probably will just get misquote

So it looks as if "You Didn't Build that" is going to go down as one of the often misquoted statements. Just like "I invented the internet".

Even though it wasn't his intent I go the extra step to say yes you didn't build it. You were a major factor in its success but nonetheless used the infrastructure for logistics. You leveraged the education system for your own skills and were inspired by a teacher. That same education helped the people you hire acquire the skills that you utilize to make your business grow. The FAA helps maintain the air traffic so goods make it their destination on time and intact. The government projects which lead to the legislation that formed and created the internet gave businesses a closer and more direct contact with their customers. Your business lives in relative safety from fire. The business is safe from theft and degradation. Even your ability to conduct business in a fair and equal manor is something we all pay for. We pay for these to establish a firm foundation so that all can attain success. We do this so that future generations can acquire the same thing. We do this for the common good.

Despite all that there are some who, through their means from having a successful business, lobby to remove any burden of repayment of these services. I cant say this is all who do this. there are some who realize that they have success because of the group as a whole. Even if its not the whole reason for their success its at least a part. I want to tell those who appreciate that fact, that we appreciate you. For the rest take it back a notch and remember we all contribute to each others success. I feel my success even just someone who isn't an entrepreneur is partly due to you. I freely give you credit at least in part. We all succeed in part with help from everyone else.

Microsoft's Claims on Open Source

Somewhat recently Microsoft came forth to claim that Linux infringed on 235 patents that Microsoft owns. The validity of these claims depends on whether its willing to disclose those claims. According to Microsoft they do not wish to sue but to make licensing for the infringing patents. Anyone who doesn't see that its like blackmail without proof of the offensive behavior that someone is claiming to have seen you do. Granted when is IBM and others going to start a licensing program to have Microsoft pay up for that its infringing on. Microsoft can't be the only one who doesn't infringe on patents. Linus Torlvolds stated something to that fact in the last few days about how Microsoft needs to publicly disclose its claims for any amount of validity. further more they need to open their source to show that they themselves haven't infringed on age old patents. This is the only way that Microsoft's claims will be taken seriously. It should be pointed out that patents usually have a few requirements two of which I will get into for the purpose of this post. One requirement is that the patent in question not be obvious. For example a patent for jumping, people have been doing that for years and its a natural thought to jump. Second requirement I will mention is that there not be an occasion of prior art. Which basically means that if someone did it before and its published or there is proof then you can't patent it. Of course jumping is a good example of this as well because of all the people that jump and have proof in some way. Double click patent is one of the most infamous of such patents that should never have been granted. On both of those requirements I mentioned it fails miserably but its still a patent, owned by Microsoft in case you didn't know. Microsoft has been bullying people in this fashion for quite sometime and frankly people are tired of it. This is such a transparent attempt at keeping it's stake as a industry leader. Which is starting to fail before it began. For once in the history of Microsoft they are running scared. No more are they the sole leader that sets all the trends. Its become a more fair environment. There are those now willing to oppose Microsoft in its dealing without fear of repercussion. Dell is one who has started to oppose but needs to get off the ground by not bowing to the will of Microsoft. Recently they announced that they were going to offer Ubuntu pre-loaded PC's and not but a week or so later Microsoft was announcing at a Dell press conference that Dell and Microsoft were offering Linux Certificates for Suse Server environment in a partnership. Dell needed to just say no and start the trend of bucking the system so that maybe people will get their choice of environment they run specific to their needs. Maybe its time for Microsoft to become competitive in markets it doesn't dominate like every other company. If Steve Ballmer doesn't take Microsoft back to the basics of making good software they will flounder and die. If they don't stop with the ridiculous claims so as to try to get a strangle hold on the industry Companies will grow tired, drop Microsoft all together and call their bluff. One last thing I will say to Ballmer and Gutierrez is to put up or shut up, be open about the claims or stop making them not one is amused any longer.

Viability to Dell's option of Linux

For once an OEM has decided to offer Linux to users on a pre-built computer. There have been many debates and arguments on why windows is the better choice to cram down the consumers throats. On the idea storm site I witnessed every argument to why this would be bad. None of which had any validity.

First of which was that Users wont buy it if they haven't heard of Linux. Duh, of course but thats not who Dell is trying to cater to! They are trying to cater to well, me. Or more the point Users like me. Dell sees numbers in the amount of people willing to either use Linux or try Linux. Michael Dell himself uses Linux. So its no surprise that an OEM is finally willing to try out letting users decide on trying Linux or using it period to sell computers.

Second argument I saw was that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. This is true in only one respect that there wasn't an OEM that was willing to take the chance of hurting their position with Microsoft over installing an OS besides windows. If windows hadn't spent so many years being pre-installed it would be considered in the same manor as the current state of Linux. Linux has made great strides to make a move to get the credit it deserves. I wont say that Linux is windows, that just simply isn't true. But Linux is getting better and needs to be given the chance to be offered by an OEM. Some of the same reasons that people argue that Linux isn't ready obviously don't remember that windows wasn't in the greatest shape in it's beginning either. Really I can honestly say that people have forgotten what a hassle every Windows edition was until XP. The main thing that makes Linux so difficult is its not Windows. When you are used to an environment its hard to learn the new environment. Linux has its challenges but not ready for the desktop, hardly.

Lastly I have read the comments about distro choice. This is such and old argument its silly. I can understand that everyone has their favorite but its simply about numbers. Dell has a responsibility to customers to provide support. They opted for Ubuntu because of the level of support that its community offers and what Canonical offers itself. Other distro's haven't given support the kind of attention that Ubuntu has. I do mean of course commercial distro's. Dell in its responsibility isn't going to count on Suse or Red Hat to provide support for Newbie users. And community supported distro's don't have the reputation to sway a company to adopt it either. Ubuntu is rare in that its able to offer both a huge community support and even enough commercial support to be viable to use.

Linux has been ready for sometime to be a pre-installed option regardless of whether your grandmother can use it or if its a more tech savvy crowd. basically it amounts to whether it will be supported and supported well. There is not a reason you cant buy a Linux system for your grandmother her get the same usage from it that she would from windows. There has been the consumer presence to validate it but it needed to be reciprocal from the hardware, software manufacturers. There will always be the dissenters in the crowd who wish to see a truly open system and not be in the mainstream but that is the beauty of the choice you get with Linux. There can be the Linux for everyone and the Linux for one. I for one appreciate Dell's Choice in letting some of us who want either a pre-built system or a system that you can't build yourself like a laptop have an OS of our choice. Not having a choice is against the US way of consumerism and competition.

Linux on the Desktop

I read a comment today that Linux was not ready for the desktop for excluding two users. I take issue with that statement because of the reasons I plan to talk about. whether you agree or not about Linux being ready for the desktop here are two points where it has been ready or it wasn't Linux that missed the mark.

The first was gamers that according to the poster were excluded. Its not that gamers have been excluded its that Linux has been excluded from the gamers arena. The majority of games released today are written to take advantage of Direct X. Direct X is basically a set of libraries of common procedures and functions to make graphical programming easier. Linux has its own equivalent called openGL that is used in more places than what games are ported to Linux. However there are some companies that release games for Linux. ID software has for years released its games in Windows Mac and Linux. The makers of the Unreal Tournament series have also done this. But large companies like the one that produced the Medal of Honor and Call of Duty series just don't care to port and use DirectX so heavily they probably can't easily. I play only games I can get that are open source or have been ported to Linux exclusively. There is another option, though I feel its a waste of time, is that you can play using Cadega. Cadega came on the scene a few years ago and mostly works. Its a Wine implementation with Direct X extensions. I feel that this gives these companies an opt out to not port when the Linux user base has grown exponentially. It needs to be said there is a community of Open Source gamers developing their own games and I will say very good games to match what is available in Windows only genres. I found this site to be very intuitive in finding games and testing them out for others to discover. Just like now there are gaming communities solely around consoles or soley around PC gaming there is this developing community that shouldn't be taken for granted. Gaming is on the move in Linux due to that community. I feel even though Gaming has taken a back seat in Linux due to corporate greed doesn't mean you cant be a gamer in Linux.

Second argument I witnessed was that graphic designers were being left out. Again this is a false hood. I see several Indy sort of folks doing graphic design in Linux. I will state that Gimp may not be all that Photoshop is but it is possible to use Gimp in the same capacity. This has also been another example of a company not wishing to take the chance to port their product to Linux. Adobe barely developed a Flash browser plug in for Firefox for its newest version of Flash. None of their products they make money off of have been ported. Which is a shame for them because there is a growing segment of graphic designers that started in a windows environment to do their work that have recently discovered Linux. Photoshop has because this standard but hasn't been ported to Linux. Sounds like Adobe is in danger of losing its market share one day for its shortsightedness.

I cant state that I believe that Linux is ready for the desktop but don't state its Linux that leaves out certain people because I know better. Its certain companies that have left out Linux that people are left out in the process. Linux has been the red-headed step child for so long that companies are finally getting the picture that there are users that want software for Linux. They are also realizing that those people don't want windows. Unless the governments of the world make Linux illegal companies better get used to it being around. Dell is finally giving lip service to pre-loading Linux on their PC's and some others might as well. The problem with those naysayers who state that Linux is not ready for the desktop or that the Linux Desktop is a myth are purely wrong. I have used Linux as my primary desktop for a couple of years now. We will see where all of this goes but for now I like Linux and use it everywhere I can.

Government Use of DRM

A debate over whether it is appropriate to allow governments to use proprietary DRM standards. For example Norway's government is using them from Microsoft for a video streaming technology. Of course an Microsoft employee thinks it appalling that people think its wrong. Here is my take on it. What this proprietary format does is limit choice and stifle innovation. For one thing people who choose Linux are impeded from viewing the videos. Secondly those who write software to view video content are blocked from creating players to view the video. For the blogger employee from Microsoft, you should know that blocking content to all but Microsoft customers is the part that is immoral. Norway citizens should have the choice if they decide to view content from their government who they support of what platform they do it from. For my government if they provide content of which I want to view then it better be in a format i can view. Something open and free that is the nature of a democratic government.

Rants VS Reviews

Recently I saw someone had posted a rant of Slackware 11 on OSNews from a fellow that rants on his personal web site for his friends to see. Since when did Linux nerds get so uppity about their favorite distros. While I disagree on some of his points I still use Slackware and like Slackware. However since when did someones opinion deserve such ridiculed banter. For what ever reason you like Linux or what ever distro is your favorite we are in this together. I might post that I dislike something and someone is bound to disagree but please keep it civil. Don't dismiss the intelligence of the author because you disagree. In my book that makes you unintelligent. Ultimately a rant is an opinion of the author to be cherished because of the freedoms we are afforded in life to like or dislike something. In a review things are different a review should be a fair and balanced look at whatever it is you are reviewing. The main reason why is that someone ultimately is going to take stock in what you write and will make a decision based on that. A lot of Linux reviewers often write to many glowing articles about distros they write about. i only wish they would take a more hard lined look and possible post the problems they had so that users would feel so alienated when the distro has problems on thier system.

Adobe and Flash Player for Linux

This is a bit of a gripe post. Adobe has yet to update its versions of Flashplayer for Linux. The most current version available is 7.0. the current version available for windows is 8.0. while I am ok with Adobe not updating the Flash Program that creates flash programs its not ok that they lag behind on the development of their player. So far we are being forced to wait till version 10 until a player is available for Linux. With more users leaving windows for Linux or OS X it becomes more apparent that those architectures should be considered too. OS X does currently have a player for version 8 of flash so what is the deal? Being that my primary PC at home is a Linux PC I cannot see how its possible for Adobe to delay any longer with more users like me switching to Linux everyday. All I can say is shame on adobe for not keeping its user-base in mind when making decisions.

Kernel Stability Discussion 2.4 vs 2.6

Kernel Version 2.6.17.1 was released this week. I use 2.6.13 on a Slackware machine for my personal Gaming and internet machine. A debate got started over stability in kernel 2.4 vs 2.6 where i felt that 2.6 was just as stable. This debate was ofcourse in a forum. Opinions differed as widely as they always do in a forum. Some explaining that 2.4 is in a maintenance cycle and 2.6 is in rapid development so that contributes to the stability of the new kernels. However in a practicle sense I feel 2.6 is stable enough for my own usage. Many Distros feel the same way and bundle thiers with the 2.6. Others though like i mentioned one being Slackware keeps itself on an older kernel for issues of stability. Debian "stable" is another that does this. Well i have come across distros that chose to stay further back. One in particular uses the 2.2 kernel. Now granted this is not a commonly used distro but an obscure one. Distrobutions should feel free to choose what ever kernel they want. That is one of the glorious things about Linux is the diversity in choices. You are free to choose what every options you want in a distro. Even when a distro doesnt meet your needs you can either customize it, build it from scratch or choose another that does. Linux from Scratch is one of those projects that shows you how. I always advise against developing another distro but creating your own personal distro from scratch I am in favor of. Just dont feel the need to release yet another distro. I will bring this all back around and say that its possible in all distrobutions to upgrade the kernel to a newer release so there is nothing to stop you from unfurling your wings. I feel for most average users 2.4 and 2.6 kernels are just as stable as each other on a standard basis. I think this was the concencious among all in the discussion over which they choose. I still plan on upgrading my core packages to 11 from the 10.2 version i currently run. I will of course still run a 2.6 kernel. I think my disatisfaction in Slackware is more inconvienence of having to go through so much trouble of installing the 2.6 kernel and upgrading the 2.4 packages (modules, alsa, etc) to the 2.6 kernel packages. I think that Pat would make things easier on us if in his installer if you choose a 2.6 kernel that it installs everything you need for the 2.6 kernel even if 2.4 is still default. I think it would help smooth the transition between kernel versions when it comes time for Pat to do so.

DRM in linux

I have heard statements by certain IT "experts" stating that linux is not a mature product because it does not include DRM. This will never happen for one reason the main group involved in writing this technology is Microsoft. Why would you expect them to give that away to other operating systems that compete directly with them. This is why DRM is dangerous. it gives companies like microsoft a foothold to force others out of business. Not to mention DRM technologies dont really prevent copyright theft because as long as there is encryption there is a hacker who is interested in breaking it. DRM also prevents a concept called fair use which allows you as a consumer to copy DVD's Music and such to new media for personal usage. For example if you wish to copy that favorite music CD to make a backup of an original, because i assure you a CD will wear out, that is perfectly within your rights. In an over zealous attempt to stop people from copying music from file sharing sites they take away the simple freedoms of consumers that legally purchased thier CD from doing with the CD what is within thier legal rights to do. One day i hope to live in a society that is free and unincumbered by corporate america, until that day i have to read stories referencing Steve Ballmer and his idiotic statements about linux. Mind you Ballmer has probably never seen linux or know much about what it even is. Ballmer, please only say good things about windows and when questioned about linux say 'i have no experience with linux so i cannot fully answer that question correctly!'