Recently in patterson Category

I was looking for a fast and easy desktop Linux distro to install on my daughters computer last week. Not having tried it for quite some time I thought I would give Linux Mint a go. I downloaded the latest version "Elyssa" and burned a disk. The target system is a AMD Athlon 64 box with 1.5 GB RAM and a 80GB HDD.

I booted the live CD and clicked on the "install" icon. I was asked only three simple questions. The partitioner fired-up and I chose "guided (use entire disk)". Next I selected the timezone. Lastly I enter the user information. And.... and that's it. I left it to install.

After install and a reboot I was greeted by a very nice looking GNOME desktop. The menu is smart and intuitive. Mint includes the usual applications and more in the repository. This distro is great for those looking for 'out-of-the-box' multimedia capabilities. It successfully opened every multimedia file I pointed to.

The Linux Mint motto "from freedom came elegance" is fitting. Linux Mint sports a very 'elegant' UI. Clearly the Mint folks have spent a lot of time and effort here. There were however two little problems...

Upon first using Open Office, the program crashed after typing a paragraph. No error messages. No nothing. The window disappeared and the process was no longer running. I have tried to duplicate the issue but have had no further problems. Secondly, installing the nvidia driver via 'restricted drivers' repeatedly fails to reach the repository. I haven't yet investigated this and maybe the server was down temporarily. I will try again shortly.

All in all this is a great distro. Especially for those who are new to GNU/Linux. They can enjoy the multimedia capabilities that users have come to expect while also taking advantage of the many great applications included with most Linux distributions. Linux Mint is very easy to install and enjoyable to use.

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...

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?

Rumor has it that HP may have a small team working on a HP Linux OS.

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.

Google has announced the release of their new beta browser Chrome. This begs the question, why? After all we already have a truly awesome open source browser in Firefox. Do we need another browser in the market? With Firefox taking a huge bite out of MS Internet Explorer's market share do we really want to see Firefox face new competition from Google? Maybe these aren't even the right questions.

Let's start by looking at the whole picture. We should say that Google's Chrome is also a browser. It's primary function is far more than just browsing the web. It is a platform for Google apps which purportedly allows for offline usage. This is clearly part of Google's vision of 'cloud computing'.

With Chrome, Google now has a platform which they control which will allow for tight integration with their applications. And here people have been anticipating an eventual release of a full-blown Google Linux distribution. However with this development, the OS on any given client machine has just become less relevant. This sets the stage for an application ecosystem which is tied to no particular OS.

The people at Microsoft are undoubtedly alarmed. This constitutes a huge threat to one of their two biggest monopolies. All that will be needed to run Google apps will be a free, lightweight Linux distribution with Chrome. Of course people who must do some work from home may still be tied to Windows and Office in the short-term but casual computer users can now have a majority of their needs met through Chrome and Google apps. Google's strategy should be clear to everyone by now.

I'm not sure how many will subscribe to the idea of 'cloud computing'. I prefer to do my computing locally. Especially with critical or sensitive data. The idea of involving the 'cloud' in many things makes me a bit aprehensive.

The question I ponder now is, what does this portend for Mozilla and Firefox?

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?

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.

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.

With the target date looming for the Debian 'Lenny' stable release 
and  the Debian project's 15th birthday coming up on Aug. 16th (Debian Day)  I thought I'd spin-up the World's largest Linux Distribution.

What's it for?
The short answer is, 'whatever you want to use it for'. While those new to Linux may find the installation program to be slightly spartan an lacking in options, Debian is a great choice for servers and desktops.

Installation
For this installation I am using Debian testing AMD64 on an AMD Athlon X2 system. Due to the sheer size of this distribution Debian Lenny is available as 30 CDs or 5 DVDs. Thankfully it is not necessary to download all of them. The first CD or DVD will suffice. There are also KDE and xfce-specific .iso's available for download. There is also the option of a net-install .iso which includes the Debian installer and will download only the packages you choose to install. (a long process with a slow internet connection)

There are a few options available upon booting the install disk. Simply pressing return brings-up a console install. To start the installer in graphical mode type 'installgui'. For this install I am using DVD-1 and 'installgui'.

The installation is straightforward but does include a few frustrating issues. Setting up network (in this case wired Ethernet), root password and users, timezone, etc.. are all pretty standard. The partitioner offers options to use the entire disk, the largest contiguous free space, and LVM. When choosing the 'manual' option it is a good idea to have a basic knowledge of disks and partitioning. Unlike other distributions, the installer does not provide a graphical representation of the disks.

Debian installs the GNOME desktop environment by default. A glaring weak spot in the installer is the lack of an option to choose which DE to install. Most other distributions such as Mandriva, Fedora, and openSUSE allow you to choose between at least KDE or GNOME or both. This is not an issue for me personally as I usually install KDE, GNOME, and xfce and frequently switch between them. For those who wish to install and use KDE exclusively this can be frustrating. The boot option of 'expertgui' may offer a solution here but I haven't yet tested that option. If you wish to install and use KDE there is a KDE-specific .iso which should suit your needs.

Package selection is very limited with this installer. The installer offers a choice of package groups such as "server', 'desktop', 'laptop', etc... but does not allow for individual package selection. For instance, choosing 'server' installs both Samba and NFS along with AppleTalk. The default of installing everything in the category can lead to bloat and unnecessary disk usage.

After installing the base system the installer offers the option of using a network repository. Selecting this option will download and install the latest packages but, depending on your connection speed may take considerably longer. In the case of the KDE-specific .iso, choosing to use a network repository will actually download and install GNOME. If you are using this option DO NOT use network repos. Packages can updated after install.

Installed System
After completing the install and logging-in the system boots into a Debian-branded GNOME desktop. The system is fast and very stable. Debian is very suitable for CLI system configuration. For those who prefer configuration via GUI there are a number of GNOME tools which will allow for this. Unlike 'one-stop' configuration tools such as SUSE's YaST it is necessary to have a familiarity of which tools perform what configuration tasks. This can be daunting for new Linux users. If you are new to Linux configuring some parts of your system will require reading documentation.

Installing proprietary Nvidia drivers in Debian is not trivial. There are a number of ways to do this. Unlike Ubuntu's 'restricted drivers' and openSUSE 11's 'one-click install' getting these drivers installed will require some pain.

The install includes kernel 2.6.24, GNOME 2.22.2, OpenOffice.org 2.4.1, and as of this install, iceweasel (re-branded firefox) 2.0.0.14. Although 3.0 will be available if it's not already.

Package Management
This is an area where Debian really shines. APT (Advanced Package Tool) is a great package management system. APT can be invoked via a console or through Synaptic. An intuitive graphical interface makes package management as easy as it can be. Debian also includes Ubuntu's 'add/remove programs' applet. With Synaptic, adding repositories is a breeze. One problem I encountered while installing KDE involved a failure to recognize the install media. When attempting to grab some packages from the media APT failed. It was necessary to disable the disk option in the repository list to force downloading of all packages chosen for install.

Multimedia
As with other major distributions, support for popular multimedia formats is lacking due to patent concerns. Outside of the US this problem is easily solved by adding the debian-multimedia.org repository to APT's repository list.                                               

To Sum Up
All of your favorite applications should work without a hitch. The system is very stable.              
GNOME will notify you of any available updates. Curiously, to get update notifications using KDE, I have to install Adept.

I don't recommend Debian for those who are new to Linux. Instead they would  be better served with distributions such as Ubuntu, openSUSE, and Mandriva.  However Debian is a great choice for those with a basic knowledge of Linux. Although Debian may require more manual (console) configuration. Reading the documentation will become necessary at times. There is no 'all-in-one' tool for configuration such as SUSE's YaST or Mandriva's Control Center. Multimedia restraints are no different than those of other large distributions but this is easier to remedy on Debian than most others.

Debian is a great choice for a server or desktop. You can count on Debian's legendary stability and quality. There are good reasons behind the fact that Debian is the basis of so many other distros.