Getting online

Well, last few months were a bumpy road. I've been on and off on the net. But all of this has the reason.

I got married!!! So all the disappearances are the direct result of this simple fact.

Now I'll probably get online even less :-)

Dual Skype Phone

Hi all

As I've moved into a new appartment and got connected to a landline phone, I've found myself in a lack of modest phone equipment.

So here's the quest for me know:
I want a handset (wireless of course), which I can use both for mobile and VoIP calls (preferrably skype - not because I like it, but because all my family is interconnected with it). I also would like it to be as attractive as possible (not Bang&Olufsen, but still pretty), and not require a working computer to function.

A possible candidate for such a thing is a DualPhone's 3088 model, which unfortunately is not being sold in Israel at the moment.

Please advise.

Thanks,
-A.

Top 10 side effects of switching to Linux

...
Number 2: You actually get some serious work done
...

But the most cool one is number 1.

Take a look :-)

Flattery

Jürgen

I'm really flattered for being added to your blogroll (I just noticed :-) )

Why the honor? (I really like it though)

The state of Linux

Dear Readers

* (Linux is a term I chose to use. Please don't start with me philosophy debates regarding naming conventions. Besides, I'm sure everyone who reads this will understand).

I'd like to challange a little the Linux community. In all recent press, me, my friends and many other people I know are reading about Linux all sorts of information. There's one article talking about winning some deal, where Linux shines and outperfomes Windows. There's another, where we finally "Get the facts" where Windows gets the win hands down. And then there are more, where Mac is better than Windows and Linux is better than Mac, etc...

This, of course, is an endless list of PR (public relations) and other commercial stuff. (Yes, I said Linux and commerce in one sentence, and I meant it so). Each vendor shows all the cases he wins over his competitors and we know that.

But here's the thing. I'm sure it happens all over the net, but I mainly read Unix/Linux news and not Windows ones. I'd say, that in an average day I see the same number of those messages from public press on all three major operating systems. Even more than that, news about less known ones like *BSD, Solaris, etc are also pretty much at the same level.

Here what I'm trying to say: with regard to my own field of expertise, I'm saying that all 3 operating systems (and even few more) are valuable and existing choices, all offer the same features and all can do the job. Customer chooses the solutions to his/her likings and he's happy.

Let me elaborate on this.

All ... operating systems... are valuable choices. What I mean by this, is that when I as customer am coming to a vendor, and explain to him my problem, I at least expect that I will get all the possible solutions. In almost all cases (except in OS-specific problems) I want him to provide me with Windows choice. Not that I think it is the best choice (it may not be), but because I like choice. It makes me feel better and more comfortable. And also, I'm saying that all operating systems today offer similar features, so I can solve almost anything in any of them.

With all this, I come to main point. We often talk about how Linux is ready (or not), it's on Desktop (I even wrote a piece about that as well), or on server, and how its better than Windows because ....... (fill in your favorite), and how its more open than MacOS, etc. What I'm saying, its this:

Linux is ( and already for some time) ready.

It's ready for Desktops. Ready for servers. Ready for embedded. Ready for everything.

Ready for competition.

I'm saying its ready, because the community is ready. Customers are ready.

Linux stake in OS business is ~3%, and this serves (surprisingly or not) as the reason for many people to ignore it. Well, too bad. Apple has the same share, but it is hardly ignored. Solaris has probably even less, but no one ignores Sun.

So, I'm calling to a Linux developers out there (and application developers): stop worrying. Keep going. You're doing a great job. Your product is better than other ones. Keep doing what you do, because the fruits of your labor are being used by millions and this number will only keep growing. I'm handing off my hat to all of you.

There's no point in bashing other operating systems. Linux holds its place. It will get even better. But competition is good for us. It keeps us all in shape and prepared. It makes us go over the edge. It makes us think.

And want to know what is the best thing of all? The community. It will overgrow companies. That's why Linux (and other open OSes, and applications) will thrive.

Linux is ready. Welcome to Linux state.

Net problems

Bummer, I have a gtalk disconnecting on me all the time... :-(

The overestimated Death of the Linux Desktop

For the last couple of days I've been reading about the so called Death of the Linux Desktop. What I cannot understand is, how so Linux desktop can be dead if it never existed?

For few years, we've been hearing all sorts of saying, that this year will be "the year of Linux on the Desktop", that this year, Linux will conquer desktop arena, etc. So if all that is true, wouldn't that mean that it is not on the desktop yet, and hence it cannot die?

That depends hugely on point of view. What would mean, that Linux is on a desktop? I use it. On the desktop. Does that count? Some people I know use it on laptops, servers, and even embedded devices. Does this count?

Yes. Everything does. The main point of these articles, debating on the death of desktop Linux, is to address the departure of one of the major desktop proponents within kernel developers. While great thing by its own, it doesn't yet encapsulate the whole desktop on Linux, isn't it?

I think that the most important thing is that work will be kept going on, improving things we have, inventing new ones and making everything better and better. And only after awhile, we would be able to look back on what we've done, what happened and decide: That was the year of Linux Desktop. That year it made it. And only if it won't be going well anymore, we'll say - Linux on Desktop is dead.

But until then - I think we should stop jumping to conclusions, and just keep doing what we do the best - the greatest software and the best communities.

Linux on the Desktop is yet to come.

-A.

Grandma factor

I've been reading around different stories about how we're not making our systems enough "grandma"-proof (that is to be "easily" used by grandmas. Sorry grandpas, you're probably not too appealing for the cause).

In fact, I've written something like that myself some time ago. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about that essay, I just adopted an attitude.

What I am thinking now, when considering things said in that article, is that designing a system for an "average" computer user is becoming less relevant. I do think that usability must go as one of the first and foremost important features, but nevertheless, making our systems oversimplified (Gnome anyone?) is a totally wrong thing to do.

(Regarding my Gnome remark, I just saying rather large opinion that I hear around. I use Gnome myself, and it is sufficient enough for me. But also is a Xfce and MacOS X, and in some degree Windows and KDE. I just want to say, that in some projects, craving for simplicity overshadows main goals of the projects - and that is to deliver functionality. And Gnome's "simplicity" was the factor that turned Linus Tourvalds to KDE)

In fast technology race, the functionality can be beaten by usability. But usability means "convenient use", not "simple". Any system that simplifies on expense of other important aspects, is destined to fail.

All I want is that technically oriented crowd would differentiate between the so-called "average" user and everyone else. My wife (wife to be in a short while) uses a computer without significant problems. She just doesn't like how some things are done (such as MSN Live upgrade forced up on her. She liked it the way it was, and she doesn't like to be forced to do anything, as we all don't).

In the world I live in, there's almost everyone knows how to handle a computer. For better or for worse. And you know what? My dad is a grandpa now, and he can handle complicated computer tasks very well. Do you know how? I'll tell you how.

Because he's a grown intelligent person, that can take his time to learn a new thing. Just like he did once when remote controls for everything began to appear.

What I'm trying to say, is that we should probably stop using a "grandma" factor as a major "usability" measure. Many computer users are not that illiterate anymore. Almost all newly grads for last 10 years (who lead many businesses today) are comfortable with computers. Many college students grew up with one.

So, I think there's a need for yet another level of usability. A community needs to find another type of a person that will test a usability of a product.

It should be an advanced computer user, who are not afraid to try new things, who understands what a new product is and what is usability and how can it be assessed.

Try me for that.

No words needed

Absolutely amazing.

Source: Digg

Licensing issues

I've read the article from Jem Matzan, about how latest ramblings around licensing issues prove that reality will prevail the idealizm.

And you know what? I agree.

I always choose to use an open source software when I have the choice. I do it both idealistically (because I can easily connect to developers and users community, and get help and assistance), and because of technical merit (I find often that open source software is much better than many commercial ones), and definitely because of the cost (just bandwidth to download stuff) and mostly because I don't want to get into licensing debate with larger bodies.

I just use computing as tools. Think of it as when you buy a hammer, it comes with sort of a license agreement that only allows you to use it with specific type of nails. Sure, noone will really check what exactly for and how exactly are you going to use it, but license is there nevertheless.

I think such thing would be extremely stupid and worthless, but I'm not the one who decides. I just want my hammer as something heavy and convenient, and I do want to hit something else with it sometimes.

So it is for me with computers and software. My choice of open source software is a choice that assures me, that I can do anything I want or need with tools I get.

Now, what is the problem Jem describing here? The problem, as FreeBSD Foundation President put it, is that many think that what Free Software Foundation thinks is the right thing regarding the licensing. I disagree with their approach.

In a free world, as they would like it to be, anyone entitled to a free software, exactly as I am. But sometimes, for my own personal advantage, I would not like to open source to my product. Someone doesn't like that? Either close your code too, or shut up. It is a free world after all, I can do whatever I want. Many GPL proponents seems to care to their freedom only.

With all those additional open-source licenses, the only one more thing you get is the one thing that you're trying to avoid - DRM. The curse word in digital world, meaning that every single bit is restricted, and you can use the bit I created only under my own conditions, and if you don't comply, I'll sue you to death. But it's all ones and zeros, folks. Nothing more.

That's why I side with Linus on licensing issue (he was never bothered by commercialization of Linux, and in fact I think he's even happy about it).

I like the most the BSD license.

Free for all and for all purposes. Just don't forget to mention who created it.

The best ever.

-A.

At work again

Hi all

Today, almost 2 month after I was fired from my position at Exanet, I started to work with my new employer, Tehuti Networks as a System Manager. My job would be creating a processes for QA inside the company. So I hope that I'm back online now :-)

Please, wish me luck.

My own site

Hi all

Recently, I've asked your help with suggestions regarding hosting my own blog. Now, as I started doing some other things which require online place for myself, I need a little more than blog hosting.

I need your help with general hosting plans, which provide great resources (software: wiki, blog, etc, bandwidth and space), great reliability and excellent price.

I'll be thankful to all of you for suggestions.

-A.

Coming back to life

Hi all

I've been away for a long while. It was kinda unexpected - I just planned a little trip with to Paris, but now I have 2 major shifts in my life:

1. I'm changing jobs
2. I'm getting married!

It is so cool, that I can't explain it all. I'm just overwhelmed by this, so I will get back to this blog, but it will take another couple of weeks to get my head straight and to get re-synced with everything.

So, have a great day y'all.
-A

Windows joke

Google OS

Dear reader

I have shared with you my views on technology, operating systems and computing for awhile now. So here's my latest one.

I just read a column by Matt Hartley (a contributing writer to OS Weekly). The article discusses possible entrance by Google into OS space.

I wanted to respond on that opinion by my own. The issue of Google OS is being debated for as long as Google become an important part of internet culture. Many have predicted the appearance of Google's OS long time ago, but the thing never happened.

Why?

If Google OS is easy to create (just peak any Linux distro and create an additional "brand"), easy to maintain (the distro is already there and if you choose wisely, it is being frequently updated and bugfixed), easy to customize (it is Google after all using an open source application and it is a house full of open source developers), so why haven't this already happened?

Because Google doesn't need one. Just think about it. What Google's purpose is? World domination. What Google's business is? Selling ads. So how would OS integrate into this scheme?

Well, the thing is - it wouldn't. And the main reason for this is that an importance of any specific operating system is diminishing by the second as much of our computer life goes onto the net. In addition, diversity of mobile and small devices running uncommon local operating systems would render another desktop OS useless - and those devices are great for Google, as they allow users to view ads anywhere. And another reason - is the one I'm putting always as reason du jour for many Windows users stay in Windows - gamers would not use it because they won't have their favorite games there.

But besides any other reason, here's the million dollar question: why Google needs to have an operating system if it is not in operating system business?

And what's for sure, is that Ubuntu (Canonical) is very good by their own, without Google's money. And if you target only home users, I'm sure you will fail, as main OS business today is actually business users.

I prefer Google contributing money to a good cause instead.

-A.

Technorati : Google, Linux, technology

Cool graffiti shot!

Those who can, create.
Those who can't, erase.

Innovation is total crap

Dear reader. I want you to know, that I intend to piss of a lot of folk by writing this, but this is intentional. I have nothing personal against you. I just want to say things that bug my mind.

I'm saying that innovation is total crap. It exist in extreme cases only.

Hear me up dear reader. Let me tell you about myself first, so you know why I think so:
I've started using a computer when I was at age seven or eight years old. It was a 16K memory Soviet computer, which was connected to my home TV with an analog cable with zillion connectors. It was connected to a tape, which produced funny voices like the TX terminator in T3 when she connected to a police computer.
That was the time when I've understood that my life is going to be around the computers and technology. I was much more interested with practical use than details of electronics.

Fast forward 20 and so years later. We now use computers with 16G memory (which is a factor of million). I have a cellphone which is much more powerful than my first computer. So, will someone tell me which innovation lead to this? How have we become so obsessed with this weird word "innovation"?

I find, that the use of this word is so ubiquitous, that it is used everywhere all the time. New software product? Innovative. New service? Innovative. New technique? Innovative.

Total crap.

If I went and created a teleported, someone would call it innovative. Others would say, "Teleporter? Come on, those Sci-Fi writers have said that for more than 50 years! I've seen Capt. Kirk using one!".

I'm sorry dear reader if I hurt your feelings. You know what? Everything is innovative these days. New color for default theme? Innovative (5 years ago we've called it themes or skins). New window borders? Innovative (well, 10 years ago Windows were innovative, so what? 10 years until new innovation?). New sounds in the system? Innovative (well, we had 16bit sounds ages ago, haven't we? Now its polyphonic and in stereo!).

So what is innovative after all? Let me tell you. It is what you like. My dad, who brought me that first computer of mine, thinks blog is innovative. My mom barely knows how to use a wordprocessor. You can call them obsolete - I call them my parents and my usability tester. Whichever they call "hard" - I believe it is hard, and keep working on it. Innovation is like a breath of fresh air. If this air smells like a bad fish, it's not an innovation.

I'm sorry to bring it up, but no one innovates in business. Well, maybe they do, but I rarely find anything new these days.

There are out-standers. Let's call them incremental innovators - they are improving the existing stuff, and their "fresh" versions appear so cool to us - it like that fresh air I was talking about. An ipod was like that.

So I'd call all the vendors of the world (including those of Open Source base) to stop shouting yet another buzz word. I'm seek of it. I'm tired. I can't bare it any longer. I call your innovation "crap" until proven otherwise. Can you prove me you innovated? Can I be sure I won't find your "innovation" anywhere else (like Microsoft's "the world's first no-ball mouse" which appeared in 2000's, while we had an optical SUN mouse in our old unused and dusty pile of crap since, like 1994)?

Let me decide on your innovation. I can speak for myself you know.

One more thing for business oriented out there: I've never seen "innovation" as the major sales point.

"Hey boss, I've chosen that vendor because he's so more innovative that 5 others we have considered! Yes, he's pricey, but he's so innovative!".

This crap would make me laugh. This crap would've caused someone to lose a job.

That is all, dear reader.

Just my opinion. You can have your own.

Feedback is appreciated.

Technorati : Google, Linux, Microsoft, technology

Thoughts on widgets

I just read a blog post by Leah Culver about why widgets suck.

I've invested my few minutes of though on this. Result is here.

Feedback is appreciated.
-A

Google Killing Microsoft?

I just read a digg story, titled "The Google Product That Could Kill Microsoft". It mainly says this:

Office isn't the only Microsoft hegemony that Google Gears could help destroy. One of the defining differences between Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux is the application lineup. That's given the crew in Redmond, Wash., tremendous power. But
technologies like Gears render the operating system irrelevant.

My first response was this.

So, here I am, thinking about it bit more. I will go over this in a little more detail:

1. Google will "kill" Microsoft.
   While not really arguing with this argument, I'm not that sure what "killing" Microsoft means. There were aplenty cases in the history, when something buried by others is still pretty much alive. For such a huge entity as Microsoft, not only from software point of view, but economically - I'm not sure anyone can explain how can it "die". I'm not saying that disappearance of Microsoft is not possible - it is. But Microsoft has so huge impact on technological way of life in our world, and especially on world's economy (Microsoft's software, hardware, platforms, intellectual property - and I mean in its pure logical sense of inventions, its financial base) - that I believe its almost a stand-alone machine which needs no human interaction to function. Too much effort and resources are put in it. So much, that its "death" seems to be possible only as a result of sudden unexpected surprise (like aliens invasion). So, yes, Microsoft will (I'm sure of it) loose its hold on a desktop and in business. But that doesn't mean it will die. It will shift its act into other areas, and as any other meta-organism it will keep fighting for its life. So, Microsoft's death? Not visible on my radar.
   
   
2. Google applications
   Yes, Google has a lots of useful applications. I use Gmail and Google Reader myself. Even documents sometimes. But it really scares me that I might use everything online. While this may not be a security issue (say I'm keeping my sensitive information with me all the time), but in a Big Brother kind of thinking. Trusting Google with all the things I do online? To be able to track each and every step I do? To be able to say at any moment with high success probability what my internet usage patterns are? That's scares the hell out of me. So I'd use Google apps, even in offline mode, but I do want a control over my computing needs. Paranoia, anyone?
   Now, while the argument here is being online and that the importance of operating systems installed locally is diminishing (which I've been saying for a long time). I agree to this statement, but why would anyone mentally healthy think that Microsoft would do nothing about it? (But that I suggest that Microsoft will also develop a platform for online applications).
   
   
3. Online service
   That is the most unwise argument in whole the story. If being offline is that matters, why would Google beat Microsoft? Because sometimes I will be without the net access and still be able to do my work? Then why would I need Google for that? I still have my OS (be that Windows, Linux or Mac), and I don't really have to use Google, right? So here I see 3 possible choices:
   
   • Google develops offline tools for their applications, allowing offline work. Microsoft get caught unprepared and dies off.
   • Microsoft develops online tools for many of their "offline" applications. Google get caught unprepared. Nothing happens to it.
   • Both Google and Microsoft provide online as well as offline applications, and competition is going on for the benefit of all customers.
   Which one seems more probable? I leave it for you to decide.
   
   Besides, in a few years the whole world will be online anyways anytime. Offline? Say what?
   
   
4. All the other stuff
   As I've already said, there are so many areas where Google and Microsoft do not even compete, at least not yet. And these are pretty hefty areas with much money in them. How would Microsoft be killed by Google again?
   

In other words - Google killing Microsoft?
Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath yet.

-A.

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, Microsoft, Google

Google Linux

I just read a column in Inquirer about meetup in Googleplex. There are people from Linux Foundation and FSF, which meet up in goal to discuss the latest Microsoft ramblings about licensing problems in Linux:

Following Microsoft's inking of agreements with Linux hawkers, offering to shield them from lawsuits over the 235 patents it reckons versions of Linux infringe, a gathering of open sorcerers is assembling at Google HQ to debate what is to be done.

According to Reuters report, which helpfully details what a Linux geek is wearing these days (T-shirts and jeans), organizer of the "Collaboration Summit", Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation, told the amassed geeks: "Guys: Be seekers of truth, not finders of contradiction."

Maybe something will come of it, but typically, like the Left in politics, there may be too much squabbling over what society should look like after the revolution that the revolution will be eternally postponed.

I actually agree to this. Its much easier to discuss than get things done. But then, I like this comment:

Google Linux anyone?

Funny isn't it? Not that Google needs such a thing, but I think that while everyone is talking Ubuntu would do the trick and take it all.

-A

Technorati : Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu