Blog.CBojar.net

CES 2012: Day 1

2012-01-11T01:51:00.001-05:00

Today marked the kickoff to the 2012 International CES. For me, it mostly served as a 30,000 foot overview of the show. We took cursory glances at most of the major booths, including Intel, Microsoft, Sony, Motorola, and others. There is not a whole lot to discuss quite yet, but here are a few quick observations. First, several ultrabooks made their debut appearances here, and they mostly live up to expectations. They are as thin and powerful as advertised, but not all are consistently feather-light. Companies are also still trying to push 3D television, despite the generally tepid response of the market. I have not been as overwhelmed by tablets this year as last, but the dark-horse category this time around appears to be audio, both mobile/personal as well as the in-home variety. The latest Ford Fusion electric was also unveiled today, and it looks to have some new, sleek luxury styling. I'll have to check it out more thoroughly tomorrow or later this week.

Consolidating Your New OS

2011-12-15T02:21:00.000-05:00

Tonight, I've decided to end my side project at YourNewOS.com and consolidate those posts into this blog here. I wasn't keeping it up and I did not see that changing any time in the near future. The old domain will be redirected here shortly, and all of the old content has already been migrated over, thanks in part to Wordpress2Blogger. The site never really had the firm direction it needed. Originally, I had planned to make it an audio podcast about Linux for beginners. Later, I transitioned it over to a blog centered around cloud from the SMB/SOHO perspective. Unfortunately, it languished, not from a lack of potential content, but rather from a lack of time and enthusiasm. I believe that by focusing my efforts on a single blog, this one, for the time being will result in the greatest and best content for me to produce.

ONA Philly Meetup at the Philadelphia Inquirer

2011-11-03T01:34:00.002-04:00

CEO Greg Osberg Speaking

Tonight I had the opportunity to attend this month's ONA Philly Meetup. The event featured a presentation from Inquirer CEO Greg Osberg on the paper's various digital efforts, including the new tablets from the Philadelphia Inquirer. The event was also bookended by essentially meet-and-greet sessions between Inquirer staff and the various other participants. The event was overall pretty good, and there was a pretty strong turnout of about 60-70 or so.

The Inquirer Tablet

I got a chance to try out one of the tablets, which actually ran pretty well. It runs a version of Android (I was told they thought Honeycomb, but weren't 100% sure on that), so it can basically run any typical Android app. For getting apps, it provides AppsLib as well as the Amazon Appstore. In addition to the standard apps, it included the three Inquirer apps that really make the tablet specific to this paper. Two of the apps provided digital copies of the print versions, essentially a fancy way of viewing a high-fidelity digitization of the paper. The third app offered a tablet-optimized interface to the Inquirer content. Pricing was more subscription-oriented, offering a one- or two-year content subscription with a subsidy on the tablet (more details can be found on the website). The tablet possessed a front-facing but not a rear-facing camera, and did not offer 3G/4G, only WiFi. It had a standard headphone jack, a microSD slot, a full-size USB port, and what appeared to be a mini- or micro-HDMI port. I didn't really notice any serious performance problems, though there was a bit of sluggishness on occasion and the touchscreen didn't always seem to respond correctly (mostly when trying to do pinch zooming). It will be interesting to see how well this is accepted by the market. Of the initial batch of 5,000, they've sold roughly half so far.

The presentation provided some insights into the digital strategy of the paper going forward. Of course the tablet is a major cornerstone of this strategy, but they also discussed other topics of note, including paid content, apps for other platforms such as the iPad, their expansion of their video productions including building a full video studio on premise, and their Project Liberty start-up incubator. They were also proud to point out that their subscriptions had been flat in the recent period, an improvement over precipitous decline, driven by several format changes and a shift from syndicated to local content. Content, they also reassured, was their core value proposition, and it would be the driver for growth in the future. I have to say that there are a lot of good, solid products coming out of this initiative, but I seriously have to wonder how beneficial they will be. That was the first time I had ever been to any newsroom (though we technically weren't in the newsroom, but I could catch some views of it), and I was underwhelmed. Perhaps it is the high-tech space I live and work in, but their offices struck me as particularly primitive (the Inquirer newsroom, for those who have not seen or been there). I was struck not only by the 1920's/1970's renovation utilitarian look, but also by the psychological layout of the place. Writers were all sectioned into sparse cubicles differentiated almost only by the stacks of paper in them. I expected to see some sort of display with a stream of news and information, or perhaps tablets for quick, mobile consumption, but these I did not see. Admittedly, I only caught a glimpse of the space, and I'd love to have been able to get inside and see how it all really works, but at least on the surface it wasn't what I expected. Maybe a field trip might be in order for Hacks/Hackers to help the techies to understand this world a little better.

Speaking of Hacks/Hackers, they were able to get in a plug at the end of the presentation, so hopefully there will be even more people at the next meeting two weeks from now. The topic of that meeting looks to be learning about tools for digging into data. I've not used most of those tools before (though I understand the concepts), so it should be pretty interesting. I was also thinking of, perhaps at some point, volunteering to do a presentation on digging into Google for them as well, if there is enough interest. I guess we'll see.

Looking at the New Blogger

2011-10-31T16:04:00.001-04:00

Recently, Blogger, like most other Google properties, has undergone a serious makeover. The changes can be seen both on the back-end and, optionally on a per blog basis, on the front-end. This blog has been moved over to use the newest Blogger modifications, and, for the most part, I'd say they are pretty good.

The Good

There's a lot Google did right with the new Blogger. The back-end has been massively improved with a new post editor and, perhaps most pleasantly surprising, and integrated analytics dashboard akin to a Google Analytics Lite. The design is cleaner, nicer, and much easier to navigate. I've been using it for about two weeks now, and I can say it's actually provided a motivation to blog more than before. In addition, Google is also said to be rolling out Google+ integration with Blogger, though I haven't yet done this myself.

Blogger blogs can also take advantage of a new, cleaner front-end template style that takes advantage of some Javascript/AJAX/CSS3/HTML5 goodness. If you're reading this now on my blog site, you can see an example of this new design style. The ugly bar along the top has been replaced and integrated into a minimalistic header area. Google has also nicely integrated in their own +1's as well as tweets and Facebook likes into every post. Individual pages are now gone in favor of a single scrolling page, but not forgotten with easy access from a unique URL just as before.

The Bad

Not everything is sunshine and roses, as there are a few points against the new Blogger layout, mostly directed at the new blog templates. First, the heavy use of the "new Web" technologies significantly complicates page loading and rendering, specifically because the page is loaded entirely by Javascript/AJAX rather than directly as HTML. This also causes the page to load more slowly, displaying a Blogger loading logo for a few moments before the text content appears. Because all posts are now shown on a single scroll page, all posts must be loaded first before anything is displayed, slowing access to content and increasing load time. The single scroll page also uses infinite scrolling (where it keeps loading additional content automatically at the bottom of the page), a widely-used feature I particularly dislike personally (I'd rather have the option to click to load).

The Ugly

There are a few considerations about the new templates that are particularly ugly. First, because the page is loaded by Javascript/AJAX and not directly, archiving or scraping a page becomes particularly difficult. I was recently writing a script to automatically find RSS feeds at a given URL and I discovered that this cannot be done easily with the new template. This also makes me wonder how this will affect search engine discoverability, since search engines may not necessarily download or run scripts when crawling. This may mean that, while Blogger blogs may show up on Google, Bing/Yahoo! and other competitors cannot see or index them. This could greatly affect incoming traffic to a blog, and could limit a blog's exposure.

Everything I Know About Google I Learned from Google (Well, Almost)

2011-10-24T21:20:00.001-04:00

About two weeks ago, I found Google Hacks in a Half Price Books, and thought, "Hmm, sounds useful, and for 6 bucks, I can get that much out of it." The book itself is, unfortunately, a bit outdated (not least of which was its mention of Google Sets, which was actually shut down the day after I read about it). I imagine that the authors are hard at work on a new version in light of the vast changes taking place on Google right now, many of which are being driven by the release of Google+. Despite this, and applying a little computer know-how, I can pretty firmly say that in the last week or so, I've gotten more out of Google than I have for a long time.

Most of what I've been using, I actually knew about beforehand, but reading the book jogged me into rediscovering those tools and using them in new ways. The first and biggest rediscovered tool is the numerous operators available to use when searching Google. They're both useful for drilling down into results and for "browsing" Google by using very broad searches like just a certain file type. Another forgotten tool (which, honestly, I didn't realize so many people still used) is Google Groups. Yes, they are still around and still updated with hourly frequency or better in many cases. They hold a vast reserve of information that does not seem to appear in a standard Google search.

I've also been tapping Google's vast data store to find out more about Google itself. I've discovered a few services and sites I never even knew they had, like Google Advisor, Google Correlate, and Inside Google Search. I've also found some very specific coverage on the search engine to keep up with changes and advancements, the best of which comes from the (Unofficial) Google Operating System blog. This trek into Googleness has even been a factor in driving me back here to blog again (also helped by the major revamp of the Blogger interface).

The incredible amount of information available from the Google search box is dizzying and unnerving, especially when you consider how much can be learned just from typing in a name or address or phone number. What's more amazing is that, despite all of the potential uses and abuses by Google of this data, all of this is equally set into our hands to use as we wish. I think back to the Hacks/Hackers event I attended last week and wonder how much is out there that, if people just knew how to find it, could completely change everything.

Equally daunting, I realized, is what we don't find, that one search in 10 that doesn't really return what we're searching for, or only says, "Your search did not match any documents." I have to wonder whether what we want to know is really out there, but hidden, maybe behind a firewall or a log in screen, or whether there is something we are looking for that really has not been found yet. This, perhaps, even more strongly applies to that event last week, where rather than re-opine on a story covered in 97 other news outlets, maybe we need to start looking at the 0 results returned.

Hacks/Hackers Philadelphia First Meeting

2011-10-21T19:31:00.001-04:00

So I attended the inaugural meeting of the Hacks/Hackers Philadelphia group. If you don't know about Hacks/Hackers, you can read about them on their national site. Basically, their goal is to bring together journalists (hacks) and technology professionals (hackers) to solve the myriad problems faced by these groups that can be resolved through collaboration. I basically found out about it a few days before on TechnicallyPhilly. The event was held in Center City Philadelphia this past Tuesday (October 18, 2011) evening, so I made the long trek in to attend.

I was surprised at the number of attendees (off-hand count from memory says about 20-25 or so) since this was the first meeting. That speaks to the dense social networks present in both the local tech and journalist communities. Because the local group was just starting out, the meeting lacked a certain direction, and mostly focused on issues related to bootstrapping it, such as what types of activities they would engage in. At one point, discussion devolved into a minor debate on the efficacy of the waterfall programming model in comparison to Agile.

Despite that side discussion, people were able to voice many opinions on both sides, and at least one problem was solved that night (thanks to Google Refine). The group leaders and some members decided to take it into the direction of building apps for journalists, and want to sponsor mini-hackathons to accomplish this. They also spoke of the potential of submitting those apps to competitions for funding.

I hesitate to endorse this course of action. Since this is a networking group, it doesn't really seem to fit to use it as a start-up prequel. I think it would be much better suited as a forum to which members can bring problems so that others can help by bringing their unique perspectives. I haven't decided whether I will be going to the next meeting (whenever that might be). I feel I need to see a bit more direction and purposefulness coming out of the leadership, as well as a purpose that fits the structure.

Google+ Has Changed the Way I Want to Consume News

2011-10-21T15:49:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I decided that I don't like the way I read my RSS feeds so much any more. Yes, kind of an odd, spur-of-the-moment thought, but it struck me and I set out to find a new way to consume the content I follow. Currently, I read my feeds through Firefox. I have a folder full of live bookmarks that fill up with new stories as they happen. What I like about this is that it doesn't store up every story it ever had, and it's right there in my browser, so I can just click and open. What I don't like is the fact that I have to go to my bookmarks menu every time to click every story, and the fact that all I get is a title, no context and no shiny interface.

Since I run Ubuntu on my computers, I first tried the archetypal readers for that system, RSSOwl and Liferea. While they were functional, they both approached RSS feeds the same way: as a series of messages to be read much like email. I wasn't really clear in my head about what I didn't like or what I really wanted, but these both just didn't work for me. I also tried reading them in Thunderbird (as I had done very long ago), but of course, being a mail reader, it was an even more mail-like experience. Thinking maybe I was limiting myself, I even tried running a Windows feed reader under WINE (enough of a challenge by itself), and it too presented content in the same manner. I couldn't seem to get past the fact that I wanted something different, even though I didn't really know what.

Tired of this pursuit, I decided to distract myself with Google+. Login, load up home page, and it hit me. What I really want is not a message-oriented list of stories, but rather a stream of news from the sources I want to follow! The Google+ stream is what I was looking for in a news reader. It presented the most recent news first, with limited context that could be expanded, and provided comments and commenting within easy reach. Plus, it offers the ability to group different items into topical circles of my choosing, which can then act as stream filters. This is what I had been looking for.

On Google+, I already follow a number of tech journalists who post their stories on a regular basis, and so this partly lent itself to this idea of a Google+-like news reader. Because Google+ is a social application, though, it also intersperses personal content from friends and family, as well as from those same tech journalists. What would be perfect is that interface on Google Reader. Of course, lo and behold, apparently Google Reader is already getting a revamp, including Google+ integration. Perhaps very soon, I may get the reader I really want. Until then, well, I guess Bookmarks... Feeds... News... click.

Using QR Codes

2011-06-30T18:28:00.000-04:00

QR codes seem to be the new trend creeping into the mainstream today. In case you don't know, QR codes are those little square barcodes that are starting to appear on signs and advertisements all around you. They can be plain black and white, or decorated in colors or with pretty images. Because QR codes have built-in error correction, they can even have logos or other small icons embedded in them for branding purposes. Of course, the best thing about QR codes is that they're free, both to use and to create.

QR codes are utilized by scanning apps on smart phones, usually directing the user to a certain targeted or optimized website. This can draw in visitors and potential customers quickly and get them directly on the content you want them to see. They can also be used to transmit contact information, pre-compose an SMS message or email, provide latitude-longitude coordinates, or even supply WiFi access point information. Because of their versatility, these codes can be used for innovative, bidirectional, mobile interaction.

Several innovative uses of QR codes can already be found in the wild, including providing tour guide information and product information, save your place in line, buy groceries, and even play massively multiplayer real-life games. As time goes on, and QR codes proliferate, I can envision many more uses for QR codes being discovered, including using them to illicit customer feedback (perhaps replacing those little paper cards found on restaurant tables) and using them to provide geographic information on maps for directions and other such information.

Is There Such a Thing as a Cross-Platform App?

2011-03-09T18:49:00.000-05:00

Apps have exploded onto the scene in the past year, and today nearly every device with a screen (and some without) seem to have their own app platforms. The real "app" craze seemed to start back with the iPhone when they opened their platform up and allowed developers to add on whole new paradigms of software. Behind the iPhone, Android, Blackberry, Palm's WebOS, Windows Phone 7, and may more followed suit, adding app platforms of their own. The real challenge became the proliferation of incompatible app platforms. Developers had to decide whether they would build their software for iPhones, Androids, or Windows phones, since the code was not directly portable between them. Even different versions of Android phones did not all support the apps written for them. With the fragmentation driving costs up, are we going to see moves toward a common app platform?

In the early days of the Web, email exemplified the walled-garden mentality that drives proprietary incompatibility. AOL users could only email other AOL users, but not users of CompuServe or Prodigy, and vice-versa. Over time, though, the walls came down, and now email is so standardized and open that it has become completely unremarkable, essentially expected infrastructure. As we look at these various app platforms, we have to wonder whether they will take a similar path, and what that would mean for the future of the software industry. Looking back at our email example, once it became standard, the price of email became essentially free, liberating online communications, but driving some email providers out of business.

To determine whether we will see the convergence of the app industry around a standard, let's looks at the potential candidates for that standard. We can discount both the iPhone and Windows Phone platforms because, despite their real or potential popularity, they are extremely closed and tightly held platforms. This first leaves Android. Android is a prolific operating system, finding itself into a growing number of mobile devices and tablets. In addition to Android-based devices, Android apps could make their way onto other platforms, because of Android's open source heritage. With an enormous number of applications already built, Android has a huge lead in the race to be the standard.

The other potential candidate is HTML, particularly the dynamic trio of HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript. HTML is, of course, the same technology that built the Web, but the upcoming release of HTML5 changes the game. HTML5 takes all the lessons of web apps learned from previous versions and incorporates them directly into the new standard. There are already numerous HTML-based apps already out in the wild today, including Google Docs, YouTube, Zoho Office, blogs, Twitter, and more. Many of these applications are used mainly on the desktop, but they can also have mobile aspects to them. These applications can be accessed as easily from a mobile browser as from a desktop. In addition to traditional browser apps, HTML is also used as the basis of apps for Chrome/ChromeOS and WebOS. The main drawback of HTML apps is that they lack many of the more advanced integration features of native apps, but as web app platforms get more integration, they may offer a competitive experience.

Both candidate platforms face big challenges to becoming true app standards. HTML5 is still under development, and is facing some internal fragmentation issues (most notably video formats). Android is under assault as Oracle takes Google to court over patents. They may both be knocked out by a yet-unknown competitor coming out of nowhere. On top of all this, there are still many issues related to app distribution, AKA app stores. Right now, building apps for Android and iPhone will provide the best integrated experience for the widest mobile audience, while building apps using HTML provides the greatest cross-compatibility for devices of all shapes and sizes. We get to enjoy the show and the innovation as these two app platforms duke it out for mindshare and device-share.

VMware Wants to Virtualize Your Phone

2011-02-18T22:52:00.000-05:00

VMware has come out with a new product that will allow you to run a virtualized Android system on top of your regular Android on your phone. They created it with the intention to give businesses the ability to offer customized, controlled phone software (including its own number) on generic consumer-purchased hardware, eliminating a cost while still offering the benefits of control. Users can switch between the two versions of Android just as they would run any other app, but the virtualized Android integrates deeply with the underlying system, giving users a friendly interface to what is essentially two phones in one.

This product is targeted moreso at larger enterprises with the IT staffs to support this technology, but just as desktop and server virtualization technologies keep getting simpler and more affordable, this capability may soon find its way into the smaller business market. If nothing else, this could help separate business from personal on a phone with an ever expanding role in our lives, and with an ever stronger drive to integrate everything together, even if we don't want it to. In addition, virtual Androids can be stored onto removable cards, meaning that if a phone breaks, a new one can be brought up to speed with the virtual Android almost immediately, including your number, your apps, your email, and everything else. No more re-entering all your business contacts.

HP Wants to Put WebOS On Your Desk and In Your Lap

2011-02-16T15:47:00.000-05:00

HP came out with a whole new line of WebOS-based devices in forms ranging from tiny phone to full-size tablet. HP, who acquired WebOS in its purchase of Palm last year, has been looking to put the Linux-based WebOS operating system, originally designed to run Palm's Pre phones, into every device they make, including printers, phones, and tablets. The big news that came out of the HP event, though, was that they are apparently also looking to put WebOS into standard desktops, laptops, and netbooks, either in addition to Windows or possibly in place of it.

Right now, WebOS does not represent a very significant share of the mobile market, but with this being the first real push of WebOS by HP rather than by Palm, we may see both significant improvements in the software and a noticeable growth in market share. The question become what market that share is going to grow in, whether it be mobile, tablets, or even desktops. Though HP has said it will not be pushing Windows off of its hardware, the idea of a Linux-based, apps-oriented system running alongside of Windows should send shivers all the way to Redmond.

At the same time, though I see a strange confluence of factors that may well shed some light on the future direction of HP. First we need to look at what the nature of WebOS is. It is a Linux variant designed to run on smartphone hardware, and scale up to the tablet space. The overwhelming majority (~98% or so) of these devices run on ARM processors, as opposed to Intel-based processors such as the Intel Atom. ARM processors use a much simpler design, allowing them to be easier on battery life and to be cheaper to manufacture. ARM differs enough from Intel designs (also known as x86) that most software made for Intel-based computers cannot run on machines with ARM processors. ARM processors, with their lower cost and power consumption, continue to advance tremendously as users are demanding more from the phones and tablets that use them. Just today, NVIDIA previewed its newest Tegra 3 processors, and Marvell (who acquired their ARM division from Intel in 2006) are coming out with a similar chip. Marvell even demonstrated an ARM-based netbook at CES 2010 capable of playing full 1080p video effortlessly.

Somebody else also previewed an ARM-based netbook at CES last year, a little company by the name of HP. They also showed off a few other ARM-based devices running Linux. This means that HP has been looking into ARM-based devices for a while now, and WebOS may just be the software that can make the system happen. An ARM device with WebOS would have the capabilities of a tablet or netbook (and would probably be in those categories), but would have a 10 hour battery life. It could also be a full-size laptop, desktop, or other form factor designed for mostly Web access and usage, competing head-on with Google's ChromeOS.

I cannot finish this article, though, without pointing out one more story: Windows 8 is coming to ARM, too. This means that the next iteration of Windows will also be able to run on these low-power devices. So maybe HP will not run Windows off of its machines, but I can't promise they won't prefer you get WebOS. I'll leave you with a look at the HP ARM-based Android device.

Update: Looks like someone's been reading this blog...

Meego Faces New Challenges

2011-02-15T22:48:00.000-05:00

With the effective loss of one of its two parent sponsors, Meego has gone into a bit of a tailspin. With Nokia turning away from its in-house platforms, both Meego and Symbian, and embracing a future of Windows Phone 7, the Meego development community now must adjust and chart a new path forward. The question now becomes what does the Nokia-less, Intel-more future of Meego look like?

Meego is a Linux-based operating system much like Android and Ubuntu. It was formed from the merger of Intel's fledgling Moblin project and Nokia's up-and-coming Maemo project. Those two companies were the primary sponsors of Meego, and guided development of the software. Meego was designed to be a system that spanned the spectrum of devices, from netbooks to tablets to smartphones to in-car systems and set-top boxes. A single core system, customized with device-specific user interfaces, would be able to run across all of it, providing a consistent and unified personal technology ecosystem. In addition to the base system, Intel also designed its AppUp app store as a significant piece of this holistic computing vision, further unifying your different devices by running the same apps on all of them.

Because of Nokia's about-face from Meego, the platform now seems to be tripping up, and shutting some facets down. The netbook-centric user interface, designed to run on devices powered by Intel's Atom processor, is being put on hold, as is the handset interface designed for smartphones. Intel has pledged its continued commitment to Meego, but is hedging its bets by building chips able to run competing platforms like Windows Phone 7, Android, and HP's WebOS.

So what does lie in the future for Meego? I could only speculate, but here are some of those speculations. We are already half-way through Q1 2011 and no Meego-based products are even off the drawing board. As Google continues to push Android and HP starts to build out WebOS, any new Meego product in the mobile, tablet, or netbook space would be jumping into a very crowded pool. Its bluest ocean is the in-vehicle system market, with its only big-name competitor being Microsoft. It will also serve as a development and proving ground for new Intel products in an environment they can completely control. Meego already utilizes a number of technologies from the openSUSE Linux distribution sponsored by Novell, and this opens the possibility that the now-parked netbook and mobile user interfaces might be adopted by openSUSE and adapted to that operating system. No matter what, Meego has a steep climb ahead of it to reach the mass market.

Android Apps on Meego

2011-02-14T22:10:00.000-05:00

Ever want to run your favorite Android app on your netbook? Traditionally, this was not really possible, but the Myriad Group is looking to change all that. They are working on porting the Android environment for apps to run on non-Android devices. Their product, named Alien Dalvik, will launch initially on the Meego platform sometime later this year.

Meego is a Linux-based operating system for netbooks and mobile devices, meaning that it should be easier to get Alien Dalvik up and running than on a traditional Windows device. It will also provide users with a seamless experience, meaning that Android apps will sit comfortably among the traditional applications on the machine. Now Meego, and potentially other platforms, will be able to provide a unified experience from smartphone to tablet to netbook, and potentially further, given the reach of Meego even into in-vehicle systems and embedded devices.

As apps become more prevalent in the general software ecosystem, work like this will really facilitate being able to run the best software on any platform. Since apps are also built using simplified frameworks, this will also improve speed-to-market and profitability, as well as lower barriers to entry for new software projects, meaning more choices for consumers. This also pushes Android apps beyond the sole purview of the Android OS, putting them one step closer to becoming a de jure standard for universal apps.

CES 2011: Wrap-Up

2011-02-10T16:12:00.000-05:00

Following a spectacular CES this year, I figured I would cover the few things I missed, as well as re-emphasize the major trends coming out of the show. First, what I missed: NVIDIA and the Motorola Atrix. I didn't spend any time at the NVIDIA booth mostly because I was under the assumption that they were a graphics card company. What I found out is that they've really started to branch out into some other, more interesting areas. The big news right after the show was that NVIDIA has teamed up with Intel, strangely as the result of a lawsuit between the two. Intel has already integrated NVIDIA GPU technologies into its Sandy Bridge line of processors, resulting in markedly strong performance, something I saw firsthand. I think the biggest deal here, though, is the fact that NVIDIA is a driver of the ARM processor with their Tegra2 line, and while other commentators have said that Intel brought nothing to the table for low-power devices such as phones and tablets, I believe that there is an implicit agreement between NVIDIA and Intel to split the market into an Intel-dominated high-end and an NVIDIA-dominated ARM arena.

The other big piece I missed was Motorola's introduction of the Atrix. While this device has been making big headlines, I hesitate to call it a big thing coming out of CES. I didn't see it firsthand, but I watched enough video of people who did to get the gist. The most impressive feature of the phone to some is that it can be attached to a dock-like diskless netbook, and can power that device entirely from the phone. Maybe it's me, but it less than impressive to combine all the weight and bulk of a netbook with all the processing power of a phone. I know the Atrix is supposed to have some impressive specs, but most netbooks now-a-days are still vastly more capable.

Overall, though, I saw three mega-trends throughout the show floor. The first mega-trend is tablets. There was an explosion of tablets being shown this year, many of which are going to hit the stores in the next few months. Most of these tablets are 2.x Android-based, even though Google has said only 3.0 (only available on Motorola Xoom) is officially recognized for tablets. The second mega-trend is that TV manufacturers are doubling down on 3D television, despite any indications to the contrary from the mass market. Going into the show, some were saying that companies would start to ease away from 3D. Not only did this not happen, but 3D came on even stronger. I think that, unless there is some tectonic shift in either the marketplace or the technology, 3D, particularly glasses-based 3D, is heading down a dead-end road. The third mega-trend is apps. Every device imaginable came out with its own apps platform, from TVs to home-control systems. Apps are heralding the return of quality software, and will go everywhere in 2011. The big questions still surrounding apps are the standards, if any, that apps will converge around. If they do not converge, we could see a horrendously fragmented apps environment.

CES 2011: Day 3

2011-01-09T20:35:00.000-05:00

So I said there weren't going to be any further CES updates, but I did see something worth mentioning.

It's Chris Pirillo! I saw him being interviewed just as I was walking out the door, so I couldn't even tell you what he was talking about. Also, you'll notice that he's in some sort of Reese's candy booth. Reese's introduced mini Reese's cups, and they are awesome.

I'm going to try to get out a post-CES review some time this week, going a bit more in depth on what I've written on previously, and covering anything cool I might not have touched on already, so stay tuned!

CES 2011: Day 2

2011-01-07T23:09:00.000-05:00

The second day of the Consumer Electronics Show was a bit more disappointing than the first, but I'll start with the more interesting parts.

As expected, tablets were abundant yet again today. There was of course the Blackberry tablet slated for release. Others such as media player company Creative also showed off some tablet offerings. Most I saw today are Android-based (except for the Blackberry), and have feature sets on par with what has been generally described in news reports.

Cars are also getting deeper into the consumer electronics mix. Ford is continuing to promote the next generation of its Sync system co-developed with Microsoft. This will bring more features to new cars and allow for greater integration between your car and your other consumer electronics devices such as wireless networks.

I also got to look at the Boxee Box, a little device designed for watching all kinds of media. It can not only stream from Internet sources such as Netflix and Hulu, but it can also show shared media from your local network. This device is already available for purchase today, and offers not only a nice set of features, but also a nice set of connections, such as Ethernet or WiFi for connectivity, and HDMI for output.

What was most conspicuous was the public absence of several big names: HP, HTC, Netgear, and Canonical (makers of the Ubuntu operating system). While these brands technically had a presence, their presence was limited to private "meeting space"-type areas. They did not have anything to show to the public. From HP, I was hoping to see some WebOS based products, and whatever else they might have been cooking up. From HTC, I was hoping to get a look at potential tablet offerings to come. I hoped to see some cool new and refined networking gear from Netgear, and I just wanted to see anything from Canonical. I was left wanting from all these companies, and am a little disappointed in them. Maybe next year they can all belly up to the table.

Unless something really catches my eye tomorrow, this will conclude the coverage of CES 2011. I had a blast, and I can't wait to go again next year. It will be interesting to see what comes of all these innovations in 2011.

CES 2011: Day 1

2011-01-06T21:47:00.000-05:00

The Consumer Electronics Show is back again, and this year we have coverage from the floor. As many of you know, the Consumer Electronics Show, or CES, is the premier electronics event. It takes place in Las Vegas, NV, around this time every year. Notable products that came out of CES in the past include Blu-ray, the VCR, the Xbox, and HDTV. CES is where electronics companies come to show off their latest creations and innovations.

This year, a huge trend is the development and growth of the so-called smart TV. Smart TVs are televisions that can connect to the Internet and can download and run apps much like you can on a tablet or smart phone. This type of product can be seen in many of the booths, including LG, Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony. They all appear to be moving as an industry in this direction. While they were demonstrating many types of apps designed for consuming content from sources like Facebook, Twitter, and the New York Times, I did not see much in the way of more consumer-oriented apps, i.e. shop-from-home-type apps. I did ask at LG about this concept, and the person there did not know of any out there or in the works, but I'm sure we will see these emerge soon, allowing consumers to shop from their couches.

Also popular are the tablet computers. Microsoft was showcasing Windows 7-based tablets, while many others were showing off Android offerings. Coby is launching several new and improved versions of its low-cost tablet line based off of Android. The new versions will all be Android 2.2 or later, meaning that they are compatible with Flash technology. Others were showing off higher-end tablets, such as the WeTab at the Intel booth. The WeTab is a Meego-based device developed in Germany.

Speaking of Intel, the chip manufacturer had a lot to offer this year, starting with Meego. The Linux-based operating system was showcased on the aforementioned tablet as well as a few netbooks, but is likely to find its way into a larger device pool, such as in-car systems and more. Somewhat closely tied to Meego is the Intel AppUp apps library. AppUp currently works on Windows (XP and 7) and Meego systems. It contains a mix of free and paid apps (including the popular Angry Birds), and will allow users to sync apps across at least five machines. This service is actually already active, though I don't believe it is completely final yet.

Intel is also launching the next generation of its iX line of chips (i3, i5, i7). These new chips include the integrated GPU technology allowing for graphics processing right on the processor. This translates into incredible speed for applications, particularly those that are graphics intensive, such as transcoding video and gaming. These chips are not months away, by the way, but mere weeks, expected to launch in products this month.

These new processors are enabling a whole new generation of technologies, including real-time HD video conferencing for the average computer, 3D video editing, and a device (I believe is) called the Keenu. It is similar to the Kinect (but is not meant to compete with it) in that it can be used for motion-controlled device interaction. It is presently slated to launch in France as part of a set-top box system from Orange. It is a very cool device showing the potential for innovative interfaces.

There are a few extra points I'd like to make about the show in general. First, this is a great year, much like the first year I went. There is a ton of innovation going on out there and a lot of it is very cool. Second, tech companies are throwing a lot out there without figuring out real applicability, meaning that a good portion will never reach market, and technologies that might mesh well are just not there yet. Third, I'm really looking forward to what I'll see tomorrow.

What Version Is the Web Now?

2010-12-23T21:35:00.000-05:00

OK, maybe it's not the most poignant question of the day, but it is an interesting conversation starter. We've often heard the term "Web 2.0" thrown about to describe nearly every technologically novel web site that came along in the last half-dozen years or so, but the idea of a version for the web can be more significant than merely the marketing-speak some deem it to be. Understanding, at least in broad terms, what version of the web we are on can help us to recognize and understand trends in the web world.

So now we have to determine what version of the web we are actually on. We'll establish this by looking historically forward from Web 2.0. Web 2.0, in its first incarnation, was most strongly defined by blogs and wikis, web software that allowed for social, public, and mostly unstructured publishing. The next level, Web 2.1 if you will, was marked by more structured types of sharing, with a lot of that content deriving from wikis and blogs. Services such as Digg, Delicious, Reddit, StumbleUpon, and others are typical of this era. These two pieces mostly fed each other, sustaining and growing back and forth. It was in this period that we also saw the rise of podcasting.

Web 2.2 was the era of the mashup, where programmers could take bits and pieces from different sites and services, and could combine them together to produce a new mini-application called a mashup. These programs would use APIs to gather together disparate data and display it in an unusual or unique fashion. Similar to mashups, so-called widgets (or gadgets) also evolved at this time, both on the web and on the desktop, allowing developers to use web technologies to quickly develop micro-applications for very specific uses. The technologies of the Web 2.2 era would greatly contribute to later developments.

Web 2.3 saw the rise of the rudimentary social network. The prototypical examples here are Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, and early Facebook. Friends would now connect to each other on the basis only of being friends, and not for any other purpose, like sharing links or writing content. Social networks, more than anything else, provided a communications platform between people, where they could share intimate details of their lives with their closest friends, and be less concerned about that information being exposed too widely. Eventually, privacy concerns would grow more prominent as Web 2.3 services transformed into Web 2.4 services.

Web 2.4 is the age of the platform. The Facebook Platform is a very prominent example of a service offering programmatic access to develop integrated applets, ala Farmville. Twitter also marketed itself as a platform, allowing developers access to APIs that allowed them to build rich interfaces to the service. Status updates in both services became a major piece of the platform. Programmers were able to leverage expanded APIs to not only extract data, but also to create new content and information, and to use all that to create innovative new experiences, at first within the domains of the platforms, but eventually also beyond those borders, such as with Facebook Connect. At the same time, apps for mobile devices that took advantage of these platforms experienced tremendous growth.

At last, we arrive at the present, Web 2.5. It represents not only an incremental growth from the earliest days of Web 2.0, but also a major shift in the way that we use the web. We are entering into the era of the Web Application, where desktop-equivalent or nearly-desktop-equivalent software is now accessible and functional through the browser. This period of web development will be ushered along by concepts like the web app store and cloud computing, and technologies such as HTML5. Some elements of this existed in very simple forms at earlier periods, most notably the Google Docs set of productivity applications (and similar), but these applications have matured, and are now unleashing a fundamental change in the way we view computing.

As we move into the Web 2.5 era, we will see many of the offerings of previous generations, even Web 1.0 properties like Amazon, adapt to the demands of an application-like experience, or we may see a fair number of them fold up and disappear completely. This does not mean that every site on the Internet will become fully and exclusively application-oriented, but we will see a general trend in this direction as more content providers want to appeal to an ever advancing audience. The Web Application metaphor will open doors to consumers in ways traditional web properties and traditional applications never could.

Can You Really Trust the Cloud?

2010-12-21T19:54:00.000-05:00

The news came out last week that Yahoo! will shutter a number of its cloud application platforms, the most notable of which is the Delicious bookmarking service. After the news circulated around a bit, Yahoo! finally reconsidered closing, and instead opted to try to sell it. As a cloud service, Delicious allowed users to save their bookmarks to the cloud, and to share them with their fellow users. Those users were hit pretty hard with the news, fearing that they would not only use a valuable service, but also a long history of bookmarks tagged with extensive meta-information. While a sale of the Delicious property might preserve the service for its user base, the whole fiasco raises serious concerns about the reliability of the cloud.

The idea of the cloud is that we entrust our entire digital life to third parties, but the essence of the cloud still relies on the same free market principles as all other products. If a particular cloud service is not making money, it could fold tomorrow, leaving everyone out in the cold. While this is not an immediate concern for a product like GMail, upon which so many are dependent, it is still a potential reality for any cloud service, even those that are seemingly the most stable.

The immediate effects of a cloud service shutting down are quite onerous on that service's direct users, but ripple effects could dramatically alter the landscape of the Internet, eliminating the possibility for creative third-party applications beyond the prescribed use cases. It could affect the way you receive news or the way you connect with friends, or the way you publish content, even beyond the service itself. Because of this network effect of cloud services, we need to look broadly at the services we use and how they connect and interact so that, should a cloud provider shut down unexpectedly, we are able to adjust and move forward. It is this sentiment that is driving much of the open data and open cloud movements of the day.

I have personally experience the effects of a cloud failure. I used Magnolia.com to store bookmarks in the cloud for a time. Fortunately, I only used it experimentally, so I lost very little when the service's database was completely corrupted. I must admit also that I have not used that service or a similar one since. When it comes to the cloud, perhaps it is best to trust, but back up often.

Television as the Portal to the Immersive Web

2010-12-15T12:00:00.000-05:00

Television has long been the epicenter of the American family life. The whole family would gather round to watch the nightly news or the big game or the latest reality show. Television is starting to evolve, though. First we moved to high-definition in recent years. The purpose of this was really less about making sure people got more detail and more about freeing bandwidth for additional and complementary services, since digital channels, even high-definition channels, take up less bandwidth than their analog ancestors. At first this translated into more channels, more on-demand programming from providers, and faster Internet speeds over the same wire. Now, with all of that coming to fruition, we are pushing into a next level of television.

The first movement is toward the 3D television. With the increased bandwidth, a lot more information can be sent to viewers, such as the double-picture needed to watch in 3D. 3D has had a rough start so far, though, as there still is not a lot of programming, and as consumers are hesitant to buy new TVs so soon again after just upgrading to HDTVs. There is also the hesitancy toward having to watch wearing goofy glasses. The second movement has been the development of apps for the TV. Some televisions or television accessories are now able to access native and web applications without needing a computer. They are even using mobile and tablet operating systems like Android to get the job done, opening TVs to extensive pre-existing app stores. So far the apps are somewhat rudimentary, such as an app to view and post to Twitter, but these apps can develop to become very integrated, and can also take advantage of the expanded bandwidth discussed above.

At the same time as we see these movements, we can see more areas intersecting in our living room. At first, we will see standard webcams added into TVs, but we should keep an eye on emerging technologies coming out of gaming, namely the Kinect from Microsoft. Originally developed for its Xbox gaming platform, developers have taken the 3D-aware device and used it to create several innovative user interfaces. You can now use your hands to navigate the web or to play a virtual piano, and this kind of innovation will only continue. The other intersection point we can see is the directions of apps on mobile and tablet devices. Apps are finally moving out of the simple and niche to become more engrossing and more profit-driven. The best example of this is Amazon's Windowshop Interface, originally developed for the iPad, and now migrated to the browser. With a more natural interface for different platforms, Amazon will be able to make sales in ways and places never before conceived. Browsers are also moving toward incorporating a new graphical technology called WebGL, allowing 2D and 3D object representations to be transmitted across the web.

So where does all of this lead us? We can see better, glasses-less 3D televisions on the horizon. We can see applications able to take advantage of ever-broader highways onto the Internet. We can see spatially-aware technology. We can see new ways of driving business and life. We are headed toward a future where we will see and touch and walk around in a web that feels almost as real as going outside. In a word, "immersion" is the future of the television. We will be able to window shop from our living rooms. We will be able to video conference Grandma or the Johnson account in fully immersive 3D. We'll be able to game with our friends half a world away like we were in the same room. The Immersive Web will not completely supplant the desktop-oriented web of today, but it will make it a lot more interesting.

ChromeOS: A Lost Leader

2010-12-15T07:00:00.000-05:00

Last week, Google premiered the beta version of their upcoming ChromeOS for cloudbooks. The event was very exciting as I watched it live on YouTube. They demonstrated a device that lives exclusively on the Internet, having no native apps except for the browser-OS. With ChromeOS, Google is hoping to move users to its cloud-based services such as Google Docs. Along with demonstrating the system itself, they also showed off the small ecosystem developing around it, including a web app store from Google for the browser and a product called Citrix Receiver, which allows a remote native application to be streamed across a network. Google offered to send free cloudbooks to volunteer beta-testers, many of which have started to receive their equipment last week.

The reviews so far have been mixed. While boot times and connectivity have been everything that was promised, testers are finding the lack of usable internal or external storage and the lack of peripheral support to be challenging. This is the price paid for living in the clouds.

It's hard to imagine the average computer user making that kind of sacrifice just to use a faster computer. The lack of a real hard disk is enough of a barrier to adoption, and not just because people "don't get it," but because most people want and some people need to control their files locally, and to install a native program or two. It's just not realistic to try to fight this necessity. ChromeOS also shoots itself in the foot in another way. Many of the benefits of ChromeOS, such as the web app store, can be experienced in a Chrome browser install in a less restrictive environment, such as Ubuntu, MeeGo, or Windows. I can do everything I want in the browser, but then when I close it, I still have the capability to run my office suite, save my pictures off my camera, and print my emails to the printer on my desk.

While ChromeOS won't even launch commercially until the middle of next year, it is already facing strong competition. The two biggest contenders, Jolicloud and MeeGo, are already out there for everyday use, and include most of those pieces of functionality ChromeOS is missing. At the same time, they are both built using Chromium (the open source version of Chrome) technology, meaning they have access to all the same technologies. While neither has seemed to gain significant uptick yet, they may be able to beat Google to its own party.

The biggest piece of enduring advancement that will come out of ChromeOS will be the ecosystem built around it, which, as already mentioned, is just as usable on any other system with the Chrome browser. The web app store will be the first of many, allowing content creators to develop amazing, standards-compliant applications entirely within the browser. Citrix Receiver will advance telework substantially. Browser-based book reading applications, such as Google's eBook store, will move the publishing industry further and wider into devices they never even thought books could be read on. Even if ChromeOS burns out, it's already made the future a little brighter.

The New Myspace

2010-10-28T02:50:00.002-04:00

I must admit that I am intrigued by the new Myspace (or my_?), so much so that I've actually opened a new account on there to see and play with the new features, among other reasons. While some people out there are bemoaning the new branding and declaring this the death throes of Myspace, I'm actually liking what I'm seeing, at least from a limited perspective of what I might use it for. It's not all sunshine and lollipops, though, or else I wouldn't be writing this post.

The main thrust of my disappointment derives from my belief that Myspace, as part of News Corp., does not go far enough in integrating into the massive assets of that behemoth media conglomeration. It has been said that Myspace is positioning itself as a place for entertainment, whereas I believe it should have gone broader, positioning itself as a place for media. Allow me to explain. News Corp. has several major assets such as Fox, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Sports, the Wall Street Journal, Hulu, etc. (just from the perspective of the United States). What I believe they should have done is leverage Myspace as a single, network-wide identity manager and provider and as a network-wide media sharing and discussion hub.

As a universal identity manager, users would be able to go to any News Corp. property or partner site and sign on with a single set of credentials. This means that in one fell swoop, by signing up with one service, users would be able to access content and media across the entire array of News Corp., thus promoting significant cross-pollination of content, and much more and much deeper engagement across properties. Myspace already has much of this built in to itself, namely its ability to be used as an OpenID provider.

This cross-platform accessibility could then be leveraged into cross-platform interaction. Users could share and comment on content and media from across the spectrum of News Corp. properties, producing even more page hits (and more ad revenues). From a single place, users would be able to share content, explore content from friends and groups, and add their own content to the News Corp. portfolio.

Admittedly, Myspace would have a lot to overcome to achieve this. First, of course, would be the technical hurdles. These are large, but not insurmountable, as the site already has a head-start on some of the biggest pieces, namely OpenID + OAuth. It would actually be a bigger climb for all the other properties to integrate than it would be for Myspace to do so. The greatest challenge for accomplishing the stated vision would not be technical, but rather would be in the marketing department. Myspace of old was basically the social networking equivalent of GeoCities. The flashing GIFs and 12-year-olds really dragged down the site's experience. Myspace's actions would be two-fold: they would need to show that it no longer is like that, and it would need to make itself no longer be like that. The first is accomplished through mere marketing and advertising. Myspace might never appeal to most of the WSJ-reading audience, but it could be brought to a level where it could become a more mature space. The second action is tougher, because they might actually have to boot bad members out. The flashing GIFs could be done away with by limiting the customization, but some of the more adolescent (in behavior) members would have to go, or at least be significantly curbed in their activity *cough*stupidity*cough*. Perhaps by changing the site and its functionality, the membership would self-adjust to the new conditions.

One thing to note is that Myspace, like Facebook and Twitter and all the others, is flexible. Even if they don't build in all the features a user could want, I can still make use of the current tool set, many of those tools based on open standards, to accomplish something close enough, which I think is what I'll be doing. As such, I'll now be sharing this to Myspace, if you don't mind.

Why Yahoo! Should Buy SUSE Linux

2010-09-16T22:47:00.000-04:00

Novell is currently working on a deal that would result in its SUSE Linux business being sold separately from the rest of its assets. The current top contender for the Linux business is VMware, a company focused on virtualization. This would probably be a good buy for VMware, but I find myself asking if there would be a better suitor for the business.

This leads me to Yahoo!. Yahoo! is a company that is attempting to reinvent itself in a Web 2.0 world. It is chasing after social integration, switching its search for Bing, and determining which of its shiny acquisitions holds the most profit potential. At the same time, Yahoo! is facing down a long shadow being cast by Google over the entire search+ field as Google moves deeper and wider with integrating its products into everything, most notably right into the operating system with products such as Android and Chrome OS.

This opens a wide opportunity for Yahoo! to take a step ahead of Google. Google is pushing hard to get Chrome OS out on something, preferably by the end of the year. At the same, time, Android adoption is spreading slowly into the tablet arena, but it is unknown whether it will face growing pains in larger screens. Yahoo!, by buying SUSE Linux, could launch the next generation of an already-functional product, focusing on the netbook and tablet market, demonstrating what "deep" Web 2.0 integration looks like in a modern operating system.

How much would Yahoo! really have to do to make this happen? Well, beyond first closing the deal, they would already have a fully functional operating system. They would also already have a bit of their work done for them, such as the flickrfs for integrating with their Flickr photo sharing service. They already have a Linux version of their Yahoo! Messenger client. Using Mozilla Prism, they could quickly integrate a lot of their web services, such as Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Finance, Zimbra, etc., at least on a basic level to start. Just throw on some new paint, and you're ready to go.

A complication, though, might be Yahoo!'s relationship with Microsoft. A mitigation would be Novell's relationship with Microsoft. Novell has already been working with Microsoft for years while selling Linux, and synthesizing this relationship into Yahoo!'s would be a natural progression. Though a Linux product from Yahoo! could compete with Windows 7, it really focuses on a market lower down the pole that Windows 7 doesn't address particularly well. At the same time, Yahoo! SUSE Linux could even choose the Microsoft Office Web Suite as its office suite of choice. It fits with the whole cloud concept, and also assuages Microsoft's competitive fears.

Of course, there are ways to have your cake and eat it too. VMware's interest in SUSE Linux is in the advanced capabilities that complement virtualization. Yahoo!'s interest would be far more simplistic. Instead of purchasing all of SUSE Linux, Yahoo! could buy the subdivision focused on the SUSE-MeeGo mashup, giving the rest to VMware. Yahoo! could then partner with a hardware supplier like Asus, or like HP (who could bring some of the advances of WebOS to the table) to create the next generation of Linux-powered Yahoo! devices.

Podcasting is Cool!...Right?

2010-08-24T20:22:00.000-04:00

So recently I got into podcasting. I've always been interested in the idea, but I had a Sony media player, meaning it was way too tedious to get podcasts onto my player to really be feasible. For Christmas, though, I got a Sansa, which is much easier to do podcatching with, so I subscribed to a bunch of interesting podcasts and away I went. Despite a few rough spots, mostly issues with getting the Sansa to work just right, I must say that getting automatically delivered audio content is fantastic. I now subscribe to a range of podcasts including a beginners Linux podcast, two from the Wall Street Journal, and a few others. In a word, it is cool.

The recent challenge I've faced, though, is not with my player, my podcatcher, or even the quality of the podcasts I've subscribed to. What I'm seeing as the greatest challenge is finding new podcasts. This problem is multifaceted. The first problem is finding podcasts. There are a few podcast directories, most notably Podcast Alley, and a few podcast search engines, but for the most part these are fairly ineffective. Podcasts are divided into broad categories, and sometimes they don't fit well into those categories. This is not equivalent to the concept of a deep topical search similar to what Google does with web pages. Google handles searching for podcasts horribly as well, by the way. Then there is no further filtration of podcasts on these sites. There is no credence given to how many episodes a podcast has or even if there has been an episode in the last four years. This highlights to the second problem: podfading. Podfading is the name for when a podcast stops. There are numerous podcasts at the top of listings that have stopped casting, some of them for years. While in certain situations, such terminated podcasts might be useful, generally I'm searching for podcasts with at least some activity. Even if these are out there, they're buried deep under these ghostcasts.

So why is this such a challenge? These are really not difficult hurdles to overcome. Is it that podcasting is not really cool? Is it that thirty minutes to an hour of content is so much harder to produce and consume in comparison to a 140-character tweet or a three paragraph blog post? Do people just have nothing to say? Well, the answer to the last one is an eternal "no". So long as people are people are people, they will always have something to say. I'm having a difficult time trying to understand why podcasting is slipping when the technology to both produce and consume podcasts is getting easier to use every day?

Right now, I am considering starting to podcast. I don't know whether I would do that here or whether I would do so in a different space on a more specific topic, but I have been doing some preliminary investigation. Nothing is set in stone, but maybe.

The Web, Decoupled

2010-07-24T16:03:00.001-04:00

A previous post of mine along similar lines of rumination is "Where have all the web pages gone?".

Coupling, in computer science, is a concept that looks at the degree of interconnectedness between constituent components of piece of code, a program, or a system. Coupling has been bubbling up in my mind recently, not necessarily with respect to code per-se, but rather with respect to content and context. If I have a website, a blog, a Twitter account, a Facebook page, a Flickr page, a YouTube account, and possibly more, how tightly do these all need to be connected? Are links through a single hub sufficient? Should there be deeper integration? Should it be more centralized through the use of widgets and APIs?

Let me give some context as to how I got here. Right now I am looking at options for providing a simple blog for someone, and am considering a number of the potential options. They're going to want a blog with some static pages that allow them to place some universal information somewhere separate but easily accessible. I've looked at Blogger, Google Pages, Wordpress.com, and a paid, hosted Wordpress solution. I'm evaluating all the potential benefits and drawbacks affecting various aspects such as domain name, email, media hosting, template control, widget availability, software feature set, etc. One potential option I could propose would be to use Google Pages, which would provide a stable home page, the ability to use a custom domain name, and domain-specific GMail accounts, and to use Blogger to host the actual blogging aspects under its own subdomain, the reason being that Google pages do not offer a feature-complete blogging system.

This leads me, though, into an at-first seemingly slight quandary. The Google Sites page will have all of its own internal navigation, leading to all its own pages, which can be updated on the fly. It would link out to the separate blogger blog, which uses a separate database, though. Should there be navigation on the blog to mirror that of the Google page, meaning that it requires manual upkeep? Or is it simply enough to treat them as separate nodes and only have a link back to the main Google page? How tightly coupled should the content of these functionally decoupled nodes be?

I've actually been asking myself the same question with regards to this blog and my site for a while now without realizing it. Originally, I tried to set up a mirrored navigation here as the one on my site, but this is a rather unwieldy proposition. First, these two sites are radically different, starting with something as basic as their appearance. This blog uses Blogger's built-in templates, while my site is all custom. Could I make one appear exactly or approximately like the other? Probably. Would it be worth the time, effort, and energy, especially considering how tedious just synchronizing the menu seemed? No. These problems are only amplified when it comes to the dizzying array of social media properties out there, each with its own unique feature set and degree of customization.

Now I'm trying to plan a more decoupled strategy for going forward. This can present its own unique but far less daunting challenges. Right now on my home page, this blog is listed as a top-level navigation item, indistinct from the other links to pages on-site. Since the blog will take the user so far from the site, do I need to distinguish it more strongly? Or do I need to remove it completely to somewhere else, thus potentially reducing its visibility? Do I use a widget to provide a feed back to the site, or let the blog attract all on its own? Does the blog attract all on its own, and are people reading this without ever going to any other of my Web properties? I'm working through some of the answers right now in my brain, and writing it all out like this is really helping, but I'm still not entirely sure what the "right" answers really are.

Some people can, with enough tech savvy, bring it all under one roof (or at least mostly so), like Chris Pirillo. Others have decided the answer is to push it all out, like Jody Ferry. I'm sure it depends on the person, the content, and a number of other factors, but I have a feeling the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but maybe a little closer to Jody than Chris. I'd love to hear thoughts, opinions, and suggestions from anyone out there, so please comment at will!

Oracle and Sun

2010-07-21T00:56:00.003-04:00

Over the last week or so, I've been thinking about the recent acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle, and I must admit I'm a bit befuddled by it. While Oracle buying Sun allows Oracle to become a completely vertically integrated solutions provider, the purchase of Sun brought quite a bit of baggage along with it that really doesn't fit well into Oracle's overall operation. Sun owned and sold a number of products that competed directly with Oracle products, but that now Oracle is trying to balance in their catalog. Sun also owned quite a bit of technology that really does not seem like it would offer a significant advantage under the Oracle umbrella.

First, we can look at the unique and somewhat misplaced properties that are now a part of the Oracle organization. The biggest piece that Sun brings is the Java language and it entails. Java will probably be a boon to Oracle, and Oracle will probably be a boon to Java, but admittedly administering the entire Java ecosystem lies a little outside of Oracle's primary focus. Another major unique element Sun brings is the VirtualBox platform. While Oracle has virtualization offerings, they are not really in the same class as VirtualBox. Virtualization is where the world seems to be heading, so this seems a safe and valuable acquisition for Oracle, but similar to Java, it is a little outside of their main focus. The third piece that Oracle got in the bargain is the SPARC processor architecture (and all of Sun's systems build on it). I cannot speak to the technical or competitive advantages or disadvantages of the SPARC architecture (apart from its not being x86, the de facto processor standard), but this is really what completes the vertical integration. The question here is whether having that vertical integration on a more unusual processor architecture while shunning former partnerships with companies like HP will pay off in the end.

Now, I want to look at the overlapping elements. Oracle's flagship product is their database software. Sun owned MySQL, an open source database. Oracle distributes their Unbreakable Linux offering. Sun offered Solaris and OpenSolaris. Sun developed the ZFS filesystem. Oracle engineers began developing Btrfs as a direct response to the unportability of ZFS to Linux. Oracle has come out to say that it will attempt to offer MySQL as a lower-tier database offering (we'll see how that goes), but as to the others, Oracle is relatively quiet.

The product I see offering the most potential, and yet being the most neglected, is OpenSolaris. While it does compete now with Oracle's Linux strategy, with proper stewardship, it can evolve into a more complementary system. If I were running the OpenSolaris show, the first thing that I would do is to release it under a new license. Many have wanted it to be released under the GPL, but I would instead release it under the LGPL or a GPL-compatible variant of the Eclipse license. Why would I do this? The reasons are two-fold.

First, as GPL-compatible code, the benefits of OpenSolaris can flow toward what Oracle really wants to support, Linux. This scheme does prevent flows in the opposite directions, but this can be both a benefit and a curse. In addition, with developers knowing that work on OpenSolaris can be absorbed into Linux, effectively doubling their real effectiveness, developers will be drawn to work on OpenSolaris and can also work on Linux effectively at the same time. OpenSolaris and Linux can benefit.

Second, the curse mentioned earlier whereby code cannot flow from Linux to OpenSolaris does have its benefits. As an LGPL or similar product, an ecosystem of proprietary technologies can develop around OpenSolaris that could not around Linux. Driver developers could provide binary-only drivers without feeling the threat of releasing proprietary intellectual property. At the same time, the core operating system remains free and can continue to be freely developed. It has the benefits of openness associated with Linux development, coupled with the benefits of BSD permissiveness, while protecting against a potential Mac OS X-like event where open code is co-opted wholesale without the requirement to contribute back.

Oracle could develop OpenSolaris as a base Unix platform upon which an entire world of development could occur. Third-party vendors could develop OpenSolaris distributions with proprietary extensions, outsourcing core OpenSolaris support back to Oracle (creating a revenue stream), and enable a whole new generation of semi-proprietary innovation. OpenSolaris could also serve as the shallow end of Unix-like development, introducing manufacturers to the world of open innovation while not demanding that they kill their golden geese. Another recently-acquired-from-Sun-but-yet-unmentioned-here product that already uses this model is OpenOffice.org, a suite that is gaining ground against Microsoft Office, offering equal or better functionality than that competitor. OpenSolaris could do the same for Oracle with the right guidance.

The Stable Triple and Marketing Linux

2010-06-25T00:57:00.004-04:00

This post represents the introductory post to my new "Tech Check Series". This series will examine some current topics of the technology sector that strike my fancy.

The first topic on my mind is the elusiveness of the stable triple in the Linux market. What do I mean by the stable triple? Let's look at some examples:

Windows

Windows 7
Windows Vista
Windows XP

Operating Systems

Windows
MacOSX
Open Source Unix-based (Linux, Solaris, the BSDs)

Open Source Unix-based

Linux
Solaris
The BSDs

The BSDs

FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD

Internet Search

Google
Yahoo!
MSN/Bing

Old Internet Search

AOL
Yahoo!
MSN

Now these are not perfectly contained, absolute tri-opolies. There are additional competitors to all of these, but the market has firmly established three leading players. These players are able to more effectively capture market share and to establish effective standards to build around and upon. From there, new applications, businesses, markets, and innovations can grow on top of a solid foundation.

The Linux market does not have this effectiveness at focused direction. This is because there is no established tri-opoly in the Linux market. This breeds a degree of innovation, but the innovation can be divergent and lead to market confusion rather than standards-based development of a broadly applicable product. For example, Linux uses packaging systems to deploy new software. There are numerous different packaging systems, from the most fundamentally basic .tar.gz files to RPM-based YUM and DEB-based APT. Many distributions use packaging systems unique unto themselves, such as Puppy Linux with its DotPup system.

It is not even the existence of this multitude of systems, but the fact that using each one requires different and distinct pieces of knowledge, and sometimes distinct skill sets. Linux might be better served if instead it focused on developing a single package management interface where the underlying system was irrelevant and applications could develop based on a standard set of tools. In truth, there are some underutilized efforts in this direction, namely the APT-based tools, such as APT for DEB-based systems, APT-RPM for RPM-based systems, and even APT for OpenSolaris developed by Nexenta Systems. This standard-ish tool set allows advanced graphical tools, like Synaptic, to run on any system that supports APT interfaces.

I could go on with more examples, such as Qt vs. GTK+, KDE vs. GNOME, etc., but I think the point has been made. Now I want to focus on the original issue at hand. Taking a look at the dominant Linux players, we find a few strong foci, namely Ubuntu and Red Had, but then as you move down the chain, there are numerous, less stable points, such as SUSE (whose parent company Novell is facing financial troubles), Mandriva (whose parent company is also facing financial troubles), Mint (too close to Ubuntu to stand on its own), Debian (strong, but with its own set of issues, commercially speaking), CentOS (free Red Hat is not a growth model), Slackware (extremely developer-centric), Puppy (extremely niche), etc. This is all well and good for those niches whom these distributions support, but this interferes with the market growth of the system. I'm not saying to destroy, consume, or abolish these distributions. In fact, I'd expect most of them to go on virtually unaffected, serving their niches well, but the changes would affect strongly the two top distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu) as well as the two troubled distributions (SUSE and Mandriva).

The top needs focused and consolidated into, yes, three major players. The first two are already essentially established: Red Hat and Ubuntu. They are duking out their respective business models in the Linux world. What's missing, and what's preventing more dramatic growth is a third element, and a consolidated concept of the Linux marketplace. I'll discuss the latter first and the former after.

The Linux marketplace appears vastly diverse and complicated, but in reality, most of the market is actually very consolidated already in everything but marketing. Red Hat has a very small, intense field around it, mostly encompassing RHEL, Fedora, and CentOS. Oracle Enterprise Linux would also be included, and this will serve as a tidbit for later articles. These systems have a very strong focus on the general business environment: desktops and servers. They are developed with security and reliability in mind. On the other side is the Ubuntu field. This field is vast and diverse. First, there are the Canonical-sponsored Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Ubuntu Netbook Remix, Ubuntu Studio, and Ubuntu Server edition; then there are the redistributions such as Mint, Mythbuntu, gOS, Goobuntu, and more. In some ways, Debian can even be included in the Ubuntu cloud. Ubuntu is community and "free" focused. It is a place to try the latest and greatest. Ubuntu needs to embrace this expansive, innovative family more fully, promoting a wider Ubuntu brand.

The scopes of two of the three has now been defined, so now we can turn our attention to the third element. What role does the third element play? Well, I was once told that there are three types of products: good, better, best. The key is to sell better. People who buy good will not be upsold and people who buy best will always buy best. The key is to sell better to those who want more than good but can't get best. I don't know which is or will be in which position, but I'd like to look at some options for what can fill out the triple. First, we can look at the other prominent distributions. SUSE could be a contender, but SUSE faces a significant business challenge, and may find itself gobbled up by stronger forces. Mandriva is so deep in the hole that it probably will never get out. Distributions within the fields of one of the other two mentioned cannot effectively operate outside those fields, and most of the remainder are too niche or challenging to effectively contend.

I will allow for the outside possibility that one of those in existence or another, totally new one could rise to meet the challenge, but I believe that without some specific effort, this would not naturally happen. More likely is that a major tech player would jump into the field with their own offering, a player like IBM or possibly HP. Google is about to do such with ChromeOS (and technically has done so already with Android), but Google seems less focused on the general computing aspects, and more focused on tie-in back to Google services. I'd actually propose that Android will go further than ChromeOS, being more feature-rich and developed, but neither could effectively take the third spot.

Another possibility is that the third Linux is not a Linux at all, but a Linux-compatible Unix (strangely reversed as that might sound). The third Linux might turn out to be a BSD or, as I find myself more likely to believe, a Solaris-based system. With Oracle's recent purchase of Sun Microsystems, they now have two competing open source operating systems under one roof. As of yet, Oracle has no idea what to do with Solaris, but I believe with some relicensing and some additional effort, they can turn Solaris into the third Linux. I will delve into this topic and related matters in a later blog post.

With a consolidated and focused Linux field, the tri-opoly can make strides toward wider standards and toward a growing market of compatible systems covering every application on the vertical scale from supercomputer to server to desktop to netbook to mobile.

Running Linux

2010-03-02T01:03:00.002-05:00

Reading through a few of the older posts here, I realized that I never gave any updates on my experiences with using Linux. To make up for that, here is an update on running Linux.

I used Debian for (I think) over a year on my one desktop machine, but not being able to play Flash videos or get any updates for any programs in a reasonable amount of time began to really get on my nerves. I finally gave in and followed the crowd by installing Ubuntu 9.04. What a difference! Flash plays. Programs are up to date, and the selection is much larger and more useful. I was so impressed that it is now also the primary operating system I use on my laptop, dual-booting with Windows XP. I still have two machines that run Debian: a Fit-PC that got turned Debian after a disastrous upgrade of the pre-installed Ubuntu, and an old, cannibalized machine that refuses to install Ubuntu. I'm waiting for 10.04 to upgrade the Fit-PC back to Ubuntu, where I'm sure it will continue to serve me very well.

I must say that I've been very satisfied with Ubuntu, much more satisfied than with any other alternative operating system to date. It hasn't been all smooth sailing, most notably an unresolved problem with ureadahead, but I'm happy. At the same time, I do find myself curious to take a look at something else just to have something to compare to. I was thinking of installing Fedora onto my desktop as a dual-boot just to see how it works and what makes it unique. That probably won't be in the immediate future, as I have several work-related projects coming to fruition as well as several others in the pipeline (including a new laptop upgrade). That's the word for now.

What Is the Internet?

2009-10-07T01:02:00.003-04:00

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/y9dlboy

Recent discussions regarding net neutrality have jogged my brain into contemplating an admittedly abstract, but surprisingly practical question: What is the Internet?

I'm not asking the question from a simplistic definitive perspective, but rather from a deeper, more philosophical one. What is the Internet? What is not the Internet? How do we define the boundaries of a technological wonder that is vastly reshaping the social landscape?

I suppose I shall start by getting some formalities out of the way. Generally, I am in favor of net neutrality as a principle, but I am also in favor of people using their brains when it comes to dealing with the real implications of the policy. For example, wireless cellular networks have severely limited bandwidth capabilities, and it would be foolish to apply the same rules to them as to terrestrial hard-line networks with excess fiber capacity. For another example, even though net neutrality preaches that all packets are equal, certain services, such as VoIP and real-time video, are necessarily handicapped under such a system and some understanding and innovation needs to be applied to finding a real solution to this obstacle.

At the same time as I support a net neutrality principle, I am strongly opposed to general regulation on the Internet. In addition to the dangers to liberty simply introduced by such a scenario, general regulation combined with general technological ignorance can breed a legal nightmare for even the smallest of innovators, simply by failing to understand legally what the Internet is.

So now I've arrived back at the question at hand: What is the Internet? Technically, it's an interconnected network of networks (inter-: between, -net: networks), or at least that's an internet. The Internet, though, is defined moreso by the services it offers, most notably the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web is, of course, the network of hypertext and hyperlinks that we casually refer to as web pages. So then, we can assume that any computer on the World Wide Web must necessarily be on the Internet, but the truth is that the World Wide Web is equally as ill-defined as the Internet itself, leading us back onto the original problem. Indeed, the undefined-ness of the World Wide Web will itself become apparent as we demonstrate the undefined-ness of the Internet itself.

Why is the Internet so hard to define, though? It's really just servers and routers and computers and an unimaginable amount of cable. So let's start with a simple question: is your home network a part of the Internet? Let's start with what would make us say yes. Our network is connected to the Internet through our modem (cable, DSL, etc.), meaning we have an IP address on the Internet. We can access services on the Internet such as the World Wide Web and others. Our network utilizes the fundamental technologies of the Internet, including TCP, IP, DNS, and others. Given this line of argument, our home network is on the Internet. Of course, that now also means that our home network also falls under all of the potential regulations that any authority might devise. This thought might make you a little uncomfortable, and you might now be eagerly anticipating my counter-examples. To start, while your modem or network router might have an Internet IP address, your networked systems have private IP addresses, addresses that could be any address in theory, but generally are in the 192.168.0.0/16 or 10.0.0.0/8 ranges. Routers that make use of these address spaces are utilizing a technology known as NAT. If your networked machines (and the networked machines of others) were on the Internet, we'd have address collisions left and right or we'd quickly run out of unique addresses due to the relatively small IPv4 address space. Furthermore, NAT acts as a firewall between the network and the Internet at large, by its nature disallowing unsolicited inbound connections and altering outbound connections on multiple layers. Additionally, you do not (generally) resell your Internet access as an ISP. You are not accountable to customers or shareholders because you have none, therefore disqualifying you as a publicly-accountable service provider.

The notion that your home network is part of the general Internet is superficial and not generally supported upon deeper inspection, as shown above. Now the next step takes this a bit further to include a class of networks that generally have the same qualifications as the home network described above, but at the same time would seem to logically fall into a similar category as the Internet. I am speaking of private business networks. There are two kinds that I will discuss here: those business networks closed to the public, and those networks open to the public. Closed business networks are commonly described as intranets. They are generally used for the purpose of providing access both to private company resources and to the public Internet (or a subset of the Internet). Intranets typically use NAT just as home networks do. Intranets also can provide many Internet-class services including private, internal web servers; internal databases; web proxies; and internal hosted programs to name a few. They can also offer different network-class services such as virtual private networking, networked storage, and roaming log-on profiles. Intranets are more likely to be categorized with home networks as private and separate from the general Internet, but they also highlight the how the boundaries of the Internet can be blurred. Workers inside the intranet see private and public Internet-class services equally, and can access equivalent services through equivalent software. A private company wiki appears no differently to them than Wikipedia (here the boundaries of the World Wide Web are also blurred). To them, there is virtually no boundary between where the intranet ends and the Internet begins, but to the Internet at large, the boundary is quite clear, ending at the router where NAT is performed.

Then there is the open type of business network. The most common form of these is the publicly-accessible wireless hotspot. Anyone can connect to the network, whether for pay or for free. These networks are close siblings of both the home network and the intranet, most closely resembling the former. Open networks will generally also use NAT to translate addresses, and will therefore isolate networked systems in the same manner as above. Open networks can, but generally do not offer Internet-class or intranet-class services on the network (excepting perhaps a log-in system), though there is nothing preventing them from doing so. While these networks in nearly every way replicate the qualities of their siblings, the home network and the intranet, they much more than them would be classified as falling under Internet regulation, since they are generally reselling Internet access to customers. It would make sense to then apply the same rules to them as to larger ISPs, and yet their network management concerns more closely match those of the smaller networks above discussed. They would be more worried about providing consistent, limited bandwidth over a limited, error-prone medium (radio waves via air). They would not want a neutral network, but would rather limit bandwidth-hogging applications such as Skype and real-time video to provide a better general experience to all of their customers. In this case, net neutrality could be worse for the network users.

This then leaves open the question of whether public-access business networks are part of the Internet. They qualify in some regards and disqualify in others. Yet this question still has not been explored to the absolute limit. As described above, the Internet is defined by the services it offers, such as the World Wide Web, yet every fundamental service on the Internet can be replicated separately on a completely different network. I described above how intranets can have private, internal services hidden from the Internet at large. These services use the same technologies and standards as the Internet at large, though. Indeed, one could create their own private internet completely separate from the Internet by simply creating a network with all of the common services such as DNS, e-mail, web servers, etc. There is nothing legal or technological inhibiting such a development. Now the question arises as to whether this separate network is a part of the Internet. The answer should be apparent, but then again perhaps not. This new network could provide an equal level of service, and could provide equally as many commercial and expressive opportunities as the Internet. Does it qualify as a part of the Internet at inception, since it uses Internet technology? Does it qualify as the Internet once access is sold to even one person? Does it qualify as the Internet once it reaches a certain size? Does it never qualify as the Internet, even if it grew to become more prolific than the Internet? If it does not qualify as part of the Internet, then does that mean that regulators are nothing more than national network administrators of one network called the Internet? If it does qualify, then where does the network, and the reach of those who might regulate it end?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps someone smarter than me has already found these answers. Despite that, I still believe these are questions we need to ask. We need to know what the Internet is before we can ever hope to deal with it in any meaningful way.

Where have the web pages gone?

2009-02-23T11:42:00.005-05:00

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/cbpnf6

Recently, after reading an article by Jeffrey Zeldman, I've taken some time to reflect on the realities and extent of web outsourcing, both on my own personal web site as well as on web sites in general. It's giving me some perspective on what my site is to be or become, and it's challenging me to consider how my web site should function.

Just glancing at my web site, I thought that it was pretty well self-contained, but after a second look, I realize that it really isn't, and that indeed my most significant content is actually offloaded. The two pieces that I update most frequently are this blog and my Twitter account, @cbojar, and both of these pieces are externally hosted. The YouTube video on my front page is, as the name implies, hosted on YouTube. While I do host some of my own content, a significant portion of it, and the most actively maintained portion of it, is actually hosted, managed, and delivered by web sites that I do not own, control, or even have any real say over.

The reality is that I'm tech-savvy enough that I could roll my own versions of these services. Twitter is basically just 140 characters in a database entry. A blog is only slightly more complex because of its commenting, navigation, and editing features. With a little database wizardry and ASP magic, I could easily develop my own versions of these services, or, I might even be able to find free software on the Internet to do all of this for me already. I really don't need to use these services if I don't want to, and yet I, and many others, still do.

There are pieces that cannot be replicated on-site from these services, namely the communities behind them. Twitter wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it wasn't all aggregated together in one place. It's not impossible to build your own community nor is it impossible not to create services to integrate a dispersed community, though. Since these barriers aren't really barriers at all, why then do I and so many others still use these external services rather than centralize our own brand and content to ourselves? I guess, to be honest, it's tedious, time-consuming, and far simpler to go use something that is already prefabricated with all the bugs worked out by somebody else. Depending on which side of the coin comes up, you could call it effort-effective or you could call it simple laziness.

I don't necessarily want to disparage these technologies. They've made the Web simpler and given a digital voice to many who wouldn't otherwise have one. At the same time, though, they've taken away pieces of what used to be a very vibrant center for individual activity, and canned them into generic services that, while offering something we didn't have before, take away from the essential freedom and flexibility of the medium.

The Freeconomy and Why It Sucks

2009-02-03T03:03:00.005-05:00

TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/b9pp2s

I was reading an article from the Wall Street Journal just now, The Economics of Giving It Away, and I had an epiphany of sorts. I think I figured out why the Freeconomy sucks.

First, let me describe what I mean by the Freeconomy. Google is part of the freeconomy. Facebook is part of the freeconomy. The United States government is even part of the freeconomy now. The freeconomy is an economy built on the idea of giving away everything for free, and having a small minority pay the costs of that. Google gives away dozens of services for free, but gets paid not by the consumers of those services, but rather by advertisers. Facebook similarly gives away its services to the general public, but advertisers pay the bills. As for the government, nearly half of all Americans do not pay income taxes, but receive services paid for primarily by the top 5% of income earners.

The truth is, though, that the freeconomy sucks. As an (very geeky) example, recently I've tried to develop applications on both the Google and Facebook platforms. When I ran into trouble, real support was lacking from both companies. Documentation sucked, and if I really had to have the problems solved, I could ask other developers who might or might not know, and who might or might not even get back to me.

The Linux community is one of the oldest adherents to this model, and it shows. Switching to Linux, while generally pleasant on the technical side, is often a terrible experience when trying to integrate with the community. The Linux community feels that they make their system for themselves, and therefore anyone from the outside who wants anything different is dismissed, often harshly. The new people don't pay the bills because Linux is free, so they don't get the customer service they're accustomed to from other companies. Because the insular community pays the bills (in various ways, such as with code contributions), they give each other the attention, often to the exclusion of anyone else. Since new users don't pay, the Linux user base has remained fairly small for a very long time.

The problem is that, for most of the Freeconomy, the customers no longer are the ones paying the bills. They consume gratis resources and return nothing. The customers have become expenses rather than revenue. Technically speaking, the consumers are not really the customers if they are not generating revenue. The true customers are the advertising companies who pay the bills. What does this mean for the consumers of these products, though? Well, the customer is number 1, and that's not you. When it comes to making someone happy, your interests are pretty low on the totem pole. The companies who are most prevalent in our lives anymore aren't even interested in truly giving us a better product. They're more interested in providing a better ad platform. It is no wonder that the average consumer goes by the wayside for these entities.

This is why the government and large corporations are working hard to get us spending money again to "save the economy." They're even willing to give us free money with which to do it. Why would they do such a thing? Because the people with which we would spend that money are the people who pay the bills. It doesn't matter that continuing to push spending over savings is bad for most individuals. What matters is getting people to buy the cars and TVs and everything else that pays the bills.

Not all community-oriented organizations in the Freeconomy suck. Wikipedia, for example, is an exception, mostly due to its vast and diverse user base. Because they must be so much to so many, they've avoided the insular nature of Linux. Because they are funded solely by that large user base, they focus on building a better product for them. The consumers are paying the bills, and that makes them true customers.

The unique aspect of business used to be that the people who got the products and services were the ones who paid the bills. Charities, governments, and most other types of organizations had to deal with a separation of these two interests (which may be one reason why they are not always good at what they do), but business only had to focus on one place, which meant the customer always was the target for better service and better products. Well, now we've blown that model out of the water, and I think we're just starting to see how that's going to work out. While I am not a fan of some of the products I must purchase (*cough*Comcast*cough*), at the end of the day, I know that they're accountable to me because I pay the bills, and maybe that's better than free.

Too Big to Fail: The Name of a New Aristocracy

2009-01-23T00:11:00.003-05:00

The United States has now inaugurated its next President, a man who has promised great changes for the nation. Which of the promised changes he will actually deliver is yet to be seen, but a change promised by no one is on the horizon. This unpromised change began to coalesce in September of 2008, and is moving steadily towards its fruition. The phrase Too Big to Fail was applied to several major corporations, including AIG, many major banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Big Three automakers, among others. These companies couldn't fail because their failure would be too destructive to the American way of life, but in reality, saving them through government bailouts is even more destructive to that way of life. By saying these companies were too big to fail, the government put them upon a pedestal and established them as greater than other companies and individuals in similar situations. The government placed them on a pedestal of a new aristocracy.

I address in an earlier post the fundamental right to fail. Failure is not only a fundamental right of all peoples, though, but a unique condition of humanity. We are the only creatures on this earth endowed with an enviable ability to fail. If we were lions, and we failed to capture food, we would die of hunger. If we were antelopes who failed to escape the lions, we would die. As humans, when we fail, we are given the ability to pick ourselves up and try again, equally (if not moreso) able to achieve success as the last time. To create a new aristocracy, and allow them never to fail, we not only give up our American values, including the right to fail, but we give up a piece of our very humanity.

Taxation: A System of Revenue - Update

2008-11-04T13:52:00.006-05:00

So it seems that in a previous post discussing taxation, I described some views that apparently are not solely held by myself, but rather place me in good company. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform discussed similar issues in a report from 2005. It turns out I'm not so ahead of the curve as I thought, but I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in my sentiments.

Updated (3/10/2009): It appears that after the Presidential transition, maintaining the web site on the President's Advisory Panel became too burdensome, so I have updated the link to point to the Wayback Machine's last version of the page.

A New Day, A New Distro

2008-11-04T12:59:00.004-05:00

A while back, I took an old desktop of mine and installed Linux on it to bring it new life as well as to have a Linux machine available for projects better suited for that operating system. The very first distribution I tried on it was Fedora. That was an abysmal failure as the screen never came to life. It's really difficult to work on a black screen. After that, I tried Freespire and I was happy with it for a while. I even upgraded from 1.x to 2.0, finding that to be even better. Over time, though, the operating system grew tired, programs were not being updated with any frequency (OpenOffice.org, Firefox, etc.), and KDE kept crashing more and more often. The Freespire community also was not encouraging. While I never joined their forum directly, I often read it for new information, so I saw how the people who were supporting the operating system were supporting their user base. I noticed a number of things about the support community just by reading the forum, such as the fact that they treated anyone coming from Windows and having problems rather poorly. Another tidbit I noticed about this community was that none of them really ran the operating system they were supporting, as evidenced by their forum signatures. A number of them ran Ubuntu or other Linux variants, some exclusively. The very people who were supposed to be supporting this product were not even running it themselves. The last straw came whenever the company behind the distribution was bought over by another Linux distributor that was even less appealing. So I figured it was time for a change.

I figured that before I went crazy installing operating system after operating system, I'd give them all a run in VMware first to experience how installing and running the operating systems would go. I tried a number of different systems, namely Debian, Xubuntu (versions 8.10 and 8.04), Nexenta, and one or two more I don't recall. I've used Puppy Linux in the past, mostly for playing around, but I decided not to evaluate it for this because I've found it has neither the feature-set nor the stability I'd like to have. I was hesitant to use Ku/Xu/Ubuntu because of the recent issues Ubuntu has had with regressions, beta software, etc., so though I tested Xubuntu, it was admittedly at a disadvantage. That didn't matter though, as the only operating system in my testing that actually worked in the virtual machine was Debian. I found it to be a breeze to install (using the netinstall disk), and I thought it was rock-solid during use. It does suffer from one drawback, that being timeliness on software updates (OpenOffice.org in Debian Etch is still version 2.0.4, the current version is 3.0.0, for example). The trade-off here is not that the updates aren't being made but rather that the updates are being thoroughly tested before being released on the operating system. I suppose I can live with that for now, we shall see. Otherwise, installing Debian on the actual machine was effortless. Rearranging GNOME to suit my tastes took a little longer, but was not exceptionally difficult.

We shall see how things go with running this new operating system. One goal of mine is to try to avoid using the terminal as much as possible, so I'll see how that works out. Updates may follow on how things go.

Taxation: A System of Revenue

2008-10-01T16:55:00.003-04:00

While the title of this article may seem self-explanatory, in reality many politicians not only fail to act under this premise, they actively act contrary to this simple principle. The entire purpose of taxation is to provide a stream of revenue for the government to fulfill its constitutional obligations, but some politicians have come under the belief that taxation is a system of income redistribution, rewards for some, punishments for others, a tool to interfere in free markets, their own personal bank accounts, and a plethora of other illegitimate uses. Taxes are not to be used for any of these purposes, but solely to raise revenue for the government to operate.

Some people may ask, "then what about tax nuances such as the child tax credit?" Indeed, this is a valid question, since at first glance it appears that this is a taxation mechanism being used to reward a certain personal activity. Consider, though, the economic activity that arises out of raising a child, all those additional purchases a family must make. All of this economic activity feeds the government through sales taxation, and in this way they can make up for the losses of a tax credit. What's more, the additional tax income is steady, as economic activity relating to raising a child is sustained as long as the child is being raised.

Another question might be, "so then economic stimulus packages where every American gets a check is along the same lines?" Answer: not so much. Stimulus packages so structured generally do not distribute back according to tax burden, but rather as an $X amount per person. This puts it into a category of income redistribution. Additionally, these stimulus packages do not create sustained economic activity, only a one-time burst of activity.

Politicians are continuing down a path towards misusing the taxation system for every purpose but what its purpose really is. As we do go down this path, America will only become more abused by its own government.

Legacy and Heritage

2008-09-22T16:54:00.004-04:00

A few days ago, I found myself drinking a Starbucks tea in the lobby of the old Insurance Company of North America building, and I got to thinking (though in reality, these thoughts have been coalescing in my head for a couple weeks now). I got to thinking about how our nation takes its history upon itself. I figured that, really, there are two ways our nation handles its history: legacy and heritage. In the dictionary, perhaps, these definitions are not so far apart (I haven't looked, it only taints the thoughts), but in the practical world, I believe they represent two very different approaches.

Legacy is often referred to as something left behind by someone, such as the Clinton legacy or the Nixon legacy. Some people even try to actively craft their own legacies to be left to their progenitors, as in the case of family companies or wealth, etc. Legacy often includes bad components as well as good, such as a legacy of crime or a legacy of war. All the same, a legacy is not something we accept upon ourselves, but rather is something thrust upon us by an onerous of history. Legacies are comprised not only of ideological materials, but also of physical materials, such as legacy software and event the old Insurance Company of North America building. It could be said that legacies are what we have to live with.

Heritage, on the other hand, is something a person or a nation does not simply inherit but rather is something that a person or a nation must take upon itself by choice. Heritage, because of the nature of it being taken on rather than given, generally comes with just the good, since no one really wants any extra bad luggage. For example, many Americans take the heritage of the American Revolution to heart, even though their families did not immigrate to the country until many generations later. Another such example is when Americans of distinctly European decent take upon themselves the heritage of East Asian Zen philosophy, showing that heritage can be taken up from an otherwise foreign culture and background, requiring no other connection than the act of taking up such heritage.

Legacy can live on long after the events that caused its founding have passed, but heritage must be renewed with every person and every generation to live on. Because of this, heritage can be endangered by the weight of legacy and the forces of people. Good heritage could easily be lost to the annals of history, while bad legacy may live on indefinitely. For example, the heritage of the American Civil War has been lost to the legacy of slavery as an institution. Today, the focus rests solely upon a racist system and the disadvantages it wrought, and no focus is given to the fact that many hundreds of thousands, black and white, men and women, died fighting to abolish that system and to preserve a nation built upon the premises of freedom. The discussion is on the legacy of slavery rather than the heritage of freedom.

Then there is the old Insurance Company of North America building. This building represents the legacy of a company. That company merged with another company to become another company (a company that today is known as CIGNA). The building has been repurposed primarily for residential use. The building is the legacy of the Insurance Company of North America, but the people who own, live, and work in the building have taken on the heritage of the building, the neighborhood, the city, and the country: the heritage of home ownership, of commerce, and of renewal.

The Right to Fail

2008-09-19T23:36:00.006-04:00

Value great misfortune as your own self.
…
What do I mean by Value your great misfortune as your own self?
If I have no self, how could I experience misfortune?

The recent economic situation in the United States has been rather dire. This situation has only been further exacerbated by the actions of the government of this nation, namely those actions that involve bailouts/nationalization to prevent economic failure. While the individual merits or failings of each bailout may be debated for years to come, the situation exposes a far more devastating disaster. In all of these actions, and in actions taken for quite some time in many different aspects of American life, the government has deprived the American people of a fundamental right established at the very onset of our nation: the right to fail.

This right may seem odd, or even absurd to some, but this basic right is as important as any other in the existence of man and mankind. Failure is a means by which man educates himself through experience. If a man never fails, he can never know that what he does is incorrect or improper. For example, if a person incorrectly calculates the sum of 2 and 2 to be 5, but his error is never exposed through failure of examination, that person will erroneously believe that the sum of 2 and 2 is indeed 5. This is a small, basic example, but effective at showing the magnitude of being deprived of failure. As the examples grow larger and more complex, so does the magnitude of the problem.

I mentioned before that the right to fail was established at the very onset of our nation. What I mean by this is that this right is implicitly declared in the founding document of our nation (not of our government, but of our nation), the Declaration of Independence. In that document, it is stated that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, (emphasis added). Emphasized are the key words that define the right to fail. We are endowed with a right to a pursuit of happiness. Logically, such a pursuit must end in one of two outcomes, success or failure. Thus, implicitly found in this pursuit is the right to succeed or fail at that pursuit. To have a pursuit that cannot end in either success or failure is logically ridiculous. These two outcomes, success and failure, are inextricably intertwined such that one cannot truly exist without the other. Since they cannot exist without each other, any attempt by the government to usurp the right of an individual, organization, or other entity to fail preempts also its ability to truly succeed.

Our government's attempts to usurp the right to fail is not new. There are indeed other recent examples, my favorite of which is the idea of social promotion in education. Though a student has not sufficiently completed the requirements for promotion, thus failing a grade, he may be promoted anyway. By attempting to protect the child from socio-emotional distress, the system has done him a disservice by themselves failing to address the roots and causes of the student's poor performance. Where the student might simply have needed the right attention, instead he is being placed into classes with material that is more challenging. Rather than finding a truly effective methodology for the child, the government's education system has truly harmed him by disrupting his right to fail.

The common outcome to usurpation of the right to fail is not the elimination of failure, but merely the postponement and magnification of the failure. Though the government has stemmed the tide of recession, it has also created a culture that now is more willing to surrender its right to fail, and in doing so will cost the nation tremendously, both economically and culturally.

Education with a Purpose

2008-09-17T19:34:00.002-04:00

One of the biggest issues facing the United States is the massive, systemic problems of the education system. One current presidential candidate has called education the civil rights issue of the century, and he's right. Our education system suffers from problems not simply solved by any simple change of administration at any level, whether it be at the Oval Office or the principal's office. The education system's problems are systemic, being inherent in the organization of the system and the manner in which it acts. I am going to begin an entire series on the American education system with this post. I will point out what I, as a student for sixteen years of public, private, and university schools, see as the major failings. All of these failings will center around a main topic: the lack of purpose in the education system. All other aspects are symptomatic and exemplary of the lack of purpose in the education system of America.

How is there a lack of purpose in the education system? Let's step back from that question for a moment and take a look at a more basic question: What is the purpose of education? This is a deeply philosophical question that has been discussed throughout history. Many different purposes have been derived. Without going into extensive historical research, some have included: preparation for citizenship, preparation for employment, knowledge for knowledge's sake, etc. The first two, and all such proposals like them, are centered upon certain goals, but these goals then themselves would need expounded upon (i.e. why make good citizens? what is a good citizen? what type of employment? what is useful for employment? etc.) before they can be considered real reasons. The latter, "knowledge for knowledge's sake," is a nice, fluffy answer that offers no goals, no real purposes, and even more problems than the other explanations (this can be shown, but doing so is rather tedious). So then, all the normal purposes have been exhausted, and we arrive at the end without a purpose, a lack of purpose if you will.

So then what could be a workable purpose for education in the United States? Admittedly, I have omitted one view, a view that is given lip service more than actual service. This purpose is that education is meant to fulfill one's purposes. This is also broad, as given, and would also fail the litmus test. Even worse, it has purposes in the larger purpose, which could lead on interminably. I saved it for here, however, because it comes close to what could be a very workable purpose: The purpose of education is to assist each individual in realizing their own potential. How is this any different than any of the other definitions? First, it sets a solid goal: assistance with individual attainment of potential. Second, deeper questions, such as "why would we want each individual to realize their own potential?" look silly. Not to start sounding utilitarian, but each person attaining their potential (or at least getting closer to it) results in a greater overall benefit to society in many ways. This satisfies all of the practical concerns. Third, individual potentials are both reasonably quantifiable as well as sufficiently open-ended. An exact definition of what each person can do is not necessary (or feasible), but reasonable limits of each person's abilities can usually be determined. This satisfies all of the academic concerns.

Through the given purpose, issues related to education can now be evaluated independently with a focus on their true societal values. Now we can start weeding through the symptomatic issues one by one to determine what could be done to bring the education system in line with a more focused purpose... in the ongoing posts on education!

Though I've not yet completed it (and will therefore not yet pass judgment or give a seal of approval), I recommend What Is and What Might Be by Edmond Holmes for reading on the subject. From what I've read, the author presents unique insight into the nature of today's education system (even from a hundred years ago).

Digital Deeds, part 2

2008-09-02T17:02:00.003-04:00

Normally, most bloggers would post part 2 right after part 1, but, well, I'm not normal. So after holding the suspense for nearly a week, here is the dramatic conclusion of Digital Deeds!

The first portion here will outline a simple proposal I have formulated for a digital deed that takes advantage of the power and brevity of cryptographic hashes, and also takes advantage of the non-repudiation of public-key cryptography. This system is neither perfectly complete nor perfectly immune to improvement (indeed, comments and suggestions are appreciated), but I believe it offers a solid base from which to develop a truly versatile digital deeding system.

To help with performance issues that arise when dealing with a massive database system in an Internet environment, the proposed system allows for pre-calculating of two components. These components are synthesized together in real time later. The two components required for this digital deed system are the user information and the product information.

To generate user information, a user account is required. Today, just about any music (or electronic media) store requires user accounts, meaning they likely already have all this information on-hand. The user signature must be generated from data that is static, and will never even potentially change, so that a user can always prove they are the sole owners of the deed. The user information signature is comprised of the SHA-512 of the combination of the SHA-512 of the combination of the private (or even public) database/user key and the user's join date, and the user's username. How the components are combined needs to be determined, whether it be through HMAC, simple concatenation, or a more complex integration. This data can easily be stored in the user information database for quick access.

The product information signature is generated from metadata regarding the product. For music, this product information signature can be generated from the SHA-512 of the combination of the SHA-512 of the combination of song title and the song's time in seconds, and the SHA-512 of the combination of the artist and the album.

The signature for this purchase, calculated on the fly when the purchase is made, then is generated from the SHA-512 of the combination of the user information signature and the product information signature. Up to this point, most or all of the data used to generate signatures is publicly available, meaning that anyone could product these signatures. Up to here, these signatures can easily be repudiated (since anyone could produce them), but they also can be easily validated, since all the information is publicly available.

All of the data required to generate the signature (or equivalent information that could be used to retrieve all the required data) and the signature itself are encoded into a simple XML file. This file is then encrypted using the store's private encryption key. The document, at this stage, can be read by anyone by using the associated public key, but, unless the store's private key has been compromised, the encryption guarantees that the specific song was purchased from the specific store by the specific user. Daisy-chaining multiple private-key encryptions may help to protect against deed compromise due to key compromise, so long as not all of the keys are compromised, but this also adds overhead to the creation and reading of each deed.

Finally, the deed is symmetrically encrypted using the user's password. This step may or may not be necessary, but it does prevent anyone who is not the holder of the account from being able to read the deed. It also provides a level of non-repudiation for the store, since only the user who purchased the product and the store itself will be able to decrypt the deed. Since user passwords are the weakest point of security here, this encryption provides both the weakest and most inconsequential security (if a user's password is compromised, worse things could happen anyway). Additionally, passwords are the most likely component to change, but because this encryption is the last step, it can easily be re-performed on deeds for previously purchased items, either by local software or by a remote server.

Through such a digital deed system, a user can easily show to a store (or even in a court of law) that a specific user purchased a specific product from a specific store. The store, to its own benefit, is not required to keep specific, detailed information on every purchase in order to use this system, since the deed is entirely self-contained. This system should also be considered extensible, in that alternate data and algorithms can be used, but such modifications should be published publicly.

The only danger I can see with using this system is that it could potentially put a heavy burden of proof on customers to prove that they have a deed for every item they have purchased, and, if they cannot produce such deed, then they cannot prove that they own the purchased item. Fortunately, since music is purchased from many different sources, including CDs (for which I cannot envision such a digital deed system working), this danger is not immediate.

No Country for New Energy

2008-08-27T14:58:00.005-04:00

Alternative energy is a prominent issue in every part of the world right now. Converting to alternative energy provides great benefits to nations, businesses, and individuals in the long term. So then why is adoption of alternative energy sources so slow in certain sectors, and practically non-existent in others? It has little to directly to with politics, and only a marginal indirect amount to do with it. Really, the reasons alternative energy have not been widely adopted has almost entirely to do with pure, basic economics.

Sites like WeCanSolveIt.org have proposed that sheer numbers of Americans demanding new energy will accomplish the goal. The biggest problem with this is that, in reality, individuals don't want to (are not economically motivated) to really make any of the necessary lifestyle changes to facilitate the more widespread changes they are advocating. What do I mean? A household that converts itself entirely to CF light bulbs does not realize a significant difference in their electric bill. Why? Because lighting does not represent the significant portion of their electric bill when compared to what is used by appliances such as microwaves and refrigerators, computers, computer monitors, televisions, set-top boxes, game consoles, chargers of all varieties, air conditioners, wireless routers, VCRs and DVD players, vacuum cleaners, toasters, blenders, and other devices that use power continuously or that use significant amounts of power.

Realistically, it would be best if consumers could continuously upgrade to the most efficient devices, but realistically, doing so would but an enormously heavy economic burden on consumers for what, in reality, would generally still not result in significant gains. Conversion of the large-scale power sources from fuels like coal to fuels like wind has been the most significant, economically feasible, and transparent to the end-user, which is why it has been the most effective path, but making downstream changes to the end-users' power supplies or usage fails. Few households and businesses have converted to in-house power generation with building-scale solar or wind power because of the large economic investment required up-front. These entities do not get the economies-of-scale that the power companies do, even if they're able to entirely satiate their own power needs.

The area where alternative energy sources have least penetrated is the automotive sector. Almost universally, cars run on gasoline. There are vehicles out there that can run on alternative sources, but their numbers are quite limited. Economics completely and entirely drives this lack of adoption. Cars are an expensive investment for the average American family, and they are generally retained for a number of years. Additionally, many families invest in the used car market as a method for maximizing value per dollar.

Different entities of all sorts have devised many different forms of alternative automotive fuel, from compressed natural gas to fuel cells to completely battery operated. Unfortunately, just about every single American gas station serves up exactly and only that: gasoline (well, and diesel, but that's in the same fuel source family). Having the stations convert completely to an alternative fuel would strangle them since there aren't enough customers of any of the alternate fuels to survive off of. Having stations serve multiple fuels imposes significant environmental burdens, takes away from their nearly exclusive gasoline business, and would likely impose the costs to the station owners, local businesspeople who primarily make money off of traffic coming into the attached stores and not off of the fuel dispensed. So what does that really mean? It means that small business owners don't want to make a heavy investment in something no one uses. It means that a station owner takes on exorbitant risks that a fuel that will not be the new standard. It means that alternative fuel sources will be rare, discouraging consumer interest. It means that, with the vast array of alternative automotive fuels, picking the wrong one means a lot more in the wallets of average Americans than having picked HD-DVD.

The only new technology that has made any impact on the automotive market has been hybrid technology, but really even this is a false hope. Hybrids run on the same gasoline that ordinary automobiles run on, they just use less of it. Hybrids merely delay the day we change to something new. On top of that, hybrids use giant batteries, which creates the problem in the near future of disposing of all these new, acid-filled batteries in an environmentally friendly way. Considering many people buy hybrids for the environmental aspects as well as the economic, we've discovered a wrinkle in the cloth.

Buying a car is a big deal for people. It costs a lot of money; it is needed and used just about every day; no one has given people any viable alternatives. This is why converting is such a big deal. It would require a well-thought plan, solid implementation, and real economic motivations for ordinary people.

The Puppy Platform

2008-08-27T01:37:00.003-04:00

Most Linux geeks tend to stick to the old parlances: what most call an API, they would call a library (i.e. the Java 6 API vs. the GNU C library). I would like to bring some of the new Web 2.0 world together with this classical world. As I've mentioned before, I've been toying with Puppy Linux, a tiny distribution designed to run on resource-restricted hardware. While exploring Puppy's community site, I came across playdayz' blog, which I found to have a rather unique, if not lofty view of the future of the Puppy Linux distribution.

This user discusses what he believes should be, in the widest sense, the future of the distribution. He believes that the project's leaders should chart a new and innovative course of development to leverage usability of the system. I'm not totally on board with everything he proposes (I really can't see the purpose of a "sports" desktop), but his propositions have inspired some thought in me. I have ruminated on the idea of Puppy becoming not just its own base, but its own complete platform on which to build a full range of applications.

I'm not saying that Puppy should abandon the Linux kernel, fork the Linux kernel, rewrite the Linux kernel, or any such action so extreme (though some of my ideas can be rather ambitious). I believe that Puppy should develop itself into a development platform for which highly efficient, resource-conscious applications can be made. This would involve a lot of work, and would require a well-thought long-term roadmap.

A first requirement would be to either develop an optimized library to overlay the C library, to rewrite a compatible optimized library to replace or augment the C library, or to develop something completely new that handles all optimizations internally. This would also be the hardest, most tedious, and longest-term goal of such a platform-focused project. It would, however, yield the greatest return, as programmers both on Puppy and on other operating systems could leverage the resource-awareness of the system to build small, fast, efficient programs.

In tandem with this, a Puppy platform would need to include transitional and long-term standards for developing optimized applications. This would help programmers to write programs most effectively, both in ordinary C (or other languages) as well as in Puppy's optimized environment.

A second major component to building a Puppy platform would be the development of a resource-aware widget system. Widgets are common to many environments today, and they are advantageous because they can be developed more quickly and less tediously than native code applications. Generally, the provide only simple functions, but those functions can include applications as complex as games and photo albums. Creating a widget environment in the platform will allow for small applications to be developed quickly and easily, showcasing the strengths of the platform right from the start. The widgets, utilizing a resource-aware environment, will themselves therefore be resource-aware, preserving those resources for applications and system operations.

A third major component, which also serves as a significant plank in playdayz' vision, is usability improvement. If a platform is difficult to use, people won't use it. Puppy needs to be streamlined for true usability without significant complexity. The system doesn't need completely dumbed down, but not having to use the command line to accomplish some straightforward tasks would be nice. Also, having useful and common programs available on the platform would be more enticing to new users. These programs could even be modified to utilize Puppy's optimized library in order to be more efficient on the system.

A fourth component of importance is integration with the cloud. This is something few if any other distributions or operating systems are truly able or prepared to do. Utilizing FUSE to connect directly with Google Docs or Flickr would offer tremendous advantages to Puppy. Creating tools to integrate with Web services would be a unique offering. Doing all of this in a resource-aware manner would blow everyone else away.

A fifth component is optional, but I would recommend it also as something that no one else would offer. In a previous post, I described the idea of everything being a server. Complete integration of such functionality directly into the operating system would prepare the platform for a future where data will be exchanged transparently between all devices. Developers will devise programs with unimaginable capabilities utilizing this open infrastructure, programs that would allow a free flow of information across clouds small and large.

Playdayz stated just a little while ago that he intends to create a proof-of-concept for his Future Puppy. I will be excited to watch this development, as it will hopefully improve the distribution significantly.

Government and the New Web

2008-08-26T21:21:00.003-04:00

The US government has been noticeably slow in its adoption and integration of new web technologies, despite the democratizing effect for these technologies (or if I were more paranoid, I might say because of it). While the government has made some efforts to open public data, such a Congressional bills, campaign contributions, etc., to the public, it generally provides very little and falls short even on what it does provide.

The best effort I have seen at opening the government to the people is ExpectMore.gov, a site maintained primarily by the OMB. This service, created with the intention to garner attention for mismanaged programs, provides a significant amount of performance data on government programs in a concise, straightforward manner, but falls short when it comes to facilitating true social interaction and promotion. First, they could allow active social commentary on the programs at the site. While this places a tremendous burden on the OMB, it would facilitate a wider and more effective conversation. Such interaction doesn't absolutely need to be provided by the OMB, though. It can just as easily be provided by third-party blogs and fora from interested citizens.

What cannot be provided (realistically) by third parties is a true API that provides dynamic, real-time information. Such an interface would allow citizens to create applications to promote awareness of certain programs in need of attention.

Many such programs, agencies, components, and branches of the government could use advanced web technologies. For example, Congress could implement a wiki-like system where the public could submit and collaboratively develop potential bills for Congress to consider. This would give citizens the ability to work together to develop new, innovative solutions, while allowing elected officials to constantly be aware of what their constituents want (and therefore what will get them re-elected).

In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister's office has developed an open web petition system for its citizens to contribute ideas to the government. Even a slightly more basic system such as that one in the United States would greatly increase the capabilities of the people of this country to interact directly and effectively with our own government.

The people of the United States should encourage our government to institute such changes in the ways the business of government is conducted. Such an idea is not affiliated with either side of the political spectrum, but rather is rooted in the founding principles of free access by the citizenry to their government. After all at the very least, we all pay for this data to be collected, stored, and provided.

Adventures in Puppy Power

2008-08-26T02:01:00.003-04:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been toying around with the Puppy Linux operating system. I don't have it installed on a regular, full computer. That would be too easy. Instead, I got a copy of VMware Server and built a virtual machine out of it. (I actually got VMware server more for work-related activities, but since it was there...) Getting it installed was a little tricky, but I found some helpful instructions for installing Puppy Dingo on VMware. It makes you wonder how they ever lived before Google... With those hints, I was able to get a Puppy VM up and running.

Working with Puppy forces one to basically learn a lot about how some of the low-level components of this operating system function. Getting a firm grasp on how it handles boot scripts and mounts and everything else takes a little time and patience. What's more, I tend not to be satisfied with the basic Puppy, and I yearn for the great tools of other Linux distributions, namely APT. I had read about one person who said he had gotten APT to work on Puppy. Luckily, he had also left a handy list to be followed, even if all it did was save some tedious finger-work. I set to collecting the resources, and built myself an SFS file containing all the pieces. After finally figuring out how to integrate the pieces without breaking something important in the middle, I gave it a go. It didn't work completely, but it got pretty close. The process also broke a few other pieces of the OS, but the magic of VMs (namely, making a backup copy before doing all this) allowed me to save my little experiment from total destruction. I hope to be able to get some advice from the Puppy community for pulling this off, as there appears to be a little interest in the application, and probably more interest in the sheer novelty.

All in all, this little distribution has attracted my interest, mostly for its nerdity, but perhaps also a little because one guy put most of this together, and that's pretty impressive. Maybe perhaps one guy can also add some cool stuff to it.

Digital Deeds, part 1

2008-08-26T01:25:00.006-04:00

Today, many people purchase non-tangible, electronic products over the Internet. The most notable of such products is downloaded music, though other products such as e-books and digitized movies also fit the category. The most widely used download service for music (which also happens to now be the largest seller of music in the country) is Apple's iTunes music store. Apple's music (the basic offerings) are sold with DRM technology, which uses very complex algorithms to make sure that the music cannot be copied without authorization. While DRM has its own opponents with their own issues, I see a completely different issue with downloaded music, even downloaded music that is DRM-free.

DRM is used by iTunes to make sure you don't rip them off, basically. However, iTunes does not offer its customers the same sort of benefits when those customers lose their purchased libraries, such as in catastrophic hard drive failures. iTunes, and many others, will basically tell those customers to buy the music that they already paid for again. Honestly, iTunes can easily go back into their records and see who purchased what and allow them to download again, but they don't. Other companies may also have such extensive records, but others might not. Either way, the customer still ends up paying twice for the same music.

The irony is plain to everyone: "Don't rip us off, but we'll be more than glad to rip you off." Admittedly, a significant loss of a music library can be avoided by backing up that library. The problem that lies herein is that some libraries are quite large, and backing up requires equal space. What's more, the entire backup space is essentially unused until a crash, an event that isn't even guaranteed to happen. Another possibility is that a backed-up music library is just as likely to fail as the original library. Hard drive failures are not very predictable, and can strike even brand new drives. At the same time, questions are arising regarding the real durability and reliability of CD/DVD writable media. More backups improve the probabilistic safety of a music library, but can become costly and unwieldy.

So there's no solution, then. Just buy your music again and be happy. Or is that all she wrote. A field completely unrelated to music (unless it involves your credit card number) is cryptography. Two areas of particular interest would be cryptographic hashing algorithms and public-key cryptography. Currently, the latter is used for securing communications and for digital signatures. The former also plays a role in digital signatures, and is also used for ensuring message integrity. So what do these have to do with music? By utilizing the effective properties of these algorithms, such as non-repudiation, customers can be provided an electronic "deed" to their online purchases. The deed can be used to show that a specific buyer purchased a specific item from a specific seller, and would be nigh impossible to forge or falsify. On top of that, the deed as computer files will be quite small compared to what they are deeding, able to be stored on basic USB flash drives and in email attachments, if desired.

In Digital Deeds, part 2, I will outline a basic digital deeding system I thought up, and I will also touch on other issues involved in making a digital deeding system work.

Everything a Server

2008-08-25T02:43:00.001-04:00

Electronic devices of all sorts, such as MP3 players and cell phones, have steadily growing in both power and capacity for the last several years. This growth has been coupled with the addition (or expansion in some cases) of networking capabilities in many of these devices. Cell phones can now access the full range of Internet media; MP3 players can access online radio stations. The list goes on in examples (even though I've only used those two twice).

At the same time, new information technologies have grown up as part of Web 2.0. People can now connect and share information across their social network using sites like Facebook and MySpace. Every day, new types of sharable information are added to the mix by developers and programmers utilizing the API's provided by these sites to enhance the user experience.

In parallel to all this, server technology has shrunk its need for resources to serve data. I think you can deduce what I'm getting at by now. Soon, everything can be a server.

I believe that in the near future, many, if not most devices will be able to serve dynamic data for sharing on social applications. Cell phones could provide simple geo-location services. MP3 players could provide listings of favorite and recently played songs (which, if you're really crafty *Amazon,iTunes,etc*, could be linked to purchase sites for those songs). Portable DVD players could tell what movies are being watched. Cameras could provide real-time social access to photos. More advanced or integrated Web presence appliances could provide status and communication information in the role of a dynamic server.

Even the common personal computer (PC's, Macs, etc. included) can play in this serverful world. Distributed wiki technologies in classrooms can provide students with access to a collaborative note-taking environment that they can take with them. Coworkers in offices can share and collaborate on documents without having to use a central server or a remote third-party application such as Google Docs.

Some of this technology is in the natal stages now, and the technology will continue to grow. Admittedly, there are just as many privacy, security, etc. issues as there were with social networking (some the same, some different, some completely new), perhaps even more, but just as these issues are being worked through on current media, so can such issues be worked through on this new frontier of micro-servers.

Puppy Linux

2008-08-25T02:17:00.000-04:00

For a while now, I have toyed around with a distribution of Linux optimized for running on older and hardware-restricted machines: Puppy Linux. While it lacks some of the sophistication of many of the larger Linux distributions, I have found it to be quite comfortable to use, at least occasionally (mostly for play rather than work). What I like the most about the system is the unique approaches taken to solve the real-world problems of working on a system of such small resources. Innovative uses of UnionFS allows both for optimization as well as a new way of system function expansion.

What intrigues me most is the potential use of Puppy for embedded systems. It is small enough and fast enough to run on such systems, and user-friendly enough to be manipulated by the average user. The OS also can be set to optimize hard drive writes, a features that makes this system particularly attractive on solid-state-drive-based systems.

Puppy does lack some serious functionality: automounting, integration of a more widely used packaging system (namely apt, though it does use its own package system), many ease-of-use features, some pieces of stability, drivers and hardware compatibility, etc. However, with a little work, much of these obstacles can be overcome, and Puppy Linux can rise to the ranks of a truly dynamic operating system for advanced deployments.

Links:

Welcome

2008-08-25T02:13:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the blog section of my web site. I'm terrible at writing "welcome"'s, so this one is going to be short and sweet. This blog accompanies my new web site, and is a place where I can (and probably will) write posts on virtually any and every topic imaginable, from tech to politics, and more.

Occasionally, also expect unsolicited reviews for products and services I find particularly impressive (or not).

Stay tuned, more to come!