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 Guest Writer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Writer. Show all posts

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Dedoimedo with: A Beard and a Pipe



by Guest Writer Dedoimedo

Twenty years plus since being created, Linux remains a terrifying word in the global lexicon. Probably not as bad as it was for farmers watching cars take over the countryside in the early decades of the 20th century, but close. It's an operating system all right, but one that does not warm the cockles of your heart. It's the bastion of nerdy and geeky and difficult, and you are better off leaving it alone, to its bearded users. Which makes me think, why is the beard a status of sagacity in our society? Throw in a smoking pipe, and you have a PhD in trustworthiness. That's how it works. And yet, even though Linux is an obvious choice among the people of science, academy and industry, the popular desire to emulate the prototype intellectual status is in low demand. For most folks, the hardship of becoming a Linux user outweighs the benefits. (Image credit: Wikipedia.org)

Because of this phenomenon, if you happen to burrow your face into the job-seeking networks, you will see the string Linux featuring tall and mighty. There's quite a bit of demand for Linux system administrators and engineers, global recession and all notwithstanding. True, you will find a wealth of other occupations, professions and skill being hawked to the lowest bidder, but Linux is sort of a star.

A Day in Life


Now, let's expand on a day in life of Average Joe. He seeks employment, and he wishes to become a borg in that honey-tasting entity called the hi-tech industry, where productivity is measured in the number of presentations one makes and in the size of one's CC mailing list. Joe has a lot of opportunities before him: He may become a data center technician, a first level help desk operator going through a new headset every few months, or a system administrator fixing broken mail clients while racing the SLA graphs to the finish line. Or he may become a project manager. Some might choose electrical engineering or physics or math, in case they struggle with code, or even become fully fledged developers.

Encompassing it all, there's one thing that everyone should sort of consider, and that's the ecosystem. Does it have Linux in it? Or better yet, does Joe bring Linux along?

I am absolutely certain that most people do not think about Linux when they apply for a job, but it is probably the first thing they should be doing. For purely selfish reasons. Money.

The maverick, slightly outcast, unpopular status of Linux is what makes it, perversely, the popular and most 'in' commodity in the industry right now. It's sort of a metric by which people measure the quality of the ecosystem. When you say Linux, it's like the beard and the smoking pipe. There's a certain aura about it that makes a lesser man skip a beat. Nothing major, but the rumor and fear make for a very glamorous reputation.

Linux is the rogue of the operating system gang.

Ask anyone what operating system they use, they will most likely answer Windows. When you hear someone say Linux, you automatically assume they are much more skilled that your average user. You can try this exercise yourself. Call your ISP support and tell them you use Linux. You will be forwarded to would-be expert support, and no one will argue with your claims. I have been using this trick for years, which is why I have the personal emails of my ISP specialist staff, since no one dares dispute the Linux weirdo.

Linux as a Strategy: AKA The Minority Report


It gets better. Knowing Linux brings in a whole lot of assumptions along. The fact you know Linux means you know Windows, too! Doesn't have to be, but everyone will think that. They know you are above average in your troubleshooting skills. They know you have your unique ways of working out problems and searching for software, and that gives you an instant advantage. Linx saves time when it comes to job interviews. It's like when you drive a Lamborghini, you don't need to invest that much time impressing the other gender. Which is why you should know Linux. Even if you never get to use it.

Linux is the strategic minority luxury weapon of the industry, and it will remain so for many more years, as long as Microsoft remains the dominant player in the home market, and as long as its rivals maintain the operating system ambiguity as their marketing pitch. Because both OSX and Android have their roots in UNIX and Linux, respectively, but woe the user who voices that out loud. Oh, did you spot that joke?  Have their roots?  Hee hee.

This is where you come in. When you plan your future employment, you need to consider the market saturation. You need to try to wedge yourself into the premium tier, because that's where decent pay and prestige are. Of course, you can go about it the conventional way, slaving your way through annual assessment reviews, or you could leapfrog a few years by becoming well versed in the secrets of Linux.

A Medal of Binary Honor


If you apply for a job wearing a Linux badge on your shirt, you will have cleared away quite a few obstacles without having had to even prove yourself. Sure, this sleight of hand will work up to a certain level. For example, if you end up being unlucky of having me as your interviewer, you'd better be able to demonstrate your skills, but for most employers, Linux still remains a synonym for professional respect. Not at home no, but in the office, yes. The beard and the pipe trick.

If you are coming to work in a company that is using Linux, you know you have just been handed an unexpected bonus. Again, it's never black and white. Companies will use the best, i.e. cheapest tools they can find to get the job done. The fact someone uses Linux might just be a side effect of brute computational power or support cost they can afford. However, regardless of how Linux came to be in this or that company, the beautiful and inevitable side effect is that there is going to be a different mindset there. People will be more inclined to listen to new, radical ideas, to discuss non-mainstream software, to implement automation and command-line solutions, to try to conform to global practices and standards. Linux begets diversity. And you want that wherever you go to work. The alternative is a boring, monotone place that kills innovation. As preposterous as it sounds, Linux is a great indicator of the vitality and colorfulness of a workplace, when it comes to its human factor. Philosophically, you may ask, is it the human nature that affects software, or vice versa? It does not matter, because you reap benefits anyway.

Now come the crucial questions:


  • How does one become skilled in Linux?, 
  • Where do you learn it?, and,
  • How do you overcome the fear of this geeky system that tolerates no noobiness? 


If you are reading this article, you are most likely on the far, far end of the spectrum, so the message is quite irrelevant for you, but if you have friends facing tough job-seeking dilemmas, you might want to encourage them to read this.

Let's Get Linuxy


Learning Linux is often an informal process. People start dabbling in this or that distribution, get hooked and begin their distro-hopping journey. After a while, they settle on the most comfortable distro that meets their needs, and that's it. But you can do more, so much more.

Take your distribution, to an extreme. Choose any which subcomponent, and try to master it, completely. The definition might sound abstract, but Linux was created with self-learning as its chief ingredient. Hence those man and info pages. Now, I do not suggest you send panicking newbies down that lane, but for aspiring enthusiasts, this is your portal to knowledge. You will find yourself in a sea of definitions and tools, each taking you their own way.

Still, some formality can go a long way. Even if your job description never takes you down the path of pure system administration, qualifying for a diploma or a certification of some sort can prove that you're capable of working through a process, if needed, give your wild Linux beasts its corral and nosebag. For example, you might want to consider the distribution-independent LPI certifications. Novell, RedHat and Ubuntu also offer their own qualification programs. I can vouch for these myself, as a customer. While they really mean absolutely nothing in my actual daily work, they do add to that beard-and-pipe image ever so slightly. They were also useful in my job seeking phase, as they allow companies to more easily filter the applicants. When one says, I know Linux, it's really hard to quantify this. However, when you go by an industry standard or a well-accepted criterion, you save time and confusion and potential misinterpretation.

But a nice, glossy paper is meaningless without actual knowledge. It's nice to have a framework to help you define your Linux glory roadmap, but you still need actual hands-on experience. This is where Linux really shines. It is possible, conceivable to have a semi-professional Linux environment in one's home. It's virtually impossible, for a variety of reasons, to get the same quality of results using Microsoft Windows or other operating systems. Take a couple of laptops, a few desktops, a dozen virtual machines, and you can create an extremely elaborate Linux test setup, all for free. This is your proving ground, and here you learn skills. Some GUI at first, then more and more scripting and automation. As your knowledge builds, so does your understanding of how things need to be done. When it comes being practical, Linxu has this other advantage: it is intuitively efficient. You will learn how to do things the right way, all on your own, because the architecture of the system will force you.

Conclusion


After several months or years, you will find yourself immersed in a beautiful, fruitful world called Linux, and you will have gained yourself a wealth of knowledge that has nothing to do with Linux itself. You will have learned about hardware, networking, firewalls, services, and other useful ideas, all because trying Linux made you study them. Now, when you seek employment, even as a Microsoft specialist, you will have a solid, confident wall of knowledge to back your claims, and maybe you will get that next pay rise that sooner. Just as some would tell you any man ought to go through a military service because it builds character, I say, you ought to dip your hand in Linux, because it will build your career. Even if you never use it at work.

Be selfish, think of yourself, think of money.  Use Linux.

-- Dedoimedo

__________________________________________

Igor Ljubuncic aka Dedoimedo is the guy behind dedoimedo.com. He makes a living out of his very hobby - Linux, and holds a bunch of certifications that make a nice pile in the bottom drawer.

Hello, Dedoimedo here, a man who makes a living fiddling with Linux. Approximately nine years ago, I had my first chance encounter with Linux, and since, we've been together, quite happy. Like most chance things, Linux comes into people's lives in random, strange ways, and trying to define them with a mathematical formula probably misses the point. Which is why we are here, to talk about Linux, and how it makes sense to have it in your life. No fanboyism, no religion, just pure and simple logic.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Making a Living in a Microsoft World, Enriched by GNU/Linux

by Guest Writer +Chris Ahlstrom

I enjoy GNU/Linux and prefer the freedom it offers.  And yet I work within a "Microsoft" world.  I am not alone.

My computing started with Digital Equipment Corporation: a PDP-8 in high school, PDP-11 in college and graduate school, a semester on UNIX in the early 1980's.  But my first real job involved writing code for DOS.  I remember fondly the Microsoft FORTRAN manual, which reminded me of DEC manuals. For the next few years, it was all DOS for me, with a brief stint on SunOS. (Credit Image Right: FunWithLinux.net)

About that time, along came Windows 3, a usable version of Windows.


Compared to SunOS, it was primitive: no networking, no taking screenshots of other people's workstations, no sending the sound of a toilet flushing to their terminal, the way you could on SunOS.  But Windows had apps.  Borland put out a nice compiler for it, and I got to be decent at writing apps for DOS/Windows.

Around 1995, my appreciation of Microsoft software was at its peak.  Internet Explorer seemed decent enough, why mess with Netscape?  Microsoft Office was stable and usable, not the rococo bloatware it was to become.  Windows NT 4 was usable.  Eventually I bought Visual C++, and it was decent.  I had a vague notion of Microsoft being the 800-pound gorilla of computing.  I'd heard of Linux, in some news reports about "hackers".

Then somebody lent me a Red Hat Linux 5 disk.


I couldn't figure out how to enable graphics with it.  I toyed with the command-line, but dropped Linux for a bit.  Eventually found a book with a couple Linux disks in it, and got Red Hat 6 working with X Windows.  It was FUN!  After a couple months of retreating to Windows NT/2000 to figure stuff out, I starting using Linux full time on my home machine.  After a year of non-use, I wiped Windows from it.

I continued to write code for a project that is Windows-based.  But I've transitioned to using GNU/Linux for all of my computing work except for compiling and testing the code on Windows, modifying Word documents of complex format, and accessing training that "Requires Internet Explorer".  I spend most of my day in Linux.

At the same time, hanging around other Linux lovers, I came to know more of Microsoft's tactics that helped make it so dominant on the consumer desktop.  Some of these tactics disgusted me, and I voiced my opinions.  The anti-Linux people climbed all over me about it; even some pro-Linux people were admonishing.  How could I write code for "Windows" while decrying "evil" Microsoft and promoting Linux?  Why didn't I switch to a "Linux" job?  Why did I buy "Windows" laptops (thus supporting Microsoft) and slick them to install Linux, when I could be buying more expensive laptops from "Linux" vendors?

How could I be such a hypocrite!?


Obviously, some of the reaction was trolling.  And the trolling would come no matter what -- if you never touch anything but Linux, you're a sack-cloth wearing zealot and obviously a crank, but if you use both systems, you're a hypocrite.  It's all black with trolls.

But it's a grey world, really, and I owe some explanation of why I still deal with Windows, even though I don't like Microsoft as a company.  Why do I work at a "Windows" job while advocating Linux and Free software?

Well, the fundamental reason is that it is not, to me, a "Windows" job.  Windows is merely the target platform, and just one of the tools I use.  The code we write is mostly stock C++, and all along we've kept much of it cross-platform.  Part of our product was ported to Linux.  To me, my job is basically a "C++" job.

The first thing I do when given a work laptop is slick it and install Linux.  The customer has been very indulgent about it, and the infrastructure, if not supportive of Linux, does understand it and make allowances for it.  For example, Linux is exempt from the anti-virus requirement.  When I do need Windows, I fire up a virtual machine. The bottom line is that I get to spend most of my time happily using Linux-based desktops and tools.

The group of people I work with are good people, and it has always been pleasant working with them over the years.  That's not something to toss away simply because one doesn't like a particular tool or platform, or the company that created it.  I've got tenure, a good reputation, good work to do, and friends.

Lastly, well, I'm getting pretty long in the tooth by industry standards.  Jobs are difficult to come by.  In my location, Linux jobs are increasing, but mostly in areas like networking or information assurance, where I am not sufficiently competent.

Thus, my place is as a Linux-loving programmer enduring a Windows-permeated environment.


I can appreciate someone who casts aside all other considerations in their quest for freedom from interference.  We owe a debt to people like that.  But not everyone needs to live up to that kind of standard.  The differences in the nature of Linux and Windows software are instructive and eye-opening.  I can use my experience with Windows to describe why I believe Linux is mostly just better than Windows.

Microsoft software is tinged by the behavior of its maker and its fans.  Otherwise, there would be no impulse to question why someone would use software from multiple sources.

-- Chris Ahlstrom

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, April 12, 2013

How to Write a Conference Talk Proposal (and See More Women Speakers)


How to Write a Conference Talk Proposal 
(and See More Women Speakers)

by Guest Writer Rikki Endsley 


At the end of May, I'll head down to Austin to attend Texas Linux Fest 2013. This year will be my first time attending the event and it's also my first time on their speaker committee. Recently the CFP closed and I looked through talk proposals submitted to Texas Linux Fest. I noticed that I frequently got excited about an interesting talk title, only to be let down by the content of the proposal — or more precisely, the lack of content in the proposal. And I worry that we'll have a small percentage of women speaking, despite our outreach efforts. (Image credit: http://paulmjohnstone.files.wordpress.com)

I interviewed a few FOSS (free and open source software) conference organizers to round up a handy list of suggestions to help you write a better conference talk proposal. But first, here's my pep talk to women who have never submitted a conference talk proposal before:

Ladies, conference organizers cannot force you to submit talk proposals, but by golly I wish we could.

Why should you talk at an event?

  1. If you care about the low numbers of women represented in STEM careers, speaking at events is one way to raise visibility for women who are already here. How will anyone know about the cool stuff you are doing if you don't tell us about it?
  2. Speaking at events can be good for your career. Being a conference speaker looks great on a resume, can make your manager and team happy because you are publicizing your work, and makes you visible to potential future employers.
  3. Speaking at events can be great for your social life. As an event speaker, you get to rub elbows with other cool speakers, including some big names in tech. You also get to know the event organizers and network with attendees who share common interests with you.
  4. You can get cool stuff. Maybe you get a speaker gift, or invited to a speaker dinner, or access to the speaker's lounge with the good donuts. Or you could get an all-access pass to a pricey conference. And you get bragging rights, of course.
  5. You can get over your fear of public speaking. When I started speaking at events, I hated it. Dreaded it. Regretted signing up to do it. But I knew that I wanted numbers 1-4 on this list, so I bucked up and gave my first talk at a community conference. Then I gave another and another. I wasn't a natural, I looked nervous, and I felt like puking, but I did it. And every time I spoke at an event, it got a little easier and my talks got a little better. (Believe me, I'm still not the speaker I want to be, but I'm not giving up.)
  6. People want to hear you. If your talk got selected, there are people who want to hear what you have to say. Your talk attendees are interested in your message, even if your hands are shaking and you feel queasy. And they want you to succeed. Anyone who has ever given a talk already went through the crazy thoughts rushing through your head and the churning going on in your gut. (Check out this great book for speaking tips and advice: Confessions of a Public Speaker, by Scott Berkun.)

So why aren't you submitting talk proposals already?


And now for talk proposal best practices. I compiled these tips from suggestions I received from fellow TLF 2013 speaker committee members Cody Lee and Nathan Willis, Selena Deckelmann (frequent conference speaker and event organizer), and Chris St. Pierre (2013 USENIX Configuration Management Summit program chair).

8 Tips for Writing a Talk Proposal:



  1. List key points you plan to cover in your talk. The points should be somewhat specific, but broad enough for the selection committee to understand or at least do a quick search for the topic if they are not familiar with the subject.
  2. What's the one thing you want your audience to walk away from your talk with? State that sentence in your talk proposal.
  3. One way to start proposals is with questions you think the audience might ask before they see your talk.
  4. Specify whether you will include a demo in your talk, what it will be, and anything you might need the event organizers to provide for it.
  5. How long will your talk be? If you have a 45 minute time slot, but you only expect your talk to take 30, how will you fill the other 15 minutes?
  6. Who is your intended audience? For example, novice programmers, expert software developers, recruiters, community managers?
  7. If you want to speak at an event but can't afford to cover travel and/or lodging, specify that in the proposal. If your proposal is compelling enough, event organizers might have a travel budget or other resources to help you attend the event.
  8. Don't be afraid to over-communicate. You need to convince the speaker committee that your talk will help make their event interesting.

Still stumped? Chris advises, “I always try to make my proposal ready for immediate publication. That is, I look up last year's program for the conference that I'm proposing to, and I make my proposal match their format exactly — sections, approximate length, etc. Ideally, once they accept my talk they should just be able to copy and paste into their proceedings.”

And Selena recommends a couple of other handy resources to help you polish your proposal:
What other tips do you have for writing talk proposals?  Let us know in the comments. 

-- Rikki Endsley


____________________________________

From her website ( rikkiendsley.com ) bio:

"Rikki Endsley started her career in IT as the managing editor of Sys Admin magazine. She moved on to become managing editor and then associate publisher of Linux Pro Magazine and ADMIN magazine, and editor in chief of Ubuntu User magazine. In addition to her current role as the community manager for the USENIX Association and managing editor of ;login:, Rikki writes for a variety of tech publications.

Rikki has an English degree from the University of Texas (Austin) and a Master’s of Science degree in Journalism from the University of Kansas. For her thesis, she researched how to highlight women’s contributions to open source technologies."



Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Migration Needs a Plan

by Guest Writer +Simon Phipps


Migration Needs A Plan
Simon Phipps, Meshed Insights Ltd

Perhaps you’ve considered migrating your company to an open source desktop productivity suite? There are a host of good reasons for such a move. The most obvious one that comes to mind is to save on license fees, but don’t be fooled. For the migration process to be a success and the full benefits to be reaped, you must invest in the changeover itself. Don’t believe that because you want to save money long term you should skimp short-term. A look at the City of Freiburg’s attempted migration reveals the dangers of treating the new software as a drop-in replacement. (Image right Credit: Wikipedia.org)

The true benefits of the change arise not from avoiding license fees but from the flexibility your company gains. That flexibility comes from cross platform interoperability and the longevity given to the tools and file formats you are free to use. Even simple changes can make a big difference. For example, a company-wide policy of using hybrid PDF format for all documents distributed internally is a significant first step into freedom. Distributing editable document versions of any format, open or not, encourages unnecessary complexity at the desktop as well as potentially limiting the life of your “corporate memory”.

Together these benefits give a significant level of control over your IT environment and the far lower rate of change makes documents accessible for the longest possible time. That stability alone ensures that the features in use across your company’s ecosystem are as interoperable as possible. Thus the savings come a little further down the line, once the new system is up and running, and not just as a result of the changeover.

To make sure that the changeover to open document formats and open source tools is a successful one (bringing all the desired benefits and being adopted quickly by staff), requires planning, foresight and intentionality with regard to the migration process itself. Continuing their practice of creating resources and “letting the work do the talking” The Document Foundation have recently issued a white paper explaining how to conduct a successful migration. Naturally TDF use LibreOffice as the open source suite to install, but other open source alternatives work just as well with the same ideas.

The migration guide condenses the hard-won experiences of a number of community contributors who make their living consulting on office productivity migrations. It walks through a 10-step plan, involving everything from analysis of your existing practices through training strategies and implementation of the new software and beyond into recording and learning from the process itself. Hopefully the paper will evolve as the community adds its experience – it’s a hybrid PDF after all, anyone can edit it and this would make a great focus for the cross-community collaboration some folk are calling for.

Already TDFs migration guide has a wealth of good advice, highlighting the need for planning, preparation and ongoing funding for making a change of this nature to your companies working habits. The obvious subtext to the document’s creation is that with the growing importance of the open Web and interoperability, making the migration to open source tools and formats is a consideration worth serious thought. It’s a change which may just make the difference for your company.


__________________________

Simon Phipps is currently President of the Open Source Initiative and a board member of the Open Rights Group and of Open Source for America. He has served on a number of advisory boards for other projects, including the GNOME Foundation, OpenSolaris, OpenJDK, and OpenSPARC.


© 2013 Meshed Insights Ltd.   Licensed for use under CC-BY-SA 3.0 crediting meshedinsights.com, other rights reserved.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, April 1, 2013

Of Standards, Trends, and Shiny Things

by Dietrich Schmitz

I've been challenging the status quo of late--testing ideas--questioning assumptions--all to satisfy myself that things are the way they seem to appear.

The fact is, the Linux Desktop has been a failure.  Of all the diversity we see, only a few exemplars surface as noteworthy examples of state of the art technology with a high level of innovation.

I've used words like speedbump for Debian and cookie cutter for my dissatisfaction with the confusion that so many Distros engender.  There's nothing innovative about being a copy cat Distro.

We have Android and ChromeOS both to be proud of as a measure of what innovating is really all about.  Even Canonical's Ubuntu hasn't really gained traction in all the years it has been under development.

Both Android and ChromeOS got off the ground and to market production in a matter of only two years.  Both are truly unique.  Most users of both don't know they are using Linux.

I see another prospect emerging, SolusOS, which has garnered much interest and grown in popularity because it has succeeded in doing the fundamentals and putting aside being fancy like Gnome3 or Unity.  This is no cookie cutter Distro.

Still, the struggles of SolusOS founder, developer, +Ikey Doherty have been evident.  He realized that he was on a slippery slope, totally disadvantaged in getting things done in the normal community cooperative way of doing things.  For various reasons, the cooperation wasn't there by virtue of intransigence, political skirmishes, conflicts of interest and so he reached a turning point and summoned a new found resolve.  That resolve and commitment includes taking SolusOS in a new direction away from its Debian roots.  Specifically, he is writing a new GUI Consortium and integrating PiSi Package Manager on a new toolchain base independent of any other Distro or repository.  He is being pragmatic, carefully working through the technical issues and has succeeded in a workable viable product which is in its early stages of pre-beta development.

So, it is out of his adversity new opportunity has come, an amalgam of conviction, determination and courage as new innovative ideas form to challenge the status quo, the resistance.  Occasionally, something really good is born out of adversity.  I believe that to be the case for SolusOS 2.

I will bide my time to try it when it reaches solid footing.  In the meantime, I've asked Ikey to write and he agreed to share this story:


Standards, Trends, And Shiny Things

by Ikey Doherty



Not being a blogger, I'm not privy to the standard protocols. So I'll start the old fashioned way with an introduction. I'm Ikey Doherty, founder of the SolusOS Linux Distribution, and primarily a software developer. (Image right: Ikey Doherty)

Trends

Trends are powered by people. In terms of software, we find something that's either relatively unknown or met with a lot of competition. That said, once enough people jump on the bandwagon, the trend is born. People flock to this new software, spreading the news through the internet.
We can look at it the same way market businesses operate: Word of mouth. A friend of yours may have found a great stall at the local market, and you visit. If happy, you tell your friends. So on, and so forth.
Now apply this to say, Ubuntu PPA's. Would people be using Grive if not for trends ? Of course not :) Lets take OMG!Ubuntu for example, we could say it's a trend-setter in the Ubuntu world. Over time a project gains enough following through the Internet's equivalent of the real-world word of mouth. People flock to these projects and soon they become big enough to be part of everyday Linux life. Note the “Shiny Things” rule is also applicable here.

Standards

In my most honest point of view, I do not think that Linux standards can be planned. I personally believe that standards will emerge from working implementations. It's pretty fair to say now that the majority of Linux distributions ship with PulseAudio, despite so much resistance. In it's early days it was dubbed “the software that currently breaks your audio” . Now, a few years down the line, it is practically the standard audio server within Linux distributions.
PulseAudio has proven itself over the last few years, and has become standard by its own merit. This is an example of a working implementation becomes standard.

Planned Standards

Planning standards is much harder. Unfortunately many people make the automatic comparison with proprietary solutions. One I've often seen pop up on forums has been the comparison to DirectX. Let's remember that this is a proprietary solution by Microsoft put forth as their own standard for their own operating system. This is the standard given to vendors, and creators of games, etc, and there is no need for another.



Within Linux, we do not have a single vendor or The Distribution. We have our own ways of doing things, and thrive on variety. If one API doesn't shape up, another one is born. We have an ever changing and evolving set of API's available to us. They're not always designed as standards, which many do seem to forget. I have often seen on my own forums and IRC channel and assumption that because something has been created, it is an attempt by the developer to force software on people.
We can just say no. If the software doesn't prove itself? It dies. Or looses interest. A new alternative soon appears :) Before you know it, we have a working implementation of something that gains popularity, becoming a trend. Eventually the big distributions adopt it, and we have a standard. Despite the differences between distributions, we can actually already see many standards in place.
Polkit, dbus, udev, bash are some of the many already in place. For the majority of distributions we can expect these to be in place. Although GTK and Qt are indeed different toolkits entirely, its safe to say the majority of distributions still ship with these. So, as an application developer, I know I can choose either of these major toolkits and know my application can still be used.



Sometimes, however, the world reacts badly to change. A perfect example of this is systemd. This is literally the system daemon, offering far superior service management and integration of boot services, i.e. integration with dbus and now udev is part of systemd. Some distributions did not want to rely on or use systemd, and now udev exists in some distributions as eudev, or completely ripped from the source of systemd to stand freely. This is an example of where fragmentation really happens. This now has two directions in which it can go: Either systemd eventually becomes adopted by more Linux distributions and becomes a standard (through the trend/proving period) or we end up with many forks and implementations and complain about fragmentation :)



VHS & Betamax

I think one of the most relevant concepts to Linux now would be the video format wars. Betamax offered high-quality video recordings, allowing customers to play back their recordings at will. So did VHS though. Two competing products, essentially offering the same thing. Yet only one could win this war. VHS won for a variety of reasons, the most important ones being two factors: Longer recording times and cheaper units. Essentially: value for money.



So, given that most of the software we encounter in the Linux world is free, how is this at all applicable? Because the user chose it. You, the user, have the power to shape the world around you. If nobody uses the new software it dies away. Developers may create something through true inspiration, but eventually someone will be using it. And if it makes it past the trend phase? You've got that software to that point. And now we're at the mercy of the user. If our software is no longer doing its job, you won't use it. The word will not spread.

My market stall will be very lonely :)

So, in my closing remark, I say this now: Actively support the variety of Linux and open source. Think of each developer as a card in your hand. It's up to you the hand you play. Just as you wouldn't limit yourself to one card in a game, do not limit the developers and inspiration available to the world you are shaping.  -- Ikey Doherty




Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Standardization as a Road to More Choice

by Guest Writer Michael Glasser


If you are reading this article from a Desktop Linux system take a minute and look at a few programs on your system: maybe your web browser, your primary word processor, your email program, and whatever else you use often. Look at the save and print dialogs, the term used to Quit (or Exit) a program, the terms used for Options or Settings and where such options are located and what hot keys are used. Chances are you will find much inconsistency in the programs you look at. Even within single programs there is often a great deal of inconsistency. 

Is this a problem? Many users say it is not; they believe they “get used to” each program and speak of how it is not hard to figure out the multiple styles found on their systems. Even if they do not realize it, though, inconsistencies do lead to problems – they lead to reduced productivity and efficiency and increase in user errors. This is backed up by HCI/UI research, is accepted by pretty much every relevant expert, and such ideas have been expressed by the teams that produce KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu, FireFox, and many other open source projects. Having a distro that works as a unified system is important if you care about the work you do.

What I would like to see – what would benefit desktop Linux users – would be a way for distro developers and users to get more choice than they do now. Imagine if Ubuntu had  minimalistic styles for their dialogs designed for great ease of use while PCLOS had more robust dialogs that allowed for renaming and deleting of files from the dialogs. Novice users would be able to trust that “settings” for their system were always in the same place and could look for the same term; more advanced users would know the hot key to get to the same feature. If the users did not like the choices made by the distro developers, they could swap these things out on their own, and their choices would affect their entire system because developers had accepted whatever standards KDE, Gnome, and others had agreed on.

More choice. Greater productivity. Improved efficiency. Reduced Errors. Nothing is lost.

I am not going to pretend this would be easy or perfect. Nor would I want this forced on distro managers or users or developers (and there are good reasons in each of those groups why they might sometimes wish to go outside of the standards). It should be a choice. 

Having such choice is something I have been seeking and predicting for many years, and looking at Kubuntu or PCLOS (or many other distros) of even three or four years ago compared with what they offer today we see that they do act more and more like complete systems and not like a bunch of unrelated software jumbled together... what a customer of mine said felt like a system held together with duct tape that he was afraid would fall apart at any moment (even though he never had a system crash and had no more application crashes than on his old OS, maybe even fewer).

The open source community is getting better and better at allowing users to have distros act like unified systems. There is, however, much room for improvement. I am not a programmer. I would love to hear ideas on how to help move the open source ecosystem to better allow for this increase in choice.

-- Michael Glasser


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Thinking aloud: The Price of Hardware Quality

by Guest Writer +Gonzalo Velasco C.

Some years ago, we had (one may say) good, classic brands of computers, and others not so good. The price of ones and others vary. An original IBM PC was very expensive (all computers were, at the beginning), but clones came cheaper.

Quality was also quite well divided by boundaries, and followed the quality and durability of the equipment. A Toshiba, or HP, Compaq, etc., machine was considered of good (hardware) quality, and last as long as what you expected for the money you had paid. Maybe some of you still have one of those running a minimal GNU/Linux distribution today because the hardware lasted. (Image Credit: http://www.whitesettlement.lib.tx.us)

On the other hand, you had certain oriental clone brands that were cheaper, lasted less, and had issues with drivers both in Windows as well (and mainly) in Linux. I guess those machines have already been recycled for plastic, silicon and metal, because some capacitor may have burned away.

What has happen since then?

Today we have many options of hardware, operational systems and software, general prices had gone down, and some cell phones are more expensive than a computer. And what about quality? Well, seem that the border is not so clear, and there are some pretty expensive machines out there, that don't last as long as we expect.

And are they worth it?

Many of us have the feeling that a label, a brand, is no longer a guarantee that the product is good.

Many hardware industries deliver a product that is going to be tested (for real) by the user. If something goes wrong, they will fix it for you, or even exchange it for a new one (if the brand is more serious). But why does it have to be this way? Why are traditional brands so bad today?

For some people, traditional brands not only mean nothing, but are even avoided. Some of my friends disparage Toshiba, HP/Compaq, Acer, Dell notebooks, for instance. I, myself, have seen more than 10 laptops from Dell break around me. I live in Brazil, and many colleagues at the university had or have different Dell notebook models, and had serious problems with the LCD display, the motherboard, the power source, the keyboard, etc. They say “the service is very good”, and I keep saying: “Service is like insurance; things are good when you do not have to use it!”.

I have concluded that the average priced models of those brands are quite bad, as a rule (are there exceptions). So, perhaps, we should invest mode money in a good hardware. Let's take a look at the prices.

Recently I found a link to this recent analysis in my G+ contacts page/time-line.  Let's see some models and prices of supposed high-class machines and others, there (I quoted the author, below) and in other sites, too:

Acer Aspire S3-951 - “Priced at a relatively modest £670 (~ US$ 1076.59 according to an on-line currency converter; or Amazon List Price: US$ 849.9), the S3-951 matches most of its rivals with a 13.3in screen, 1.6GHz Core i5 processor, 4GB RAM and, good heavens, a conventional 320GB hard disk, which helps to explain its lower price”. See, to get a lower price (for northern hemisphere standards!) they have sacrificed the hard drive.

Dell XPS 13 - “...the top-of-the-range model, which costs a hefty £1299 (US$ 2087.29) but turns in strong performance thanks to a Core i7 processor running at 1.7GHz, along with 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD”. If I am not mistaken, SSD drives and RAM units are getting cheaper. Maybe the cost of this laptop comes from it's gorilla glass and carbon fibre shell.

Dell's site in the US shows another more common model (like the ones I have seen defective here), an Latitude E5420, 14” display, i5 processor, 2 GB of RAM and a 250GB 5400rpm HD for US$ 1094.00. In the BR shop, the price today is US$ 1168.785.

Sony Vaio... Notebook VPC-EG33EB, i3 processor, 14" LED display , 4GB RAM and a 500 GB HD = US$ 1067.11.
A fancier model: Notebook VPC-Z235GB, i7 processor, 13.1” LED display, 6 GB of RAM, SSD drive of 128 GB and Power Media Dock Station = US$ 3558.21 (gee!!). I don't know this big brothers from Sony but my wife has a ~ US$ 600 model, Dual-Core 3 GB RAM VGN-320J and it's sluggish with MS Windows Vista, and has the display and cooler changed because of a defective breed.

Apple MacBook Air 11” - “The current model has a 1.6GHz Core i5 processor, so it can keep up with most of its Wintel rivals, but – as always – Apple pads its profits by giving the £849 model a mere 2GB RAM and 64GB SSD. I'm inclined to go for the £999 model (US$ 1605.24), which doubles up both the RAM and SSD”. Macbook Air is one of the “chicest” computers nowadays, and the price, in the southern hemisphere, makes it a machine for “rich people” or “snobs”.

In Apple's on-line US shop, I found this: an iMac (desktop) 21.5-inch, 2.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5, 4 GB RAM, an impressive 1TB HD, and a AMD Radeon (weird choice) HD 6770 video card with 512MB for US$1499.00. In Brazil, because of the taxes and all, this one costs US$ 2846.47 !!

Justice has to be made here: it is said (!) that Apple really cares for it's hardware to be a good platform for their OS. And I have heard some GNU/Linux serious users that say the best combination is an Apple machine running free, open source GNU/Linux OS! Even Linus Torvalds seems to believe it, since in a recent interview he talked about his laptop preference.

So, we can see that some (“bad”) models are not so much cheaper than supposedly good models, and some Apple (“good”) hardware models are more competitively priced than some fancier brands' models.   (Who would prefer a Sony before a Mac? Perhaps some MS Windows ultra fan!).

The fact is that customers cannot trust traditional brands easily, and sometimes may have to wait and see if the model they want is durable and pay for it. Voge (i.e. brands) is not to be trusted! The other options last less and may have issues with drivers.

Also, the looser combination of a “so-so” hardware with a certain OS is a recipe for disaster.

If I may offer some free advice to the readers: search for a really good hardware, and ask the vendor to buy it OS-less. For my wealthier friends, perhaps I'll suggest a Mac. At home afterwards, install your favorite GNU/Linux distribution in such hardware, and be happy for a long time.

-- Gonzalo Velasco


About Gonzalo Velasco


Gonzalo lives in Brazil, is a professor at a University possessing a Doctorate in Biological Oceanography.  He is also a Poseidon Linux team member, and enthusiast of FOSS freedom and cooperative philosophy.
Enhanced by Zemanta