Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
August 17th, 2010
The recent dust up between Oracle and Google highlights once again the difference between proprietary software development and open source development.
Two aspects of FOSS often get confused in the discussion. Those would be using open source software and developing it.
In terms of making money by developing software, there is no reason what so ever that a programmer/developer can’t or shouldn’t be able to be paid for the work of creating solid and usable code in applications.
Something that doesn’t always seem to make it into the discussion of being paid for FOSS development is that the GPL does allow for software licensed as open source under it can be sold. It does not prohibit the sale or generating income from sales of open source software.
If Company A decides they need to create a custom application to do something in their business, nothing is stopping them from hiring a developer to write that program for them.
Nothing is stopping them from paying that programmer for the service he is providing them in writing that program.
Nothing says that they have to license it as proprietary either.
If the program itself isn’t concealing trade or national secrets within it’s code, why not make it open source and allow others access to use it and maybe even improve it over time as their needs demand.
Greed, that’s why. If the possibility exists to make a nickel on something, they will. Too many people would rather lock something up and throw away the key so that no one else can have it if they can’t make a buck from it themselves.
As a matter of fact, that’s how most FOSS projects start, as in-house projects trying to fill a local need. Yes, there are those companies that develop applications as a product to be sold and that’s ok too.
As mentioned already, there’s nothing wrong or illegal with selling open source software. However, people will be more skeptical about paying premium prices for open source software as most people who understand the principles of open source also are aware of the intent to make quality software more available and easily accessible.
August 15th, 2010
Microsoft is the not just the face of proprietary, it is the face of anti-competitiveness. This is why so many people in the Open Source world single it out.
Companies like them supposedly champion ‘free’ and ‘open’ market places, because as it is governed currently, there are boatloads of legislation and rules that have loopholes to be taken advantage of.
Fact, Microsoft has a history of trying to manipulate the marketplace by removing or eliminating competition.
While the free/open marketplace that is touted by the American government and almost every big business in America as the place where progress happens, they themselves do not embrace making things "better". They instead prefer to have ‘status quo’ or average products and no competition, thereby creating a situation where customers have no alternatives but to only buy their products.
Fact, Microsoft and many other companies engage in buying patents and copyrights of products created by others in order to control or prevent use of those products when they have a similar product on the market.
Their first reply is that it’s "just business" but, it’s not good business for the consumer. They have no alternatives now or comparisons. It’s only beneficial to the company.
When true open markets are ensured, there will be true competition, healthy competition where providers are able to make their best pitch. Make improvements and tweaks to make their version of a product more useful or appealing and catch the eye of the buyer. The competitors will offer a range of levels of quality, a range of prices and just about any other area of adaptation they can affect.
Fact, Microsoft as well as other ‘big players’ when confronted with a competitor they couldn’t prevent or eliminate, resort to throwing mud and making every effort to make the competition look as bad as possible instead of letting their supposedly ‘better’ product speak for itself or letting facts stand on their own.
Thanks to the words and antics of corporate minded people like Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and others who drive that type of environment, Microsoft is the embodiment of "un-ethical business" and unfair practices.
When people argue against Microsoft, it isn’t just because it’s Microsoft by themselves, it’s what they represent. It’s how they choose to operate.
August 11th, 2010
An article recently discusses how enterprise level businesses are planning to adopt and expand their Open Source deployment even more within the next year.
The article says the surveyed businesses aren’t doing it just for the cost reductions, but for increased reliability and usability as well.
It’s more than that however. Those in the business world know that cost savings is never a good reason to make changes if it is the only reason. Reliability and usability help make the decision a better thought out one, but still, it’s not enough.
One thing that is alluded to but never really explored in the other article is that enterprises are even so involved in adopting open source software that they are enthusiastically contributing back to the open source community.
That one idea speaks volumes.
Businesses don’t make full blown adoptions of software unless there is a need for it. Status quo rules the enterprise in terms of software. There must be something seriously compelling about the new software that makes it worth the effort of testing, introducing, implementing, training and more that is involved in adopting new software.
Open source software has indeed become more usable and it has indeed become more reliable. The whole time though, open source software has been adaptable, customizable, fluid and accessible.
With open source software, you, the business, have access to the source code of the software. That might not mean much to the everyday home user, but to companies who employ programmers and technicians in IT departments in the enterprise, it means freedom to make it your own. Tweak it, customize it, add to it or take from it those things that will make it work most uniquely for that business.
It also means improvement and advancement is removed from a third party or single vendor that would otherwise make the business dependent on them for upgrades and fixes. They, the business, have control of the upgrade/update cycle. They are now free from vendor lock in that might force dramatic changes and incur great expense due to controlled releases and updates.
Now, step back and look at open source software.
Lower initial cost
Improved usability
Improved reliability
Improved security
Local control of source code
Local control of update/upgrade process
Lower cost to sustain software
Now, get this…
Improved PR by openly contributing in-house improvements and modifications to the software back to the community.
Enterprise business has many more and better reasons to increase adoption of Open Source software than just low cost.
July 25th, 2010
File formats are important to Linux users because when you are trying to increase the number of Linux based computers in a given environment, you need to be able to interact with other users in that environment.
If most of the computers are MS Windows based machines, odds are very high people are using MS Office as well for the majority of their document creation.
The Linux/FOSS community has made many efforts, largely with limited success at opening and writing to the .doc format, which is what MS word processor uses.
Most of the FOSS word processor applications default to the .odf file format.
PDF is a file format that is pretty much universal now. Most word processors can read and write to pdf with varying levels of being able to edit and use the extra functions of editing and sharing as well.
What we want to accomplish is usability. We need to be able to have efficiency and cooperation when creating and sharing documents. That’s just a necessity for any business and even at home where we interact with all manner of banks, schools, government agencies, prospective employers and more.
One school of thought suggests picking one format and demanding that everyone use only that one.SO, if the majority of the computers run MS Office, the rule would be that all machines coming into the environment would have to use .doc.
Another school of thought is to have the same applications across the board. So with OpenOffice being at no cost and easily installed and updated, some will insist that only the one office suite is used, therefore making it easy to keep everyone on the same file format.
Of course, we come back to PDF. It has become known as the web document format because so many people post files such as forms and informational briefs, educational documents and more on web sites for public use in the pdf format.
Some have even declared it as the “finished” document format. Basically, using local formats such as .doc or .odf for in-house draft level documents. The expectation then is when the document is ‘finished’ and ready for sharing or widespread use and access, it is to be saved as a pdf.
In a way, the use of file formats is a bit like historical times when travel was less common and people learned about two languages, their local language and the language of the traders that would come through towns and villages.
The trader language in many parts of the world became the common language in terms of sending messages and information to others. Similarly, PDF has become like those trade languages in that it conveys the information people want to make sure is available to as many others as possible.
Instead of focusing on a file format that is unique to only one application, we at BEL Project think it is good to make use of a “trade” format as often as possible. Both in sending and receiving. Especially where interacting with the larger public beyond your business or home users.
July 20th, 2010
I will admit, fedora really annoyed me when it limited root powers back in fedora 10, I believe it was. Certain functions you could not be logged in as root to perform, instead, they made you log out of root and back in as a regular user, then su in order to perform said function.
Fedora was ruined at that point for me by trying to be a nanny distro and control how people use the distro.
Since then, I’ve become even less enamored of fedora by the way they try to proclaim their greatness as an innovator in Linux and how all others distros depend on their developments. Fedora is to me at best, a toy distro, with very short support periods for each release, making it virtually useless as a permanent install.
Yet and however, I have had some folks tell me how good the latest release of fedora 13 is and so, since it’s been awhile, I figure to give it another shot, if only to find more of the typical nanny nonsense and showboating to add to my list of fedora dislikes. Yes, I am a fedora skeptic, through and through.
So, just now burning the iso’s and preparing to boot them (gnome and xfce iso’s), I promise to give credit, if and when it’s due and I also promise to not hold back when I see the same old stuff as I expect.
Be back soon to report…
…And we’re back.
Well, I must admit, I wasn’t surprised. while the Gnome iso is very sparse in terms of included apps, the Xfce iso includes a lot more to be usable right away.
It’s interesting that if the user switches to one of the console screens ( F1 to F6) and attempts to log in as root, no password is required at all. It’s a livecd right? A playground, time to test drive. Leave everything able to be tested and tried.
So why is it that as root user in a console login, I can start the editor nano but I cannot do a simple directory listing with “ls”?
If I return to the GUI screen as the livecd user (automatic login) open a terminal and “su” I can “ls” with no problem at all. More of the same nanny state, thanks fedora.
My opinion of fedora is unchanged. It’s a typical fedora release and I will practice my ability to use a different distro that actually facilitates usability and administration by letting the user decide how to interact with and access the system.
June 22nd, 2010
The online world has exploded with new services and online apps that are low cost and free. Many of these apps are able to contend with high cost installable apps that have dominated the arguments of which OS supports the most usable platform.
Not so much anymore.
The advance of online apps that are practical, desirable and competitive is making the Operating System background software. It is a base for device drivers and format support.
“The Cloud” is taking an ever present shape and becoming an easy alternative and solution to specific software needs.
The issues of privay and accessability are still potent detractors as server downtime, hackers and fly-by-nite service providers are still major obstacles in the wild west of the online world.
Some of the promises of the digital age are finally beginning to appear and give us a window on the paperless (well, still not really paperless, but it can eliminate much of the paperwork which has to count for something.) world.
We can upload image files from digital cameras that match or exceed our old film cameras for quality and have them printed out (yes on paper) at many major retailers for a fraction of the cost of having film processed.
We can instantly edit and mange pdf documents online, often for free without having to install or see if a pdf editing app is installed first. Just do it.
We can order, pay for and have our favorite pizza delivered to us all online for crying out loud. Now THAT is what I call a practical use of technology.
Make reservations online for restaurants, travel and hotels, all using a web browser.
Downloading AND uploading audio and video files has been made so easy that it is almost criminally stupid to not be able to do it.
Doing backups and storing those files remotely is opening a tab on the old FireFox away from us.
By golly, we can even filter and proxy our web surfing access to keep the kiddies from finding the ‘bad’ sites using an online app.
How many times has your personal information been required to sign up for a new account for all these new services and web sites? How many opportunities are available for someone to hack a web businesses server and get your info? knida scary huh?
We can see what is happening, in real time, all the way around the world. People have been abused by governments and put it all on the web for the world to see. All an upload away.
There are obvious pro’s and con’s to jumping into the online world, and each of us has to decide for ourselves how far we will delve into the web’s wonders. At the same time, Linux as an Operating System helps us to have as much or as little access to all of that without the lock in and exclusivity that others would require of us to have the same access.
June 15th, 2010
There has been a lot of chatter lately due to malware that was added to an IRC server app. Many would be ‘specialists’ and writers likening it to be the same sorry situation as Windows suffers.
The problem with security that Windows suffers is actually the same one that threatens any operating system and related software.
Users downloading software from questionable sources and installing it without verifying it’s legitimacy first.
In the situation of experienced and trained techs and admins, this is up to you. You should know better than to install any app on your system before it is verified.
What about the non-tech, everyday desktop user at home or small office though? Do we expect them to know the same information? Not really, we expect them to be smart enough to be careful, or they should be trying anyway, bu non-technical users rely on service providers to ensure the software being provided is legitimate and secure.
Most Linux distros will tell you to not use any repo but the ones they provide to be sure that the packages have been verified and tested for integrity. The problem there is that many of the smaller, community distros simply don’t have the staff/volunteers to inspect each and every package in a timely and appropriate manner. It is often a one man show or small team just trying to keep up.
Most would suggest to non-technical users to stick to the larger distros with the people available to do the job right. Debian, RedHat and Opensuse come to mind right off the bat. Ubuntu should be on that list but experiences way too many problems in their repos, especially after updates/upgrades to satisfy me that they are focusing hard enough on their package integrity.
Your systems security starts with the user. don’t just download anything from anywhere. don’t open files or emails you don’t know or trust. Simple things can keep your system running fine and resistant from most of the malware and viruses out there.
System security is a whole category of computer support altogether. There are businesses built on just that, there is so much that can be done.
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if that is so, why aren’t the programming instructors at the schools working harder to discourage unethical coding in their classes? Take a programming class, the topic rarely, if ever, comes up. This is where your malware starts.
April 18th, 2010
When copyrights and patents first came out, those many many years ago, they were ideally pushed as a way for inventors and creators of written works to protect their work from being stolen and give them a means to make a profit, for some period of time, from their work before it, if good and/or lucky enough, to enter the public domain (and be remembered).
That, alas, was in the early, naive years. Back when good intentions were only that which paved the road to Hell.
Enter the modern corporate mentality. Those obnoxious and loophole seeking people who think happiness is making big money off good work, as long as they didn’t have to do the work.
These are the people who tattoo the words “everything is for sale” on their foreheads. They buy and bank on other people’s work, with other peoples moneyand are largely responsible for the “if it’s not legal, we just haven’t found the loophole yet” mentality.
These are the people who buy out other peoples copyrights and patents, often never having done one iota of the work behind it themselves and sit and wait like a vulture until someone else with a similar idea comes along to swoop down and use the courts to vicerate thier prey, all in the name of a buck.
This type of predatory behavior has disillusioned many developers, programmers and creative people from wanting to participate in the ‘traditional’ method of releasing their works to the world.
Sure, they want to make a living from their work, but they also have morals, ethics and a little voice in their head that tells them when something is just wrong.
The rules that were made supposedly to protect the inventor and creator are often the same rules that now destroy their careers and businesses instead.
I know some people who recently created a small programming and development company. They take contracts to write custom software for other businesses with certain and special needs. They have adopted a default policy that unless the client specifically requests that said development must be proprietary and ‘traditionally’ copywrited, they release the work as opensource.
They still get paid to create the primary work and they still get paid to support that work and improve upon it. However, once ‘out the door’ into ‘open source land’ others with an interest or use can use it and even help improve on it as well.
All in all, this is a terrific idea and thus far, this company has been successful in their work and grown admirably. It is an role model for others who might want to find ways to prove that one need not be ‘cheap’ or perennially ‘broke’ to be open source.
The more people and businesses who make the extra effort to release their work in ways that allow them to make a living yet contribute that work in an accessible and meaningful way to the world, the better off we will all be.
February 18th, 2010
One very common post we see in Linux distro forums is the complaint that if Linux developers were to ‘care’ more about increasing the share of desktop market as compared to Windows or Apple, that more vendors would pony up in terms of providing drivers and software for Linux, thus allowing it to be accepted and grow even more.
The biggest problem with this is that a great many of these vendors are “in bed” with the proprietary champion, Microsoft, and continue to release proprietary software in their bid to support not only the Windows Operating System, but the entire cottage industry that has been created around proprietary software.
If all the hardware were indeed “open”, what what be the value of an A+ certification? How many people would spend for the exorbitant cost? As a matter of fact, think of all the certifications, costing thousands of dollars in training and application fees to acquire that had grown up around proprietary software.
That is what Linux is really fighting. it’s not just one company or operating system, it’s an entire industry built around the idea that information must have a cost. Open Source software is fighting a battle that goes beyond just having access to source code. It is fighting on the side of free access to information.
Think of this, as more open source software becomes accessible over the internet and in books that are available to anyone walking into a local bookstore, more people are able to take ownership of the technology that is available to them. There is less need to be dependent on paid technicians who charge high fees in order to afford their continued training and certification for something that need not cost them more than some time on the net or a book that isn’t tied to a college or corporate training center class.
The same thinking applies to drivers for hardware and other proprietary software. Those involved are using the cost and exclusivity of being proprietary as a means to justify a higher price.
It’s not really as important as to how many people are using Linux currently but how much are they invested in it? How much pressure are they putting on vendors to provide hardware and software that is readily usable on Linux.
Linux users need to speak with their dollars. I don’t mean on paying for the OS itself, but in the computers they buy and the hardware they purchase to go along with it.
If more of the current people using Linux insisted on only buying products and solutions that actually work on Linux, that would demonstrate the viability and need for those not supporting Linux to provide more capable solutions. or miss out on the money that is being spent.
Also, Think of the costs of the open source software that is charging a price for their product now? Is it a reasonable price? We all know the horror stories of software providers being the only or one of a few ‘sanctioned” games in town and charging unspeakable amounts of money for the so called “privilege” of their product being on the Microsoft ‘good old boy’ list.
There are people writing and selling their software and products, trying to make a living and make a good product and charging what are very fair and competitive prices for them. Are we, the Linux users that are already here, supporting those people?
The open source community has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free or low cost software can be not only ‘good enough’ but it can be superior to it’s proprietary counterparts.
To me, this changes the old axiom of “you get what you pay for” from referring to the price you pay relating to the quality you get int osomething more like, ” you get out what you put in.
If you invest your time, efforts and money into opensource software, you will find that opensource software can give you a tremendous return on those investments.
It’s like supporting your local small business. Sometimes it’s nice to have that little food joint or neighborhood stores to get something quickly or to buy the interesting, ‘” found in Walmart” things. However, if we don’t support those little shops, someday, they won’t be there when we want or need them.
February 14th, 2010
As reported by “The H Security”
A vulnerability in the creation of symbolic links (symlinks) in the free Samba file and printer server can be exploited to attain access to files outside of predefined paths. Attackers can even get access to the system’s root directory (/)…..
…As a workaround, the developers recommend changing the option wide links under [global] from yes to no (wide links = no) and rebooting the server. According to the description by the Samba team, the flaw occurs because Samba allows symlinks to be created via Unix Extensions in the SMB/CIFS protocol. They therefore plan to have wide links = no as the standard in future versions.
