August 2008 Archives

KDE FLA: Re-licensing KDE?

| 2 Comments
As posted on dot.KDE, KDE e.V has adopted Free Software Foundation Europe's Fiduciary License Agreement. This will allow KDE contributors to assign their copyrights to KDE e.V.

According to dot.KDE "This enables projects to ensure their legal maintainability, including important issues such as preserving the ability to re-license and certainty to have sufficient rights to enforce licences in court."

There is currently a debate about the reasons for this move over at Groklaw. PJ is of the belief that such a move is necessary in order to enforce copyrights on KDE. I fail to see the need here. It seems clear to me that any individual or group of developers are able to seek redress when their copyrights are violated without need of the Fiduciary License Agreement.

It seems to me that the main reason for the FLA is to allow for a change of license. (or re-license as stated by the dot.KDE release) Linus Torvalds has acknowledged that re-licensing the Linux kernel would be nearly impossible given the disparate copyright assignments of the various contributors to that project. On the other hand, given the fact that contributors to GNU must assign their copyrights to the FSF, it was not an issue to move GNU from GPL v2 to v3.

While assignment of the copyright to KDE e.V. under the FLA is voluntary, will we see a situation in the future where projects or contributions not on-board with the FLA are dropped from KDE?

Does the adoption of the FLV signify a future re-license to GPL v3? Or could it possibly lead to a proprietary KDE? How does the acquisition of Trolltech by Nokia come into play here if at all?

I am of the opinion that we have nothing to worry about for now. However we cannot predict what kinds of influences or future situations will affect KDE e.V. This allows a potential re-license of KDE by a relatively small group of people. Possibly even against the wishes of the original contributors.

What do you think?

madeinusa.jpegThis is a must-read, for everyone, and not meant as a shot across the bow of Windows users in general.  Yesterday's article at The Register, entitled, Anatomy of a malware scam, underscores just how far internet 'evil doers' will go to mislead the unsuspecting into their fraudulent, criminal schemes.

Suffice it to say, Windows users are especially vulnerable as targeted by this elaborate and sophisticated ploy to offer the purchase of fake anti-malware software via comment spam. (This sort of thing doesn't happen with Linux.)

Bloggers should, if not using a reliable anti-comment spam tool, consider turning off their talkbacks.

Some of the spam commenters are sufficiently unaware and not checking their logs that they continue to 'POST' even when talkback is disabled on my Movable Type system.  As an added measure I have renamed the cgi to return an http 404.

Please take note and be safe!


I am a God Damn, *%$$%&*()!!* Protectionist!

| 4 Comments
madeinusa.jpegI've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the state of our Economy here in the USA.  Just recently, George Ou wrote an article entitled A new era for China and a new era for the Internet.

Not particularly taken by the article's sentiment, I responded with how I feel about China in general:


While I enjoyed Sunday morning watching on-line U.S. v China Basketball, and do enjoy the benefits of shopping at WalMart, I feel strongly that China is a failure in humanitarian terms with their historical treatment of the oppressed Tibet.

We continue to see evidence of their oppressive ways. Our trade deficit widens as we lose jobs and manufacture fewer goods for export. The so called 'global economy' is at work, but I see what has developed here in the U.S. as a by-product of rewarding Corporate America for off-shore labor practices and NAFTA and CAFTA all of which leaves Americans with fewer and fewer good paying jobs to come by.

To turn that around would take broad protectionism, exacting tariffs on trade imports to bring prices back in line where the same finished goods could be made here in the U.S.A. at a competitive price and return jobs back to America where they belong. We Americans are slowly losing our ability to sustain and be an self-sufficient nation who take care of their own first. We should be concerned about the effects China has on our way of life.

Watch Out America
.


Some interesting talkback from George Ou and John Carroll of ZDNet ensued and I was truly surprised at how what seems to me to be painfully obvious common sense has taken on such a perjorative connotation.  So much of what is happening is central to our country's governing economic Foreign trade policy that the effects 'Free Trade' must be reexamined as to whether it is producing a net benefit to Americans.  I say it isn't and so must change.

I've spent a few days, reviewing some of what was exhanged in the threads at George Ou's "Technology For Mortals" and came upon a recent article entitled

You Are a God Damn, *%$$%&*()!!* PROTECTIONIST!,


hence the title of the blog entry, which clarifies much of the issues of Protectionism vs. Free Trade.

It is interesting to note that George Ou's stance on Protectionism is almost 180 degrees from his employer's point of view.

Warren Buffett wrote a piece on Squanderville, which, although dated 2003, still provides clarity to the seriousness of our Trade Deficit.

We've had eight years of neglect and it's time for real 'change' in America.  We need to make taking care of our own back yard priority one again.

Please participate in the survey below.

--Dietrich




 

Linux Survey: What's Your Flavor?

| 0 Comments
[Update: August 21, 2008 Linux Survey Closed]


What's your Linux Distribution? Please participate in the survey below.  I'll accumulate responses for about a week and then bring back the results and share them with you.  (Please accept my apologies in advance if I did not include your Distro in the list.) --Dietrich


Blaming the 'Community'

| 0 Comments
In a recent column on ZDNet Jason Perlow lamented that he could not use Moonlight on Linux to stream the Olympics. Mr. Perlow then cites the lack of community involvement in helping Miguel de Icaza make Moonlight compatible with Silverlight 2.0 content. In short, Mr. Perlow blames the community.

There are several rather obvious problems with Mr. Perlow's assertions. Let's start with NBC. They could have chosen to steam the events via Adobe's Flash. Although not free software (for the purists) Flash is compatible with Linux. To be clear, NBC has a right to use whatever technology they choose to stream the Olympics. They chose to use a relatively new Microsoft technology which is not as widely supported as Flash is.

Despite Mr. Perlow's assertion about the 'community', not all FOSS developers think it's productive or even wise to clone all things Microsoft. Many in the 'community' see Mono, and by extension Moonlight as a potential patent trap. Consider the following quote from Brian Goldfarb in a recent ZDNet posting;


"That is false. Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) -- it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is."

As the lead Silverlight developer, Mr. Goldfarb is surely familiar with Moonlight and Mono. When we examine his statements here it is clear that Microsoft believes Mono to be infringing on their patents. The point Mr. Goldfarb was trying to make is that all downstream recipients of Moonlight are protected by a blanket patent covenant. So while Mono is infringing, Moonlight is safe right? Not so fast. What is confusing and even possibly disingenuous here is the fact that Moonlight depends on Mono libraries which creates another potential patent trap. For clarification let's take a look at a portion of the patent covenant for Moonlight.

"Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue Downstream Recipients of Novell and its Subsidiaries for infringement under Necessary Claims of Microsoft on account of such Downstream Recipients' use of Moonlight Implementations to the extent originally provided by Novell during the Term and, if applicable, the Extension or Post-Extension Period, but only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used to provide Plug-In Functionality."

Well now, this isn't so clear after all if you are operating outside of the Novell umbrella. The point here is that the 'community' have legitimate reasons for not whole-heartedly supporting Moonlight. To blame the 'community' rather than the broadcaster who chose to use Silverlight is unreasonable at best.

NBCOlympics.com: Linux Users SOL

| 0 Comments
View image If you've wished you could watch on-line some of the live video feeds provided by NBC but discovered that your Linux Distro's browser isn't supported, don't despair.

If you have a licensed copy of Windows and about 8 gigs of free space, I would recommend you try first installing SUN's xVM VirtualBox and installing Windows there.  They've made Virtual Machines configuration as easy as possible and if your PC's processor has Intel-VT or AMD-V hypervisor support, all the better, because VirtualBox makes good use of it.  It required use of IE7 and installing the Silverlight component and answering a few questions regarding which local affiliates I feed from.  Don't delete the cookies otherwise you'll have to answer those questions again.

It is Sunday morning here in Herkimer, Upstate New York and I am enjoying watching the Basketball games over VirtualBox with a Windows XP guest VM running on an HP Pavilion Turion64x2 and openSUSE 11.0 x86_64 host operating system.

If you are feeling conflicted, well then I understand, just don't watch the Olympics.

--Dietrich

PGP: Empowerment and Your Privacy

| 0 Comments
 
junkmail.jpg
You use it every day, at work, at home.  Email--that great boon to technology--probably used more than anything else that is so relied upon, yet at the same time is the source of much difficulty and scorn.  It's almost always there when you open your email.  Spam.  Junk mail, if you will.  Why WHY must these always show up in my mail, you ask?: SMTP.

SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol came into being and because of its great simplicity  became the popular de facto method for sending electronic mail that it is today.

What its designers never contemplated was how such a good basic technology might be put to a 'bad' use.

To its credit, SMTP is efficient at handling enclosure and transport of email.  A downside to its use is that now that most everyone and all businesses depend on it for communication, it is difficult to make changes to its design without causing major disruption.

So, we shrug continuing with its use and never address the points of concern.  A primary source of concern with SMTP is that emails are sent as unencrypted 'clear text' and pass through the ISPs and intermediaries in human-readable form to their recipient's point of destination.

A second source of concern is that the source sender's email address can be forged.  This alone is the cause for the rise of spam on the internet.

Is their a way to address both of these concerns?  The answer is Yes.  As we all have come to expect, putting our paper mail into envelopes has been a uniform practice to ensure our mail's privacy while in transit.  That's reasonable and works well most of the time.

Your email can be read anywhere it travels without your permission unless you take precautions to put it in a form of 'envelope' that renders it unreadable except by those you designate.

One of the technologies that puts this 'envelope' around your email is called PGP or Pretty Good Privacy.  The technology is more than 'pretty good', in fact it is excellent and you can have it for free thanks to its inventor, Phil Zimmermann.  You can read more about him at Wikipedia, but I thought you might like to have his take on PGP and Your Privacy, entitled, Why I Wrote PGP.

It all makes sense after you read it.  Making how we handle our emails a matter of privacy should concern everyone much as it does for paper mail.  In fact, if nothing is done, in the future your email privacy may no longer be private at all, at least according to the message in this article as suggested by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

There are several options currently for ensuring that your email stays private, including PGP, openPGP, GnuPG, and S/MIME.  PGP is commercial and may require a license and fee to use, the others are free.  They all work toward the same goal, encrypting the MIME clear text email message with signed certificates guaranteeing the identity of the sender and producing a trust level that the receiver can use to be assured they are receiving a message from the 'real' sender that is unreadable along its transit to the destination without any means of tampering.

A by-product 'benefit' of using PGP is that it effectively closes down the channel of unsolicited spam, because the sender's email address field cannot be tampered with or more specifically forged as happens with spam.

We enjoy the reliability of SSL, Secure Shell, VPNs.  Why?  Encryption.

When will your Right to Privacy be important enough that everyone recognizes that email in its current form as a matter of 'standardization' must change?  This is not just a national issue, but one that will require global participation (remember the envelope) if it can have a chance to become adopted and universally accepted.

Your thoughts?






Microsoft in Denial: And I Don't Mean Egypt

| 1 Comment
sphynx.jpgIs Microsoft in Denial? If you have their version of the story, Vista sales continue to be strong and life is good. Taken from the vantage point of a major OEM, HP, the story is more than a bit different.

According to a senior executive at HP, Windows XP is still outselling Vista despite Windows XP being withdrawn from sale in June 2008.

Jane Bradburn, market development manager of commercial notebooks for HP Australia, told APC Magazine that the company was still selling XP machines, but issuing a Vista licence for them. This casts serious doubts over claims from Microsoft that Vista is selling well.

"From the 30th of June, we have no longer been able to ship a PC with a XP licence," she said.

"However, what we have been able to do with Microsoft is ship PCs with a Vista Business licence but with XP pre-loaded. That is still the majority of business computers we are selling today."

This would mean that in Microsoft's books the sales would show up as a sale of Vista.

Rob Kingston, group manager of commercial product marketing for HP said: " Looking into a crystal ball, I don't think businesses will see much value in upgrading to Vista until late next year and, even so, Microsoft will probably have come out with something else by then."

Companies are not the only ones less than enamoured with the operating system. Developers are shunning it too.

The news backs up research by Forrester Research analyst Thomas Mendel, which estimates that only 8.8 per cent of enterprises have adopted Vista. This led to an angry response from Microsoft on its Vista blog, claiming that it had sold over 180 million copies of Vista.

"Given that there's a mountain of evidence to refute this report - including multiple reports from Forrester and other top-tier analysts - this appears to be more focused on making sensationalist statements rather than offering a thoughtful industry perspective based on conversations with IT operations professionals or deep knowledge of enterprise deployment cycles," it said.

"How is this useful guidance to customers? It's disappointing to see such a respected organisation like Forrester take this approach."


Couple this information to the recent Microsoft SEC form 10-K filing, which mentions (Apple cough) in passing:

"A competing vertically-integrated model, in which a single firm controls both the software and hardware elements of a product, has been successful with certain consumer products such as personal computers, mobile phones and digital music players."
and it appears we have a situation here. Why Microsoft chose not to mention Apple directly by name is subject to speculation but the threat assessment is clear. Vista is not doing well for many reasons, and competition is making inroads into Microsoft's traditional lines of business on many fronts.  Linux factors into the mix more than is suggested.

Your thoughts?

Ubuntu: The Face of Desktop Linux?

| 1 Comment

More specifically GNOME.

Now before I begin let me say that this isn't about which Linux distribution or desktop environment is 'better' than another.

Different
More people are becoming aware of Linux everyday. Many of these people seriously consider giving it a try. As it happens, they are often helped along by experienced Linux users they know like you and me. We are ambassadors of sorts for the Linux community. While there are plenty of great 'selling points' to Linux, it is very important that new users coming from the Windows world understand that Linux is different from the ubiquitous OS. It is this fact that got me thinking recently while helping a new Linux user get started.

Perceptions
I recently helped a friend install a Linux distribution. I set him up with a nice looking KDE desktop which he proceeded to dive into. I gave him a brief crash course and left him to explore his new OS. I returned the next day to find my friend rather frustrated. As he started to tell me about his problems his first words were "Well, this is like Windows in some ways but...". The comparisons to Windows continued from there.

After explaining to him that Linux was different from Windows I offered to help him Install GNOME. He decided to try it and I commenced installing it.

After installing GNOME I had my friend restart. Once the GNOME desktop was up and running the first words I heard from my friend were "Wow! This is different". That's when it clicked in my mind. "This is different". That's the point he failed to grasp and I failed to impart when he started his Linux experience with KDE.

Perceptions matter. My friend saw the initial similarities between KDE and Windows and his perception was not of an alternative operating system but of a Windows clone. Because GNOME looks quite different from the standard Windows UI my friend perceived his new Linux OS to be something new and different. The Windows comparisons from my friend stopped and the questions now centered around "How do I...".

The point here is not that GNOME is better for new users than KDE. The point is to make certain that new Linux users understand that their new operating is different from what they've been using. I have to wonder what part this issue of perceptions has played in the success of Ubuntu.