Tag Archives: linux

Being a closed, unique community: a rant on “corporate exceptionalism”

Uncategorized, , , ,

This guy has a point, albeit founded upon shaky premises. Apple, as a company, possesses much more of a closed mentality than Microsoft in regards to how it relates to open source projects, at least as far as legally tying hardware to software is concerned.

However, I think it has already been pointed out in that post’s comment section that Apple contributes to, and uses, a number of open-source projects.

But I think that, while I find the premise of Apple being an "open-source enemy" to be presently and patently flawed, the company’s practices in regards to software do need to be assessed from an FOSS standpoint.

Apple makes use of a number of FOSS packages and contributes back to them. However, the company makes sure to use FOSS strategically, by only using FOSS packages that can boost Mac OS X from the ground up but gradually decreasing the usage of FOSS at the higher-level, more-visible layers of the operating system. One of the few visible FOSS components of OS X is the WebKit framework (used by Safari and Dashboard for web rendering), which is derived from several projects of the more Linux-friendly KDE.

Otherwise, Apple tries to use as many proprietary bits in OS X as possible; a prime issue (and one that even I’ve expressed concern about) is how X11-native applications, when ported to OS X’s (closed-source) pet API and toolkit, have to be derived as forks of the main branch of the application in order to "integrate" with the predominant look-and-feel of the operating system and GUI. Camino was derived from Firefox in this manner, as was Adium from Pidgin.

Even third-party closed-source programmers have to face this hurdle, as porting an application or application suite between Win32 and Cocoa (or Carbon) usually results in the distributors stating that they will not be able to deliver the next release of a software suite for one platform (usually, the one that goes lacking is OS X).

I particularly notice that, when an application has finally been rewritten for installation on OS X to fit in the user interface of OS X, the developers (and sometimes Apple) will state "such-and-such-app comes to the Mac."

Comes to the Mac? It was recoded for Aqua to Apple’s HUG, not brought to some obscure hardware platform!

And I think that is the answer: by keeping the toolkit closed-source and keeping the operating system (upon which the toolkit is dependent) tied exclusively to Apple’s Mac-branded hardware, Apple is attempting to give off that idea that an originally-cross-platform software application has been ported not just to a proprietary toolkit, but to an entirely-different hardware platform. It is a matter of image control, whereby Apple seeks to maintain and preserve this ideal image of a distinct and unique computing platform that is exclusive toward all other platforms. Even the transition from IBM’s PPC to Intel x86 didn’t dissipate or dent this image, as the maintenance of the hardware lock-in+toolkit dependency would ensure that anything for OS X would also be for "the Mac".

Personally, this would lead me to assume that Apple is a hardware company with a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own operating system and application software.

It reminds me of how Macromedia (now merged into Adobe Systems since 2005) was an application software company that had a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own webware and file formats.

The trouble of this approach is that, if another company with the same approach (in this case, Microsoft, an operating system company that had a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own application software, webware and file formats) and a larger size and budget to grow on, decides to edge into your market (.NET 3.0, with the much-touted Silverlight, XAML and other such graphic niceties), what are you to do? How do you react, and with whom should you ally? Macromedia, which already had Flex, Flash, AIR, MXML and other resources, was bought by long-time rival Adobe (which was previously touting SVG as a competitor to Flash prior to the acquisition), with a gradually-open (and open-source-friendly) approach being adopted by Adobe in order to compete for influence with Microsoft in the multimedia production arena.

Apple, however, doesn’t need fear any such competitive threat from Microsoft or Adobe. At present, no other desktop computing hardware distributor has such a high degree of exceptionalism for its own operating system and application software as does Apple.

Many in both the FOSS and Windows user communities view any higher degree of exceptionalism for a company’s own proprietary trimmings as "arrogance", "pomposity", "bigotry", "ignorance", "hypocrisy", etc. But any company, IMO, would take such an approach if they could afford losing potential sales opportunities; Adobe and Microsoft have historically taken such an approach towards their own stacks as well.

Plus, a higher exceptionalism for your own stack often results in loyal, high-paying customer bases, rumor communities and vigilant keyboard armies. Apple, Adobe and Microsoft all have such customer bases and fandoms, all of which are accused of being as shrill and arrogant as the companies to which they give such fealty, devotion and attention.

So a better question to ask of Apple would be this: "is Apple’s corporate exceptionalism a bigger open source enemy than Microsoft’s corporate exceptionalism?"

And my answer would be "Yes. Yes it is."

Mark Shuttleworth gets some serious iMac envy

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

….Or, why Canonical (or the Ubuntu Foundation) should hook up with an All-in-One PC maker like Acer-Gateway or Averatec.

Mark Shuttleworth yesterday voiced his desire to help get Desktop Linux to, or past, the same design landmark currently held by Apple’s Mac OS X. He also predicted that the same would be accomplished within the next two years.

Now one can laugh at this, and maybe even make a few jokes about how Ubuntu’s trademark brownish-beige look and feel is easily dispelled by Mac OS X’s trademark bluish/ivory look-and-feel.

I personally don’t think that a desktop Linux distribution like Ubuntu should be so easily discounted as an operating system and software platform in comparison to Mac OS X. However, I contend that Ubuntu’s success as a competing operating system and software platform against Mac OS X should be judged, or at least reviewed and assessed on how well either operating system fits into and utilizes an All-in-One PC.

The reason why I place the All-in-One PC in such a higher regard in comparison to the more diverse monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower combo that is sold by most desktop PC vendors as far as comparing Ubuntu to Mac OS X is because Mac OS X, since its introduction around 2000/2001, has historically been designed around the iMac, the AIO PC that was inaugurated in 1998 as the flagship product of the “new, improved” Apple. Even as Apple had introduced other desktop and laptop computers which had less of a hardware focus around the OS X GUI (including the current Mac Pro and Mac mini), the Mac OS X user interface has almost always been designed around the iMac in all generational iterations of the computer.

For instance, if you look at the iMac page on Apple.com, you can see how the GUIs of all the applications displayed on the screens of the row of iMacs are designed to take up the entirety of the screen. In fact, since Apple had first started to sell the flat-screen iMacs (starting with the iMac G4 of 2002), the screen real estate taken up by whole applications has almost always been advertised on the iMac page of Apple.com. The current iterations of the other desktop and laptop products from Apple are not advertised in a similar fashion on their own respective front pages on the website; the GUI’s design is not “front and center” on those pages.

So I honestly think that Mac OS X’s UI is designed to fit best on an iMac, with all the other installations of OS X on the other Mac desktops and laptops being a second-best consideration for Apple until recently. This All-in-One GUI-design mentality is also carried over to the iPhone OS, as the iPhone OS is designed more for the iPhone (an “All-in-One” candybar mobile device where, again, the screen is all that matters for user interaction) than it is for the iPod touch (and, if it decides to add another mobile pocket device, maybe a clamshell, to the line-up, Apple will still preinstall the iPhone OS onto the device without any significant changes in the design of the GUI or the functionality of the OS). A sign of this is the fact that the iPod touch still has some camera functionality akin to the iPhone, even though the iPod touch doesn’t have a built-in camera.

Meanwhile, Windows on the desktop isn’t and never has been designed with such a focus on the All-in-One desktop computer form factor; instead, it has been traditionally designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor.

Desktop Linux, as well, has been historically designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor, at least because the cheaper desktop computers have followed such a hardware design for expandability and upgrading purposes. Thus, Ubuntu has followed in like manner.

However, because it isn’t created and provided by one single vendor, nor are the offered looks determined by one single vendor, it may be possible for desktop Linux distributions like Ubuntu and its own spinoffs can be designed and themed for best fit and access on an All-in-One PC’s display.

If a Linux distribution (or more specifically, dare I say, an Ubuntu spinoff) can be designed and themed to be accessed specifically on an All-in-One PC like Gateway’s One, Sony’s Vaio L or Asus’ EEE Monitor, I think that it may become the pinnacle of free software UI design for both desktop and laptop computers.

Anyone who may want to consider such an idea should at least consider the user interface of the “made-for-EEE PC” Linux distributions like Xandros and eeeXubuntu, and then try to apply the user interface with major modifications for access within an AIO PC.

So this, I believe, is what Canonical must consider if it wants to compete with Apple in the area of user interface design. It must look at and study the hardware form factor that Apple uses to design the user interface of Mac OS X (the iMac) and then apply an AIO-centric design to Ubuntu that definitely outranks and outmaneuvers the Mac OS X-on-iMac user experience.

If it can do that, then Apple will be forced to compete against desktop Linux on the desktop and laptop front, particularly to retain their high-profile image as a computer company.

About the FSF’s stance on the iPhone and Embedded Mobile software

Uncategorized, , , , ,

An FSF member has published his stance on the iPhone in the wake of the 3G release.

I’ll say that I agree with johns on his points concerning the iPhone blocking free software and free media; also I could see the problem with a phone that continues to provide feedback for proprietary mobile phone/navigation networks even when you turn it off.

However, then the article offers the FreeRunner device (which has the OpenMoko Linux distribution pre-installed) as an alternative to the iPhone.

Now, the OpenMoko platform has, for the last two years, been extolled on news websites as the quintessential free software smartphone OS, but I wonder about it and its proponents.

Primarily, I wonder why an “embedded” Linux distribution should be the poster child for the free software movement’s somewhat-consistent principle-based opposition to the devices preinstalled with the iPhone OS, considering that most times when we read about some GPL violation being taken to court by the Software Freedom Law Center, it is usually concerning some GPL’ed software being “embedded” into the hardware without full compliance with the GPL’s letter. When Richard Stallman talks about “Tivoization”, he is specifically talking about Embedded Linux being “too” locked down to comply fully with the GPL’s spirit.

Plus, when it was being extolled as the geek’s ideal mobile OS on Digg, one of the primary reasons for why the OpenMoko was extolled in such a way was because it supposedly followed the “PC” model where software and hardware modifications and extensions were allowable and addable.

So, if OpenMoko Linux is “more” extensible than the iPhone OS, then does it remain an “Embedded Linux” or does it become a simply “Mobile Linux” of the likes of Ubuntu MID?

And if the iPhone OS is “embedded” in how it supports SIM cards which are proprietary to the carrier (in this case, AT&T), then why should the FSF endorse an embedded Linux device that supports the same for a different carrier? Can you say “four more years“?

Instead, I wish that the FSF would endorse the development of PMP OSes that could compete with the iPhone OS via the iPod touch rather than via the iPhone.

Such PMP OSes like the iPod touch installation of the iPhone OS would be able to install free software, play/edit/distribute free media, and not give off a homing beacon that is proprietary to some carrier’s network.

Plus, it would (ideally) allow you to sync with any desktop client on any operating system of your choosing, not restrict you to syncing one library at a time, and even let you download files from the Internet from within the device’s browser.

Finally, the purpose of the speaker and receiver on the free software PMP OS would be to talk through open IM-based VOIP protocols, record conversations, and play sound out loud if the user chooses such an option.

It would essentially bypass the current focus of the majority of smartphone OSes on connecting with “data providers” and carriers, and give computing platforms to those who may not desire a laptop or anything bigger but aren’t as wild about getting cell phones (like myself).

At least, until cellular data plans are as cheap and as fast as a home Cable Internet plan (which won’t happen anytime soon).

OK now, is it Mobile Linux or Embedded Linux?

Uncategorized, ,

There are two categories on Wikipedia: Embedded Linux (with its own article) and Mobile Linux (without its own article, don’t know if it’ll be redundant to create one).

I’m confused about this because Mobile Linux (which is meant to go onto “mobile”, “traveling” devices such as smartphones, PDAs/”palmtops” and PMPs) is generally assumed as being a specific form of Embedded Linux (which goes on both mobile and stationary devices, such as networking hubs, robots and non-GUI machinery).

However, you also have the “Netbook“, “MID” and “tablet PC” Linux distributions that are coming out. These are meant to be “mobile”, in both the laptop sense and the phone sense, since you can carry such smaller “-tops” in a small bag, a purse, or other place where you can often find a mobile phone located (except for the pocket….apparently, they won’t get to that point until multitouch “-tops” will replace the “-book”‘s keyboard, and that will take years to put out to market).

Furthermore, while this smaller type of “-top” may (like the MacBook Air) or may not lack an optical drive, it will also have a way to install an operating system from some physical device, whether it is through a wireless optical drive that syncs to the “-top” or through a USB flash drive stick that can be stuck into a port on the side of the “-top”. Mobile Linux devices – at least the smartphones – don’t have this option, as don’t other smartphones with different operating systems installed, although Linux has been installed (through various jerry-rigged ways, onto PMPs and PDAs which aren’t locked into a carrier).

So where does the mobile Embedded with no user-software flexibility end and the mobile Netbook/MID with user-installable OS and software begin?

If the smaller luggable laptops are becoming as small and compact as the Mobile Embedded devices, then should the Netbooks and their operating systems be included into the “Mobile Linux” Category, alongside the smartphones, PDAs and PMPs?

(I also notice that with the current hoopla being given to Linux-based smartphones and Linux-based subnotebooks, one doesn’t hear that much about Linux PDAs or Linux PMPs, although that may only be because of the respective lack of native Linux support for PDA-compatible wireless and PMP-compatible codecs that won’t wear down batteries. Oh well.)

Let me coin the following term:

Uncategorized, , ,

“Compositing file manager.”

There, I did it.

A file manager (e.g., Finder, Windows Explorer, Nautilus) combined with a compositing manager, resulting in graphically-nifty visual effects for browsing and viewing files.

Think Nautilus, but with Compiz Fusion-like visual effects for navigating between the Theora movies in your…erm…private stash.

You heard it here first, even though folks have wanted CF-like effects in other applications for years, without understanding that CF can only do windows and everything outside the windows (e.g., screenlets and launcher docks).

This would be especially useful for the multitouch interaction that we’ll probably see with Compiz before the year is out.

I could imagine something like the following, but with multitouch interactivity:

New filesharing network idea

Uncategorized, , ,

Oggtella.

It will be Gnutella (the network that you use if you’re using Limewire) sans the proprietary file formats (.mov, .wma, .ra, and the ubiquitous .mp3 and .avi).

Thus, you can freely obtain music and video without the whole “royalties”/”codec-propriety” thing to worry about (often a concern for developers of FOSS-based operating systems and media players).

I’ll be listing this as one of my “top ten” reasons to move back to Ubuntu or Gobolinux if it’s ever created.

No more Linux (yes, you read me right)

Uncategorized,

That’s right. No more hard drive partitions on my part. That is, not until ReactOS or Haiku are released.

I’ve realized that, since GNU/Linux was made to directly emulate Unix, a server-centered operating system from less than half a century ago, and since I’m not running a server, GNU/Linux has no reason to be on my (or *any*) PC.

Well, except for maybe Gobolinux, which, for once, isn’t based off of any pre-existing Unix filesystems.

However, since they’ve said that Gobolinux is similar in concept to BeOS (which I’m sure some of you have heard of back a couple of years ago), I guess that I’ll just wait until Haiku, the open-source continuation of BeOS, comes out.

Or hell, I could just wait until ReactOS is released. They aim to be binary-compatible with Windows NT (from 1993), the core component for every Windows that has come out ever since (including XP and Vista). The way things are at Microsoft, I could stand to wait for the ReactOS team to put MS out of their misery (and set lots of developers, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS free in the process).

Yep, I can wait with all this ingrown hair that I’ve plucked out of my face. Bastards…

Oh, and I guess I’ll stay back on for the time being, too.

Meh.

Why Linux won’t “conquer the desktop” (for the next decade)

Uncategorized

I don’t think most people these days know that Linux is only a kernel.

I mean, sure, its great that GNU/Linux (that is, GNU *plus* the Linux monolithic kernel) has been ported to so many devices and hardware platforms, but I think that that’s probably the (or a) basis for the reason(s) why you won’t be hearing about a single “killer desktop distro” coming out of the GNU/Linux platform anytime in the near future.

Because GNU/Linux was not made for the common desktop from the onset, we’ve only seen a recent spate of GNU/Linux distributions which have been aimed for that particular audience, which is currently dominated by Windows and Mac OS X (both of which have long scored with hardware. UPnP, anyone?). Plus, because there is such a plethora of distributions already (which should go without saying for the desktop-oriented distros, such as Ubuntu), desktop users will have a hard time figuring out exactly which one they would want to try out. After all, probably the vast majority of Windows users aren’t geeks who will take time to even install software at any rate (like my oldest Sis, although its understandable since her ex-husband lent an HP Pavilion to her and because it has only a tiny bit of RAM).

Frankly, if there is going to be a large-scale collective movement of the GNU/Linux operating platform to the desktop/laptop, they’ll have to withdraw from the longstanding stereotypes and barriers which have hindered such efforts in the past. I’d actually say that the Desktop/Laptop GNU/Linux distribution which could make the largest killing on its target area will look, act, and feel alot more different from the present-day Ubuntu.

Maybe its Symphony OS? Or what about ELive?

Maybe even one that natively uses Sun’s Looking Glass Project?

I dunno….give them a few years to develop and we’ll see.