/ 2 Those of us who use Linux on our desktops understand that it is a great desktop OS. In this capacity it is perfectly capable of meeting the needs of most people. There are however, two major factors which prevent it from becoming a viable alternative for average people in the US. Both also represent a certain corruption of the US political system. I'm referring to software patents and the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' (DMCA).
People use their computers to browse the web, send and receive email, word processing, catalog and re-touch pictures etc... Linux and the applications included with most distributions are capable of doing these things and doing them well. Today people have come to expect multimedia capabilities with their computers. This is the dilemma which Linux faces in the US. Particularly with commercial DVDs. Not because GNU/Linux apps aren't capable of playing these encrypted discs but because they are prevented from doing so by the DMCA. In particular DeCSS which was created through reverse engineering by Norwegian Jon Johansen. (otherwise known as "DVD Jon")
The DMCA is a bad law which was passed after heavy lobbying by big media and proprietary software companies. The DMCA prevents circumvention of copy-protection and this is why the use of DeCSS is technically illegal in the US. Common sense and a basic idea of right and wrong would dictate that people should be allowed to view legally purchased content. The MPAA doesn't see it this way. Which is why they sought to prosecute Jon Johansen in Norway. After two attempts the judge in the case asserted that since Johansen had legally purchased his DVDs he had a right to watch them even if that required circumvention of the CSS encryption. Johansen was aquitted of all charges.
While other nations are more concerned with consumer protections in some respects, the use of DeCSS in the US remains illegal. To deal with this, Linux distributors in the US do not include DeCSS and do not offer it in their repositories. Although DeCSS can be easily downloaded from repositories outside of the US. Novell goes one step further by purposely crippling xine libraries in openSUSE to prevent the playback of encrypted DVDs even with the DeCSS library installed. Canonical now sells proprietary DVD software for use with Ubuntu. This puts Linux at a disadvantage in that Windows includes this capability. DVD software for windows is also generally included with the purchase of a DVD-ROM.
We must also consider the case of the ubiquitous iPod. OSX and Windows users have the option of installing iTunes. This software doesn't exist for use on Linux. With Linux, iPod compatibility is a moving target. Because of the popularity of the iPod, developers of free music players/managers have worked for iPod compatibility only to see it broken by the next firmware update from the most closed software/hardware company on the planet.
Today, the average consumer expects multimedia capabilities 'out-of-the-box'. (or at least easily obtainable) Today GNU/Linux is artificially handicapped by the DMCA putting the operating system at a disadvantage when compared to other OSs with respect to multimedia capabilities. Of course the freedom of GNU/Linux vastly out weighs this disadvantage but most people are not aware of Free Software's existence nor it's ideals. They just want it to work.
This dilemma is not easily solved in the US. We could push for bad laws such as the DMCA to be changed or repealed, but with powerful, big-money lobbies pressuring Congress this would be an exercise in futility. Another option (and one already taken by some) is to use DeCSS to watch legally purchased content as a matter civil disobedience and fight it out in court if it comes to that. Until this problem is solved, GNU/Linux will not become mainstream. Which brings us to a point of contention for many in the free software community.
Many in the 'community' are not concerned with whether or not Linux becomes 'mainstream'. Some even have an aversion to the idea. Mainstream adoption of Linux is important. With wider adoption comes wider awareness and increased advocacy. This is vital when faced with proprietary vendors who seek to destroy the 'threat' of Free Software by any and all means necessary. (including corruption of our legislative process)
In part 2 we'll discuss software patents...
After six months of work from the whole community, we can finally introduce GNOME 2.24.0 to the world! It's a good release, with cool new stuff and big improvements (as usual ;-)). Among other things, I'm happy that empathy got in, and also glad for the ekiga team to see that they managed to get ekiga 3.0 out in time! It's actually a bit unfair to just mention those two events, since many more people rocked; go check the release notes to learn about more changes.
All of this 'hype' about the iPhone, G1, yada yada has just about reached a high crescendo. It's just so silly. They don't shine a candle to the Nokia N-series N95/N96.
There are still some N95s in the product channel but the newest is the N96. You don't have a touch screen (horrors) or a keyboard (OMG), but it does do a lot. Here's some of the things I do with it:Ok, the new T-Mobile HTC Android G1 arrived today. Yawn. Excuse me. I'm just not impressed. Why? Because I own a Nokia N95. Nokia is 'king of the hill' and the N95 is the smartphone to beat.One dissenting expert, however, said it was unfair to compare Apple's patching procedures with, say, Microsoft Corp.'s.
"You have to evaluate the patching performance of the company if you're looking at Macs," said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at vendor nCircle Network Security Inc. "And the last two weeks hasn't been a gold star for Apple." ( More... )What happens in Vegas, may stay locked down in Vegas. On Oct. 1, the state of Nevada will be requiring the encryption of all transmissions, such as e-mail, for all businesses that send personal, identifiable information over the Internet. The statute was signed into law in 2005 and is about to kick in as an enforceable law next month. Three years flies when you're raking in chips at casinos and enjoying the rising popularity of poker. The Nevada law is stated as such:
As with any law about to go in effect, this one could be bound to catch many Nevada businesses off guard. In parallel, a few IT security vendors that sell encryption software and hardware are lining up to tell the technology media about it. Think about all the hotels, resorts, golf courses, pawn shops, nightclubs, check cashing, ski lodges and small businesses this is going to effect. Not to mention all the businesses--the vice-ridden ones legal to Nevada only and otherwise--that incorporate in the tax-friendly state. Nevada is the West's version of Delaware (albeit a much sexier state, sorry Delaware). Beyond the infrastructure impact, the statute itself looks like swiss cheese. Bryce K. Earl, a Las Vegas-based attorney with Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Holley & Thompson, has been following the issue closely and believes there are some problems with the statute as it is on the books right now, namely the broad definition of encryption, the lack of coordination with industry standards and the unclear nature of penalties both criminal and civil. "The statute's lack of specificity with regard to penalties will perhaps create the unintended consequence of opening up more liability," said Earl. That doesn't sound good, but again, nothing has happened just yet. Earl explained why the broad definition of "encryption" by the state is potentially problematic. Here is the definition from the state's Web site:
Earl said an argument could be made that a password-protected document sent in an e-mail might be good enough to hold up with the state's broad definition of encryption here. Is that good enough? Moreover, how the heck will Nevada enforce this? Earl said at this time it was unclear, but he thinks that the state--which holds legislative session every other year--could address the statute for more clarity next year when the Nevada state government reconvenes. A possible-pending lawsuit may also help to better define the law for clearer interpretation, but as Earl hinted, that doesn't necessarily mean it will help that potential lawsuit. The challenge for Nevada is that its intentions were good in trying to stem the tide of identity theft and criminal behavior online. But once again, the legal system and the IT industry are faced with potentially bigger compliance and liability issues than they probably intended. The disconnection is real. As of posting time, representatives of the state had not gotten back to me with comment. What should businesses do about this issue? UPDATE: A spokesman for the state has directed me to a state assemblyman (who I will follow up with), but more interestingly, has pointed out this provision in the law:
|
All of the losses that Wall Street incurred as a result of the cascading Sub-prime lending problem through yesterday have been erased on the news that the Feds plan to create some form of Financial structure to buy out the 'bad debt' (illiquid Mortgages) of ailing Financial groups. ooMMMMMMMooo
oMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMoo
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMo"MMMo
"MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMo
MMMM""MMMMMM"o" MMMMMMM
MMo o" MMM" oo ""MMMMM
MM MMo MMM" MMoM "MMMMM
MMo"M"o" "" MMM" oMMMMM"
oMM M o" " o "o MMMMMM"
oM"o " o " o "o MMMMMMM
oMMoM o " M M "o MMMM"MMo
Mo " M "M "o" o MMMoMMMo
MMo " "" M " MMMMMMMo
oMM" "o o " MMMMMMMM
MMM" MMMMMMMMo
oMMMo "MMMMMMMMo
MMMMM o " " o" "MMMMMMMMMo
MMMMM " " "MMMMMMMMMo
oMMMM ""MMMMMMMMMo
oMMMM o o MMoMMMMMMM
MMMM o "MMMMMMMMMM
MMMM" o o o "MMMMMMMMMMo
oMMMMM Happy Birthday MMMMMMMMMMo
MMM"MM Linux! "MMM"MMMMMMM
MMMMMM " o " MMMMMMMMMMM
"o "ooo o o o"MMMMMMMMoM"
" o "o "MMo " o" MMMMMMMM"
o "o" o o " MMMo o o""""MMMM"o" "
" o "o " o o" " MMMMoo " o "o M"" M "o " "
"o o" " o o" " " "MMMM" o M o "o" o" o" " o
M o M " o " " " " MM"" o oMo"o " o o "o " "o "
o" o " "o " " M " " o MMMMo"o " o o o o" o o" "
o" "o " o " " o o" M "oo ooMMMMMMM o "o o o " o o o "
M "o o" o" "o o o " o"oMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMo" o o "o "o o"
"" "o"o"o"o o"o "o"o"oMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMo"o"o "o o"oo"
"" M Mo"o"oo"oM"" " MMoM M M M
""" """ " """ "
The deal
The "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) is currently being negotiated behind closed doors. Involved parties include the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, and Switzerland. Since this treaty is being negotiated in secret what we do know comes from a document which was leaked on WikiLeaks.
Clearly this treaty is supported by big media companies and big proprietary software companies to 'protect' 'intellectual property'. However, the implications of this treaty, based on what we know, could have devastating effects on the sharing of Free Software. In the US, treaties which are ratified by the Senate carry the force of law. Normally, in the course of legislating a given bill, the bill is public as well as the debate on the bill. In short, the process is transparent. In the case of ACTA there is no public disclosure of the proposals. No public input or debate. Once the text of the treaty is finalized it need only be approved by one house of Congress. When ratified it becomes 'the law of the land'. The lack of transparency is troubling.
There are a few US Representatives involved in the drafting and negotiation of this treaty. Chief among them is Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA). His top four campaign contributors in 2006 were Time Warner, News Corp, Sony Corporation of America, and Disney. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Ramifications
ACTA could potentially force ISPs to police all traffic moving across their networks. Those in the US who use GNU/Linux and who download codecs from foreign mirrors (due to disastrous software patents) in order to use legally purchased content may be prevented from doing so. Media companies would love to end not only file sharing but the client software which enables it. This treaty could have detrimental effects on legitimate uses of p2p software. Such as in downloading Linux distributions. Of course as with anything, there will be unintended consequences. In many cases the unintended consequences are the intended goal of those who lobby officials.
This treaty is an end-run around the legitimate legislative process. It is done to further enrich content companies to the detriment of the people and their freedom. There are a few groups actively opposing this treaty such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
What do you think?
As reported by Businessweek, HP is working on their own Linux-based operating system.
This doesn't come as a surprise. It's widely known that Windows Vista hasn't been exactly flying off the shelves. OEMs have counted on new releases of Windows to drive hardware sales. With the lackluster demand for Vista many OEMs are not realizing their projected sales figures. In the past, new versions of Windows were a blessing for OEMs that are tied to Microsoft. Now that blessing has become a curse.
Because Microsoft has maintained a monopoly they have been in the position to dictate terms in the PC market. Needless to say that this doesn't sit well with large OEMs.
We now know that Linux is a viable option on the desktop as witnessed by the myriad of netbooks which offer Linux with a compelling GUI as the default. We see Dell offering select systems with Ubuntu pre-installed. HP has partnered with Novell to offer the option of SLED on some systems. Acer's vice president of marketing, Gianpiero Morbello said in an interview with vnunet.com "We have shifted towards Linux because of Microsoft". As OEMs continue to explore the Linux alternatives there will inevitably be challenges.
Large OEMs exploring and shipping desktop Linux is a threat to Microsoft's profitable consumer PC monopoly. It's a safe bet that they won't stand idle and watch that monopoly slowly evaporate. After Microsoft stopped shipping XP to OEMs this past summer they were forced to backtrack a bit and continue to offer XP for 'netbooks' to compete with the various Linux offerings. Vista requires far too many resources to effectively run on this class of computer.
Steve Ballmer frequently points to Linux as infringing Microsoft's 'IP' (software patents) and implies that Linux distributors will eventually have to compensate Microsoft for it's use. As GNU/Linux starts to take a serious bite out of Microsoft's market share it is probable that they will turn to the courts. Unfortunately it is likely that many OEMs will try to enter into 'patent covenants' ala Novell under the guise of "interoperability". Will GPLv3 prevent this?
It's a very good thing that OEMs are waking-up to the potential of Linux on the desktop. As members of the community we must focus our efforts on making sure they do it right with respect to the community.
You've read the thread in various blogs where yet another smug Unix/Linux/Mac gearhead refuses to admit they have any security issues. And then the obligatory blog comments flame war ensues. Jul 28 21:32:16 server sshd[10855]: Illegal user office from 213.191.74.219 |
iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set --name SSH |
### BEGIN BAD IPSShould you need to ban an ip, add each to /etc/badips on a separate line--restart the Firewall and they're history.
if [ -f /etc/badips ]
then
for BAD_IP in `cat /etc/badips`
do
iptables -I INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP
echo 'ip '$BAD_IP' banned'
echo
done
else
echo "Can't read /var/badips"
fi
### END BAD IPS
I've been using Perl for over ten years now. It has been around since the 1980s and has won a place in the trusted scripting languages category for thousands of Web Developers, Programmers, and System Administrators. You'll find Perl comes pre-installed with most every Unix and GNU/Linux distribution. Perl does do so many things that distinguish it from any other Dynamic Scripting Language written that it has earned the distinction of being 'the duct tape of the Internet'. When you become more acquainted with the language and its capabilities, that description becomes quite appropriate.
If you have used another language such as 'C' or Pascal, you can get up to speed on the basics quickly. There are many Perl learning resources, including on-line tutorials, downloadable eBooks, and books. My recommendation, if you buy books, is to start with some of the outstanding O'Reilly Publishers book selections. Here are a few recommended titles:
Model-View-Controller (MVC), attempts to manage these complexities and partitions away in a modular fashion the data and business rules (Model) from the user graphical interface (View) and actions taken by the user (Controller). 
There's been a lot of press recently focused on Ruby on Rails as it has been used to develop the popular website Twitter. Rumors about its inability to scale well have taken on a life of their own spurred by frequent reports of Twitter outages. I am inclined to believe that those rumors are not justified. It is probably more likely that there is a 'learning curve' in setting up distributed web server clusters that is unique for any implementation. It's just that Rails has been put to the test on a large scale deployment most recently and is a relatively new untested Framework.====================================================================
Ruby Language Comparison
Some features which differ notably from languages such as C or Perl:
- Names which begin with a capital letter are treated as constants, so local variables should begin with a lowercase letter.
- The sigils
$and@do not indicate variable data type as in Perl, but rather function as scope resolution operators.- To denote floating point numbers, one must follow with a zero digit (
99.0) or an explicit conversion (99.to_f). It is insufficient to append a dot (99.), because numbers are susceptible to method syntax.- Boolean evaluation of non-boolean data is strict: 0,
""and[]are all evaluated to true. In C, the expression0 ? 1 : 0evaluates to 0 (i.e. false). In Ruby, however, it yields 1, as all numbers evaluate to true; onlynilandfalseevaluate to false. A corollaryregular-expressionnilon failure (e.g., mismatch). This convention is also used in Smalltalk, where only the special objectstrueandfalsecan be used in a boolean expression. to this rule is that Ruby methods by convention -- for example, searches -- return numbers, strings, lists, or other non-false values on success, but- Versions prior to 1.9 lack a character data type (compare to C, which provides type
charfor characters). This may cause surprises when slicing strings:"abc"[0]ASCII code of the first character in the string); to obtain"a"use"abc"[0,1](a substring of length 1) or"abc"[0].chr. yields 97 (an integer, representing the- The notation
statement until expression, unlike other languages' equivalent statements (e.g.do { statement } while (not(expression));in C/C++/...), actually never runs the statement if the expression is already true. This is becausestatement until expressionis actually syntactic sugar overuntil expression; statement; end, the equivalent of which in C/C++ iswhile (not(expression)) statement;just likestatement if expressionis an equivalent toif expression; statement; end. However, the notationbegin statement end until expressionin Ruby will in fact run the expression once even in if the expression is already true.- Because constants are references to objects, changing what a constant refers to generates a warning, but modifying the object itself does not. For example,
Greeting << " world!" if Greeting == "Hello"does not generate an error or warning. This is similar to final variables in Java, but Ruby does also have the functionality to "freeze" an object, unlike Java.Some features which differ notably from other languages:
Ruby (< 2.0) lacks full support for Unicode, though it has partial support for UTF-8.
- The usual operators for conditional expressions,
andandor, do not follow the normal rules of precedence:anddoes not bind tighter thanor. Ruby also has expression operators||and&&which work as expected.Popularity
Ruby on Rails sites directory Sites powered by Catalyst
Documentation
The Catalyst documentation is currently undergoing reorganization at http://catalystframework.org/, which is going to be powered by the Catalst-based wiki solution mojomojo. However, the most up-to-date Catalyst's documentation still resides on CPAN. At the moment, there is one book on Catalyst, which received mixed reviews [1].
RoR's documentation is organized in one place (http://www.rubyonrails.org/docs) and there are numerous books on Rails[2].
Performance
All of us working on Twitter are big Ruby fans, but I think it's worth being frank that this isn't one of those relativistic language issues. Ruby is slow.
General capability
Perl is said to make easy things easy and difficult things possible.
RoR makes easy things very easy and complex things very difficult:
Rails has a very strange learning curve. To get up a very simple website with a simple DB store, the language is great; you can get things up and running in no time, even if you're a newbie (...)
However, once you get past all the stuff Rails was designed to help you do, making it do interesting new things requires a TON of learning. All the "magic" it does, while great if you're doing things it was designed for, becomes a TOTAL headache when you're doing stuff it wasn't designed for, because all of a sudden you have to "understand the magic" in order to figure out why things aren't doing what you'd expect, and the reference documentation sucks -- several times, I've had to simply go dive into the library source code to try to figure out just what's going on, and even then, the "magic" makes it nearly impossible to easily figure out.
Application development speed
Rails is famous for its very rapid development of simple applications (Creating a weblog in 15 minutes).
Catalyst currently lacks a good set of screencast demonstrating its features. Two such resources are http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/wiki/Movies and Catalyst with FormBuilder screencast.
Features
Database
Catalyst supports a huge number of physical and virtual database backends, and different ORMs. RoR's favored ORM is ActiveRecord.
Perl/Catalyst has DBI, DBIx::Class, and Tangram which supports a large number of database backends (100+). Catalyst allows each model to be from different databases (even database sources). Some useful virtual databases exist (Amazon, Google, Excel documents, CSV files, etc.). DBIx::Class is the most popular ORM and supports features such as multi-column primary keys and character-based primary keys.
Rails supports the primary 6 database backends, although MySQL seems to be the best supported. Test and development "environments" can easily and automatically use different databases, however. Developers are not forced to use Rails' database layer, and some choose to use other Ruby based solutions. ActiveRecord is the most popular ORM for Rails. It has some design limitations in that it does not natively support multi-column primary keys.
The lack of support for multi-column primary keys is important, because many-to-many relationships require a junction table, whose primary key is made up of 2 columns referencing the two tables it links. Junction tables are required in most aspects of web application design: tagging items (an item may have many tags, and a given tag may belong to many items), representing user access roles etc.
Unicode / Internationalization
Since Ruby doesn't have any specific facilities for managing Unicode strings[5], Rails' support for Unicode is not yet mature.
Perl supports Unicode natively and so does Catalyst. [6]
Debugging
Catalyst can be debugged remotely with ActiveState Komodo IDE, or locally with the built-in perl debugger[7]. Every Catalyst application is generated along with a test script. Catalyst has built-in logging and can be integrated with Log4Perl[8].
Testing
Catalyst allows for easy decoupling of the model from the web application, which permits separate testing of the database backend without going through the web application. RoR fills the controllers up with logic.
====================================================================
Visit the Catalyst project homepage to learn more about this exciting Framework for Perl.
If you've been following along over a Groklaw, now that the SCO v. IBM lawsuit has effectively come to an end with IBM prevailing, Pamela Jones now turns her laser-precise attention to the ongoing Anti-Trust case between Novell and Microsoft regarding Novell's once thriving WordPerfect and QuattroPro product line. CLAIMS FOR RELIEFA. Count I: Monopolization Of The Intel-Compatible Operating Systems Market
151. Novell incorporates the allegations in paragraph 1 through 150 above.
152. Microsoft possessed monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems software.
153. Microsoft willfully and wrongfully obtained and maintained its monopoly power in the Intel-compatible operating systems market by engaging in anticompetitive conduct to thwart the development of products that threatened to weaken the applications barrier to entry, including Novell's WordPerfect word processing application and its other office productivity applications, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 2.
154. Through this misconduct, Microsoft has harmed consumers and competition by, without limitation, depriving consumers of the lower prices and more rapid pace of innovation that competition would have brought.
155. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Microsoft's misconduct, Novell was damaged by, without limitation, lost sales of office productivity applications and a diminution in the value of Novell's assets, reputation, and goodwill in amounts to be proven at trial. Novell's injury is of the type the antitrust laws are intended to prohibit and thus constitutes antitrust injury. ...
F. Count VI: Exclusionary Agreements In Unreasonable Restraint Of Trade
174. Novell incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 173 above.
175. Microsoft's agreements with OEMs and others not to license or distribute Novell's office productivity applications or to do so only on terms that materially disadvantaged these products unreasonably restrained trade by restricting the access of Novell's office productivity applications to significant channels of distribution in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
176. Through this misconduct, Microsoft has harmed consumers and competition by depriving consumers of the lower prices and more rapid pace of innovation that competition would have brought.
177. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Microsoft's misconduct, Novell was damaged by, without limitation, lost sales of its applications and a diminution in the value of Novell's assets, reputation, and goodwill in amounts to be proven at trial. Novell's injury is of the type the antitrust laws are intended to prevent and thus constitutes antitrust injury.
This does not bode well for Microsoft, given their prior Antitrust conduct (United States v. Microsoft)
and given their most recent European Union Competition Case.
Recall the halcyon years when software vendors were able to innovate and be on a competitive footing in the market place. Those were the 1980s and early 1990s before Microsoft Windows began to emerge. It was a very good time offering many good, creative software solutions.
It is only beginning to feel that way again now with the emergence of disruptive forces such as Linux and open source.
How Did WordPerfect Go Wrong?
There are various 'theories' about why WordPerfect failed--I've extracted some of them from an article 'How Did WordPerfect Go Wrong', written by Ed Foster:
"[...The basic historic facts of the WordPerfect saga aren't in dispute. Early in the IBM PC era, Satellite Software's WordPerfect 4.X series supplanted WordStar as the most popular word processor, based largely on its macro capabilities, "reveal codes" feature, and the company's reputation for high-quality free support. But WordPerfect was late with its first Windows version, and then the bundling of Word with Microsoft Office on many PCs resulted in WordPerfect's sale - first to Novell, then Corel in 1996 - aimed at producing a competitive office suite. While retaining popularity in some markets, particularly legal circles, WordPerfect now generally gets little attention as a Word competitor compared to free software alternatives.
But there seems to be plenty of dispute about whether WordPerfect simply failed to compete or was a victim of Microsoft monopolistic practices. Some feel that deathblow the Office bundling dealt other productivity applications was just a real smart move on Microsoft's part. "I think Microsoft gets a lot of criticism that they DON'T deserve," wrote one reader. "I remember the days of Lotus 1-2-3 and Harvard Graphics and WordStar and GoldenGate, and life with MS Office is soooooooooo much better and more productive. All those open-source geeks wouldn't be nearly so effective if Microsoft hadn't thoroughly and clearly defined the target -- i.e., the user needs -- for them."
But others think Office allowed inferior Microsoft applications to win out over better products. "In reality, Office was a bit late to the party," wrote another reader. "While Word 2.x was failing to wow customers, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and others were providing superior products. IMO, WordPerfect is still the superior product because it allows a savvy user to determine exactly where the formatting in a document is being adversely 'helped' by the application and allows deleting those control codes. Those were the leaders of the pack, Microsoft brought up the rear, then used FUD to crush them."
But another reader countered with a chronology of WordPerfect's self-inflicted wounds. "Frankly, WinWord 2.x was a great program, well ahead of its time, especially if you ran it on Windows 3.0/3.0a as opposed to 3.1x. WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows (Q4-1991) was a dismal failure -- totally unstable, not feature-laden, and it even used a DOS-based installation program! WordPerfect 5.2 (Q1-1992) was a massive bug-fix, albeit small & fast. WordPerfect 6.0 (Q4-1993) was another buggy piece of crap, but it showed potential. Only when WordPerfect 6.0a (April, 1994) came out was there something worthwhile on the Windows front. By mid-1994, 2 1/2 years after the first version of WordPerfect for Windows came out, was there something reasonably stable. But by then, the damage was done and MS-Office 4.2/4.3 was available."
Of course, others pointed out Microsoft didn't exactly make it easy for anyone to compete with its Windows applications. "MS Office crushed its competition for one reason and one reason ONLY -- undocumented application programming interfaces," wrote another reader. "WordPerfect ran into problems because they invested big-time in a new graphical product for the operating system Microsoft touted as the future -- OS/2 -- while Microsoft was busily writing a competing product using secret programming interfaces for their real operating system of the future - Windows. Microsoft created and exploited intentionally undocumented Windows capability to ensure that its competitors' products would run like a dog, thus ensuring MS Office was the only viable choice on Windows -- and of course locked users into Windows with monopolistic practices well-documented in the various lawsuits they lost. You are giving the wolf credit for the excellent taste of lamb chops."
There are other explanations, however. "WordPerfect indeed ran into trouble when it did not move quickly into the Windows environment," wrote an anonymous observer from WordPerfect's former neighborhood. "They had plenty of time to respond to it but chose not to for whatever reason they may have had. Their top two owners (49.5% ownership each) had cultural differences from each other that distracted them from paying attention to the future of the product at that time. They parted ways by selling the WordPerfect organization to Novell for about $700 million. WordPerfect's legendary support had begun to decline prior to that sale. By that time, many of their programmers and support people had been fired (some my close friends) and most offices were empty with the lights off. That was well over ten years ago."]..."
It's time for Sunday Night Football and I am doing something that I have never done before. I am not grabbing the TV remote to check on football scores during commercials of my wife's TV show.
"...Sun xVM VirtualBox is the powerful open source virtualization tool that makes software development easier. It also eases migration issues by enabling a single computer to run multiple OSes and applications simultaneously, with virtually no performance degradation. Sun xVM VirtualBox supports Windows, Mac OS, Solaris OS, and Linux hosts. The latest version of xVM VirtualBox adds support for 64-bit versions of Vista and RedHat Enterprise Linux. In addition xVM VirtualBox includes a new interface for managing a virtual Mac desktop, improved networking for Mac OS X and the Solaris OS, and improved performance on AMD chips. Customers who purchase an Enterprise Subscription receive a Right-to-Use License, allowing them to deploy xVM VirtualBox using their own software deployment tools. Enterprise Subscriptions start at $30 (USD) per user per year, which includes 24/7 technical support. Volume discounts are also available. What Can xVM VirtualBox Do? Sun xVM VirtualBox gives developers the flexibility to develop cross-platform applications without the need to maintain multiple hardware systems, thus lowering capital costs and increasing productivity. Sun xVM VirtualBox can also be extremely helpful during a desktop migration because users can continue to work with their familiar applications on the new platform. That saves training time and other IT resources..."
Not satisfied with having installed Chrome into Windows XP, I decided to follow the directions for svn checkout and compile found here. The checkout ran without error. The make returned errors (running on openSUSE 11.0). Since this am, a small change to the build instructions page, which I hadn't refreshed was added at the top in a very nice red window. Had I seen that, I would not have bothered going further:This page describes how to build the Chromium browser in Linux. Read this if you're interested in testing the build or porting code.
Useful Links