NSA: Please Turn off the Lights When You Leave. Nothing to See Here.

Linux Advocate Dietrich Schmitz shows how the general public can take action to truly protect their privacy using GnuPG with Evolution email. Read the details.

Mailvelope for Chrome: PGP Encrypted Email Made Easy

Linux Advocate Dietrich Schmitz officially endorses what he deems is a truly secure, easy to use PGP email encryption program. Read the details.

Step off Microsoft's License Treadmill to FOSS Linux

Linux Advocate Dietrich Schmitz reminds CIOs that XP Desktops destined for MS end of life support can be reprovisioned with FOSS Linux to run like brand new. Read how.

Bitcoin is NOT Money -- it's a Commodity

Linux Advocate shares news that the U.S. Treasury will treat Bitcoin as a Commodity 'Investment'. Read the details.

Google Drive Gets a Failing Grade on Privacy Protection

Linux Advocate Dietrich Schmitz puts out a public service privacy warning. Google Drive gets a failing grade on protecting your privacy.

Email: A Fundamentally Broken System

Email needs an overhaul. Privacy must be integrated.

Opinion

Cookie Cutter Distros Don't Cut It

Opinion

The 'Linux Inside' Stigma - It's real and it's a problem.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Turn a Deaf Ear

Linux Advocate Dietrich Schmitz reminds readers of a long ago failed petition by Mathematician Prof. Donald Knuth for stopping issuance of Software Patents.

Showing posts with label Dr. Roy Schestowitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr. Roy Schestowitz. Show all posts

Monday, April 15, 2013

'Bitrot' Not a GNU/Linux Issue

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In computing, everything should ideally scale linearly or logarithmically if/where possible, except perhaps for innovation in hardware which can be nearly exponential in some terms due to multidimensionality and various other factors. Linux takes good advantage of hardware and, owing to reuse of code, programs are rarely bloated. With Windows, contrariwise, common practice/advice is to assume bloat is normal and reinstallation a routine task which mitigates bloat. Those are two separate issues; one deals with scalability and the other with the steps needed to remediate. In GNU/Linux, where malware is rare, optimising a system is often possible without radical measures like clean-installing.


It is not uncommon to see distributions of BSD or GNU/Linux running for years without a reboot or a reinstallation. These systems, which first found widespread use in (gradually more mission-critical) servers, required a high degree of tolerance, robustness, stability, and minimal downtime or rebuilding time. Windows, which had primarily emerged through the desktop, took over a decade to get the basics of networking and user privileges almost right -- an issue that still makes it attractive to rogue programs.

The three Rs, restart (application), reboot , and reinstall, have made infamous a class of box booters who are sometimes synonymous with Microsoft-certified administrators. Whereas UNIX and Linux professionals tend to deal with complicated issues of automation and troubleshooting, many of their Window-centric counterparts spend their days wrestling with issues associated with performance (setting aside restrictive licensing that impedes expansion) and malware, which are two related but separable issues. Over the years I have narrowed down the low efficiency of maintaining Windows clusters (requiring more administrators per cluster) to what some call bitrot, or the notion that digital data -- or an executable program - inevitably needs to erode over time, requiring one to revert it back to a pristine condition.

A solid GNU/Linux distribution is unlikely to slow down or break down on its own. On my main workstation (since 2008), for example, I never had to reinstall an operating system unless I switched between distributions (Mandriva was losing its corporate backing at the time). I could use the system for months at a time without any reboot. I could install over a thousand packages without it resulting in slowdown or performance degradation of any kind. It is harder to achieve the same thing with Windows, based on people to whom I speak. The three Rs are essential there.

More and more enterprises pursue GNU/Linux and people who know how to maintain it. For continuity of service and for minimal intervention it takes a system that will not 'rot' over time or be made deprecated because the company which has exclusive rights to the source code decides so.

-- Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Microsoft Proxy Fight Against Android Alleging 'Antitrust' Offenses

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A rather laughable story is developing in Europe. Microsoft claims to be the victim of antitrust violations. The alleged offender in this case is claimed to be Free/open source software. For a Free/open source system to be 'too' dominant when everyone -- even the partly Microsoft-owned Facebook -- can fork it is just ludicrous. Make no mistake. Timothy B. Lee says that "[a]ntitrust complaint against Android is an attack on open source" and it opens the door to future attacks as such.

The New York Times says "European antitrust regulators have received a formal complaint about Google’s Android operating system for mobile devices, even as they move to the final stages of their inquiry into the company’s search practices."

Here it is from other, corporate-centric/biased press, CNN and USA Today, which says:
A group of companies led by Microsoft have called on European authorities to launch an antitrust investigation into Google and its hold over mobile internet usage on smartphones.

The "FairSearch" initiative of 17 companies - which includes Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle -claims Google is acting unfairly by giving away its Android operating system to mobile device companies on the condition that the U.S. online giant's own software applications like YouTube and Google Maps are installed and prominently displayed.

"Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a Trojan horse to deceive partners, monopolize the mobile marketplace, and control consumer data," said Thomas Vinje, the group's Brussels-based lawyer.
As put by this report, it is simple to see that Microsoft is using proxies:

Microsoft not fooling anyone by using FairSearch front in antitrust complaint against Google



Microsoft isn't fooling anyone by hiding behind a trade group to complain to European antitrust regulators about Google and its Android mobile operating system, a legal expert said today.

"FairSearch.org is seen by many observers here as a Microsoft Trojan Horse," said Nicolas Petit, a professor of competition law at the University of Liege in Belgium. "Everyone understands here in Brussels that it's Microsoft versus Google."
Here is a somewhat sarcastic take on it:
Microsoft was accused by its competitors of using its dominance on the desktop to monopolise the burgeoning online marketplace by requiring partners to offer Internet Explorer, rather than the rival Netscape Navigator, and to grant it "default placement " on the desktop. Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows was regarded as giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers; its rivals claimed there was a danger that Microsoft might repeat its "desktop abuses of dominance" as consumers increasingly turned to an Internet platform dominated by Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

The closeness of the parallels might lead you to believe that the FairSearch group are trying to build on the earlier, successful anti-trust action to bolster their case. But what's interesting is that among the FairSearch group is Microsoft itself. So I thought it might be interesting to see what the company said when it faced exactly the same accusations that it is now levelling against Google.
Just think what a nerve it takes for Microsoft to file antitrust complaints like it's the victim. It takes great insensitivity, doesn't it? Microsoft is also pretending to be European via Nokia, which former Microsoft executive Stephen Elop abducted against employees' will. AOL cites the much-maligned "Scoogled" campaign as part of it:
Microsoft is skewering Google again with ads and regulatory bashing that say as much about the dramatic shift in the technology industry's competitive landscape as they do about the animosity between the two rivals.

The ads that began Tuesday mark the third phase in a 5-month-old marketing campaign that Microsoft Corp. derisively calls "Scroogled." The ads, which have appeared online, on television and in print, depict Google as a duplicitous company more interested in increasing profits and power than protecting people's privacy and providing unbiased search results.
Microsoft's attempt to distract from its own offences and refusal to comply with punishment are so recent that it is just crazy to pull off this stunt at this time. It was only weeks ago that Microsoft was fined almost billions of dollars for antitrust violations and failure to comply with suggested remedies. Microsoft's behaviour is very notable, outrageously so. "Since Google went public in August 2004, Microsoft's online division has accumulated more than $17.5 billion in operating losses," says one report. Here is another take:
INTERNET GIANT Google is at the centre of another European antitrust complaint orchestrated by Microsoft, this time relating to its Android software. The antitrust complaint has been filed by Fairsearch Europe, whose members include the likes of Microsoft, Nokia and Oracle. The group, which describes itself as an "organization united to promote economic growth, innovation and choice across the internet" is going after Google for its allegedly anticompetitve practices deployed with Android. It's a pretty ironic moment, after Microsoft recently was slapped with a mammoth fine for monopolistic behaviour relating to browser choice on Windows devices.
Tux Radar intends to dedicate an imminent show segment to this issue as it polls listeners/readers and Pamela Jones calls this "[a]nother Cynical "Antitrust" Complaint From Microsoft and Its Buddies Against Google" (this is not the first).
Evidently, Microsoft and its proprietary friends didn't get the result they hoped for from their first antitrust complaint against Google to the EU Commission. The latest news is that the first one is being amicably resolved, according to the New York Times. Instead of saying to themselves, I guess we were wrong, instead Fairsearch, the Microsoft-led group that seems to have no other reason for being but to attack Google, files another antitrust complaint.
Meanwhile, reveals this update from Thomas Claburn, Editor-at-Large at a large news site, the antitrust complaints against Microsoft are being kept away from the public. "In June 2007," he writes, "I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to learn more about the basis for Google's complaint that Microsoft's implementation of desktop search in Windows Vista violated the terms of its 2002 antitrust consent agreement."

Then he says: "After six years, the truth can finally be told. What follows is an excerpt from an email sent by Kulpreet Rana, Google's director of intellectual property, to Justice Department attorney Aaron Hoag, dated Oct. 4, 2006."

Microsoft is trying to use antitrust law as an insurance policy as its business is collapsing. Law enforcers are not helping free competition and they oughtn't intervene with Free software going mainstream.

-- Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Enhanced by Zemanta

Fighting the Patents Industry Which Focuses on Software

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Shield of transparency
Shield of transparency
Patents are the Nemesis of Free (as in freedom) software. But who is it that's really behind patents? There is the systemic component (institutional) and the corporate component. The latter, which relies on the former, is also the one which lobbies the former. One might say that, in the United States in particular, large corporations such as IBM and Microsoft reinforce the patent system for the sake of protectionism*. Rackspace, a smaller company, says the patent system is "legally sanctioned extortion", so we know that the USPTO is serving neither small nor medium-sized companies. One can identify the system as benefiting lawyers, patent trolls, and large corporation which can afford to use the other two groups (trolls are sometimes used as a litigation proxy by larger entities to whom this investment and risk are worthwhile).

I advocate aiming for change in the system, not those who exploit the system. The problem is, those who write the law which makes the system (through lobbyists) are the same entities which exploit it. It is a problem of political entryism -- one that we find in the copyright world as well. Monsanto too made it infamous. The bottom line is, based on my experience battling software patents for nearly a decade, you should always fight at both levels. If you assume that the patent office is controlled by corporations -- which is correct -- then battle that office while also battling its enablers and those whose extortion it enables.

What makes me worried is that patent lawyers have taken over much of the public debate while developers remain apathetic or passive. There is a sense of defeatism. The ills of a system which facilitates government-granted monopolies on abstract ideas which are reducible to mathematics are not to be underestimated. Customers -- not just developers (irrespective of how they develop software) -- should be up in arms over it, but they are not. Well, to be fair, some of them became active after Apple had won the billion-dollar case against Samsung -- a case which has been rotting since then, due to jury/foreman misconduct and crucial patents that get invalidated upon re-examination, proving incompetence at the USPTO.

Unless we fight against software patents, the many patent lawyers who are vocal about it will have the stage dominated by their views. It's not too late to beat software patents in the US, preventing them from spreading further.

___
* IBM and Microsoft also lobby at the EPO (EU) and IPONZ (New Zealand) as multinationals whose interests they believe supersede those of the locals. The EPO and IPONZ enjoy profit from glorification of patents, as seen today right here.

-- Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Adaptation is Hard, Power is Hard

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Difficult it sure can be to become a high-speed racing/Formula 1 driver. Arduous it is to become an advanced computer user. Virtual desktops are hard to grasp conceptually or practically for those who never saw them in a Microsoft-dominant computer lab, so how can one expect to popularise multiple desktop activities the way KDE does?

The concept of extreme abstraction and removal of features has been popularised more recently by the advancement of smartphones and tablets (I write many of my posts while walking in the streets with my tablet). The general philosophy is that users are dumb and they should be treated as such. The problem with this is not that it's insulting (in disguise) but that it discourages learning and self improvement.

In the past decade, with the hype of 'i' things gaining a foothold, the class of 'simplicity elitists' got a lot of mindshare. The idea of excessive simplification was famously chastised by Linus Torvalds who used the "Nazi" word to call attention to the reason he was leaving GNOME. Sometimes more is less, but it has become a stubborn cliché which is hard to leave behind.

When I was a teenager and used KDE the environment was still a tad cluttered and many of the presented settings I could not make sense of. KDE had already gained a reputation as desktop made by geeks, for geeks. By the time KDE3 was out and more so in KDE4 (once many bugs were out of the way) most of the daunting settings had already been 'shelved' in Advanced menus and the GUI laid out more intuititively. But the stereotype never died. To this date, one of the prominent patterns of Linux FUD is that it's hard. Well, the kernel sure is hard, but the user barely ever interacts with it. A command-line user interacts a lot with GNU and GUI users often prefer GNOME or KDE.

When people tell you that "Linux is hard" ask them, "which desktop?"

My father had no issues when I switched him from Windows XP to KDE and he is not even so technical; he is a store manager who likes sports. Since the real barrier is that Linux desktops are different we should ask ourselves not how we make GNU/Linux easier but how to make people easier to change. It's not about coercion but about diplomacy. People need to be patient when they adapt. Is GNU/Linux hard? It's hard for impatient people to adapt to.

- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, April 7, 2013

War is Peace, Diversity is Fragmentation, Versatile is Difficult

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz



Companies that are crazy about control wish to own everything from software down to hardware. Apple could not tolerate BSD code without closing it and Microsoft just couldn't stand the idea of companies creating their own Windows shells -- a subject of antitrust litigation almost two decades ago.

Linux, as a kernel with a lot of development activity, has become the Swiss army knife for many who wish to rapidly create operating systems. Android is probably the most ubiquitous among those, depending on the assessed criteria. GNU is the Swiss army knife further up in the software stack and Apache is extremely popular in page-serving devices. All of those are Free/Open Source software (FOSS).

The flexibility of this software is hard to compete with. Corporations and/or large communities surround those projects. Due to the old tricks of newspeak, propaganda, spin and FUD we have become accustomed to hearing words like 'fragmentation' wherever FOSS goes. Recently, a lot of this has been said about Android. The other day a notable Linux advocate, SJVN, addressed the Android "fragmentation" FUD by writing a tongue-in-cheek report about Windows:

The transition from XP to Vista, to Windows 7 and most recently, both iterations of the newest version of Windows, 8 and RT, as well as all patch iterations and dot versions in between, has left a scattered landscape of PCs in various states of OS upgrade version malaise. (Cough) This has created problems for Windows developers when coding applications, and when they test against different versions of the OS and different target devices. (Oh my!) The introduction of multiple versions of PCs, as well as Windows virtual machines and emulators running in Mac OS X and Linux, has further complicated this situation by creating additional "forks" of Windows, which have their own unique application issues that developers need to address. (The horror! The horror!)


This puts in perspective one aspect of the FUD's shortcomings. Because Windows also supports nearly as much hardware as Linux does, the 'fragmentation' may relate to hardware too. Let's face it. A power which is diversity -- something that Apple actively discourages -- should not be portrayed as a weakness. Linux and GNU are very compatible with UNIX owing to POSIX. GTK applications are quite compatible with applications that use Qt, and vice versa (narrowed down to two options just for the sake of concision). This took a while to achieve, but we are there now. Diversity is secured in the compatibility/standards sense, owing in part to compartmentalisation. People who chastise GNU/Linux over 'fragmentation' are either dishonest or have not kept up with GNU/Linux for nearly a decade. To say that GNU/Linux is 'hard' because it facilitates advanced features is also to overlook the progress made in the past half a decade in KDE and GNOME. But that's a subject for another day...

- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 4, 2013

GNU and Linux: It's Not Just About Attribution But Also Philosophy

by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Branding is the key



An increasingly-tiring debate over the naming of the (GNU/)Linux operating system was recently rekindled. It occurred rather virally after several Web sites and longtime authors who habitually cover the subject of (GNU/)Linux had weighed in again, opening an ageing jar of worms.

Like many flamewars in the GNU and Linux world, we should accommodate these, not suppress them. With suppression -- after all -- moral advantages are lost. It is widely understood that no corporation wants to project infighting, but in the Free software world corporations are not central. Likewise, branding is not the top priority.

What the argument over the names often boils down to is philosophy, not just attribution or credit. GNU was created with software freedom in mind. Linux, in its genesis, was proprietary until it adopted the GNU GPL licence and then became mainstream. A former colleague of mine was the first to distribute GNU and Linux -- a practice which over time saw the system's name abbreviated to "Linux". The motive for this abbreviation is an interesting subject which merits its own in-depth research.

Rather than argue about what the system should be called we should pay attention to Katherine's post  and ask ourselves, what is it that should be prioritised? Freedom or popularity? These are not mutually-exclusive and describing the problem as such would be a false dichotomy. But practice suggests that those who insist on calling the system just "Linux" are happy to de-emphasise the values originally incorporated into GNU in 1983.

Richard Stallman famously said, "Freedom is having control of your own life. Power is having control over someone else's life." To a lot of people -- yours truly included -- freedom and justice are the goal, software is part of the means. For those to whom branding wars are of greater interest, the "Mac versus PC" (or Apple-branded PC versus Windows-saddled PC) is right around the corner. Or as I often put it, those who do not like Microsoft go to Apple, whereas those who do not like proprietary software turn to GNU/Linux or BSD.

Distributions of GNU/Linux bring yet more brands into the debate, not to mention all the pertinent components that belong neither to GNU nor Linux. Distributions adopt different philosophies which often reflect the views on their founder, e.g. Mark Shuttleworth in the case of Ubuntu and Patrick Volkerding in the case of Slackware Linux, Inc. The brands we use to refer to software often reveals something about our preferences, philosophy, likings and convictions.

Rather than fight over naming of systems let us reason about the innate values each of these brings. Brands are instruments of association, reputation, kinship, and/or status. We need to go deeper and explore what actual substance each of these has got. And we can choose the brands which suit us best.

- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, March 29, 2013

Software Patents: Incompatible With and Antithetical to GNU/Linux


by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When patent monopoly extends beyond physical devices to the realms of costless copies of copies Over the years I have composed several thousands of posts about software patents. A lot of GNU and Linux advocates lose sight of what clearly became the #1 impediment to adoption of platforms such as Android and webOS. Patents are harming these Linux-powered platforms in ways that are scarcely understood by the outside world because a lot of bickering over patents happens behind the scenes.

Notable among the secret deals was the 2006 Microsoft/Novell deal and prior to that a deal with Sun Microsystems. The goal is to impose barriers on the distribution as Free (as in freedom) software. Merriam-Webster defines antithetical as "being in direct and unequivocal opposition," which is exactly what software patents are to copyleft-based software -- software on which the only restriction is that sharing should require modified distributed copies to be made available using the same licence, hence ensuring the preservation or endurance of a program's freedom.

When copyright (or copyleft) are further encumbered by abstract notions of ownership/monopoly such as patents, the same principles no longer apply. One can, for instance, distribute copyrighted code without restriction on the number of copies made, but when a per-unit patent licence is introduced, distribution of a program is impeded.

No Open Source licence provides a one-size-fits-all solution to this cleverly-crafted riddle or discriminatory-by-design maze. Without delving into the reason software patents -- like several other classes of patents (e.g. genetics, business methods) -- are outrageous, impractical to enforce, and economically unsound, let us recognise that trying to pretend Free/Open Source software (FOSS) is compatible with patents (as proprietary software lobbyists like to do) is worse than deceitful; it is malicious.

Software patents are basically what an insipid mind would conceive as an evil plot to kill FOSS at a litigious level. The strategy which more recently embedded software patents and FOSS-hostile stings in policies (law) is RAND or FRAND -- basically the vain contention that it is "fair" and "reasonable" to tax FOSS (i.e. software) based on patents (i.e. software patents), even in places like China and in continents like Europe where software patents "as such" (open to interpretation due to ambiguity) are not legal. More GNU/Linux advocates should pay attention to the debate about software patents. It's not just a question of cost but a question of market viability. It determines if proprietary legacy becomes the financial leech on FOSS.

Professor Donald Knuth, a notable computer scientist and perhaps the leading algorithms guru, once wrote: “I find a considerable anxiety throughout the community of practising computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life much more difficult for programmers.”

The issue of software patents is not just a problem to FOSS developers but to all developers. This is why proprietary backers of Linux too should join the debate and rid the world of software patents. This should include companies like IBM, which -- contrary to common belief -- is strongly in favour of software patenting, still.

  - Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Dr. Roy Schestowitz Becomes Contributor

by +Dietrich Schmitz


Linux Advocates is happy to report that Dr. Roy Schestowitz (pictured right) has accepted an invitation to become a regular contributing author.

He will set his own schedule, coming and going as his time permits.

Please make welcome Dr. Roy Schestowitz.

--Dietrich





Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Advocacy by Highlighting Flaws Found in the Opposition

By Guest Writer Dr. Roy Schesterwitz


Positive advocacy is rarely controversial because it speaks positively of some and negatively of none. But when striving to inform others of better alternatives, it becomes imperative to get their attention without insulting them.

In advocating Linux and other free software projects, it ought not be a taboo to criticise the character of businesses (in the metaphorical sense). People are attached to friends and family, but less so to corporations, unless these corporations pay them a wage. People value people, not brands or code, unless those are their own brands or code, except perhaps in cases of pseudo-kinship and affiliation one conceptualises (marketing professionals know how to develop attachment to brands, including Linux).

There is sometimes a sense of hostility and alienation towards Linux advocates who dare to speak about bad deeds of companies that are acting aggressively, including litigation against Linux. These advocates receive misplaced flak for doing what many others are apprehensive about due to business relationships -- current or prospective -- or perhaps the expectation that seeming 'business-hostile' is counter-productive to one's career.

One must recognise the fact that advocacy which criticises the 'opposition' is not partisanship as long as it is true and consistent. 

We must try to objectively inform people, to challenge out-of-line corporations, to bring a human and humane side to corporations that are otherwise apathetic to human factors, largely unaccountable, and insensitive to the needs of a community if shareholders take charge and those shareholders are not users and/or developers. What distinguishes Linux and other such projects is that stakeholders are mostly users and/or developers, who are sometimes also shareholders. They keep the projects relatively loyal to users and/or developers. That is why so many people love Linux and other free software projects. There is an actual justifiable sense of belonging, control, participation, and -- dare one say -- attachment.

Nobody is immune to criticism and those who are moral have no reason to fear criticism, or even absolute transparency. Rather than criticise critics, we need to listen to their arguments and assess these based on their merits, or lack thereof.

The notion that criticism is by default a "negative" thing is exactly the notion which vicious players want us to embrace. A lot of the time the loudest critics are those whose interests are exactly the same as everyone's, except for a small conspiracy of people at positions of power in corporations which use software to control the users -- a reversal of roles for sure.

The bottom line is, the enemy is not critics within the community; it is often those whom they criticise. It's just not always simple to see it. PR budgets make a tremendous difference.

-- Dr. Roy Schesterwitz

Enhanced by Zemanta