can understand Dell’s concern. People expecting Windows and getting something else could be a tech support nightmare. Because I understand why Dell does what they do, I am not suggesting you not buy from Dell, but it seems like the spotlight should be put on smaller companies truly promoting Linux, not the huge giant that is still a little scarred of Linux.

Instead of buying OLPCs or Classmate PCs, one community in Brazil is looking at their own solution to bring technology into their schools (using Linux of course). Their solution is a touchscreen desktop computer, according to CNet. At around $550 and lacking the mobility of the OLPC, it is not, however, clear if this new solution is really better.

The only real advantage this solution has over the OLPC (or similar inexpensive UMPCs) is the screen, which is both bigger and a touch screen. On the other hand, the OLPC is much cheaper and is very mobile, so children can take it home and use it there, allowing a student to continue to learn, explore, and figure out how the technology works. Given the benefits and disadvantages of each, which one is the best?

First of all, in some situations the touchscreen solution may not be an option at all, due to the price. If you have over a million kids to provide with a computer, spending $350 more per kid is a big deal.

Even if the touchscreen solution is an option, is it really the best option? At first the touchscreen seems like a real advantage, but what can a touchscreen do that a regular mouse and keyboard cannot (other than look cool?) (It appears there is also a keyboard, so typing is not an issue.)

Overall, allowing students to continue their learning and exploration at home at their own pace seems to be more important than providing a touchscreen at school and saving $350 just makes UMPCs like the OLPC even more attractive.

To be fair, the CNet article does make it clear that the people behind the touchscreen idea do not think this would work anywhere and there is also the advantage that most of the money goes into the Brazilian economy. Still, I am a little skeptical of this idea.

By now, everyone has heard of the XO laptop (better known as the $100 laptop that costs $200) and the Eee PC. Both are examples of inexpensive ultra-mobile computers that run Linux. Although they both serve different purposes, they are technically similar in many ways. Another interesting aspect of these laptops (or at least the XO laptop) is that Microsoft is scared of them, and with good reason. The market for these inexpensive UMPCs is growing and already some of the best known devices run Linux. Right now, Linux has some significant advantages for use on this new class of computer including ease of customization, price, and minimal hardware requirements. On June 30, the minimal requirements argument will become even more compelling.

When June 30th comes, Microsoft will stop selling Windows XP. This leaves UMPC makers in a difficult position. Not only does Vista have all the problems of XP mentioned above, but it also requires even more expensive hardware. When you are trying to bring the price down to around $400 or even less, every dollar you can save on hardware is important and by discontinuing XP, Microsoft is increasing the gap between Linux and Windows in how much money must be spent on hardware. In this way, Microsoft is hitting themselves on the head in a market where they are already losing and they very much want to win.

Following Sun’s recent purchase of another open-source company, MySQL, Sun has just bought Innotek, according to Information Week. Innotek is the supporting company behind the VirtualBox virtualization software, which is distributed in both open-source and proprietary versions. VirtualBox emerged as a frequently used virtualization product quite recently, but it already has features that compete with larger proprietary-only companies.

Although it is impossible to know for sure, this acquisition seems likely to be a good thing for the development of VirtualBox. Sun has previously shown their awareness of open-source software with their support of Open Office and there is no reason to believe they will do anything other than put more resources into the development of both versions of VirtualBox. Although it seems unlikely that there will be any very noticeable changes to VirtualBox in the near future, in the long term this acquisition should be good for VirtualBox.

After many of the Linux expos/conventions/meetings/whatever people point out that there seem to be a lot of Macs. So the first question is why do Linux people buy Macs? While, I think few people would dispute that Apples is really good at design. When you look at a standard Dell computer and a MacBook, the MacBook looks way, way better. There are a few other small reasons a Linux geek might use a Mac, such as already owning one, but I doubt that sort of thing is really the explanation for all the Macs.

This reasoning might seem a little counterinuitive at first. Who would think that Linux geeks would care about having their laptops look pretty? Really, though, this is not anything new. Compiz Fusion is, while also in some ways being useful, largely about looking cool. When openSuse came out with a pretty installer, it made news. Ubuntu’s new theme for 8.04 (now cancelled) got a lot of attention. All this points to one thing: Linux geeks really do care about how their computers look.

This still leaves the question of why Macs? Surely there are other companies that make cool looking laptops right? While… I guess there is Alienware, but they are on a fine line between “cool” and “just wierd,” so who makes laptops to rival the design of the MacBook and MacBook Pro? As far as I know of, not really anyone. I am sure there are companies out there trying to compete with Apple’s designs, but they don’t seem to be doing so well since Apple is still considered the king of design.

We already have companies like System76 and ZaReason making Linux-based computers, but why doesn’t one of these companies try more for style. Sure it might require more initial investment, but don’t you think a laptop designed to rival Apple’s designs would attract customers?

A recent Linux.com article related the experience of its author in setting up Ubuntu for his mother.  A subsequent post on The Open Road responded to this article by saying that anything that requires an explanation of how it worked out is too complicated and that Linux sacrifices usability for control. The author of this post also made a comparison with his own experience having his family members switch to the Mac. While I agree that setting up Ubuntu was somewhat complicated, the author of the post does not seem to understand that the same project would have been much harder, if not impossible, if Windows had been used.

The most obvious issue complicating the Linux.com author’s project was that the computer was built from spare parts the author happened to have lying around. This can potentially complicate the project in a number of ways (trying to find drivers, not good enough specs,) but neither of these issues were really the problem. I do not know what exactly would have happened if Windows had been installed on a computer like this, but I can tell you that Vista would not have worked. Once XP is discontinued, Linux will become the only option for old computers.

Another problem from recycling old parts is that you have to install the OS yourself. The author of the post seems to think that installing Windows or OS X is easy compared to installing Linux, but he is really comparing having the OS pre-installed (with Windows or OS X) to having to install the OS oneself. A computer novice will not want to install the OS himself no matter what OS it is, and if you are looking for a computer with an OS pre-installed, there are multiple Linux choices for around $200. (Side note: I have installed Ubuntu, Windows XP, and Windows Vista and I can tell you that none of them are “hard” to install, but I find that Ubuntu is the least painful, since, at least in my experience, it takes the least time.)

After the OS was installed, all that was left to do was customize the interface to be more familiar and install applications that were similar to Windows applications. When you install an OS, you almost always have to install applications and this would be the same on any OS. In fact, in Ubuntu you have a lot more applications available out of the box, reducing the chance you have to install more applications.

The other customization the Linux.com author made was to remove the top panel and customize the bottom one to make it seem more like Windows. To do something like this on Linux, you just have to do some right clicking and drag and dropping. To do this on Windows, you need commercial software. To do this on OS X, well… can you do anything like that on OS X?

While Linux might not have gotten everything perfectly out of the box, compared to what you would have to do to make Windows or OS X work in this situation, it was really quite easy.