I’m not a big holiday fan – I guess I lean more toward the pre-ghost Scrooge than the post-ghost version. That said, the holidays still mess up one’s system.
Travel, copious amounts of food/drink, the what-day-is-today syndrome and so on takes its toll.
Today, my mind is the consistency of figgy pudding.
But that’s not always a bad thing.
Before I begin, some basics:
There are a lot of arguments – pro and con – regarding Microsoft products and the Microsoft environment.
There are a lot of arguments – pro and con – regarding Linux and the Linux environment.
Yet many people seem to see a lot of these arguments as Apples vs. Apples, when it isn’t. (And let’s not even go into the whole Apple COMPUTER company debates).
Some facts:
- Microsoft makes both operating systems (OS) and applications (Word, Excel, IIS).
- Linux is an operating system – more properly, the kernel (foundation) of an operating system.
- Linux doesn’t make applications. Many apps are built in the same way and with the same spirit as the Linux kernel, but Linux != apps.
So saying “Linux is better than MS” (or vice versa) is really a misnomer, but – in a broad sense – makes sense.
I’ll be using the broad sense for this entry.
Basically, Linux is missing the boat with one of the largest groups that it should be wooing: The just-below Uber-geek type.
Such as me. Sure, I rebuild Linux boxes; I do most things from the command line and so on.
But it still seems like you need to know the secret handshake to do certain things on Linux – things that will foster wide acceptance – that are trivial on Windows, for example.
For example?
I was looking into upgrading the PHP (essentially, an app that sits on top of the OS) on one of my boxes to a more current version. Since I’m past the dot release stage (4.1.x to 4.3.x), there is no simple patch.
How to upgrade?
Damn good question.
Essentially, it appears – and I’m still not certain – that I have to back out all my PHP stuff (PHP itself, PHP ODBC, PHP JDBC, PHP mySQL, PHP Postgres, PHP dev tools and so on) and do a new install.
But wait – there’s more!
The new PHP requires certain libraries and so on, other dependancies that are not necessarily a 1:1 update relationship with the old edition.
Will these new, non-PHP installs mess up something else? Will my system even see the new PHP?
And so on.
MS, with all the install wizards, makes it pretty easy to upgrade even from Win95 to Windows XP, for example. Here on Linux, I can’t easily figure out how to upgrade a point release product.
That’s not good.
It’s getting better. Debian’s aptget and RedHat’s RPM are good starts, but there is still that wide middle ground – between really savvy users and really newbies – that is stymied by stuff like this.
Trash MS all you want, but its install wizards and so on make installing/deinstalling stuff pretty much a no-brainer. Yes, you can rag all you want about how the wizards are necessary because of the seven circles of hell known as the registry and so on (and that’s valid!), but at least MS has it.
I – a pretty geeky dude – want to be able to easily upgrade stuff. It can be command line (I use CPAN, for example, all the time for Perl modules – not intuitive but it works), but I need the following:
Basically, the Windoze-like install features, though it does not have to have all the bells and whistles today (later, they will be expected by Linux GUI users).
Let me add or update something simply.
Because – right now – that is not an option.
And that’s a shame.
Again – I AM geeky, but should everyone who want to run a Linux/Unix system have to learn the complete get/make/install routine, figure out how/what libraries are/are needed and so on? It’d be like MS users having to care about DLLs.
End rant.
Without further ado, here are some thoughts on what may/may not happen in 2004.
This is mainly an exercise I do so I can make fun of myself a year from now…
2004 Events/Non-Events
Check back in a year for a chuckle.
The news that United Linux may include only one GUI – probably Gnome – is, of course, creating a small firestorm (See the /. thread).
When I first read the blurb on Slashdot, my first reaction was, “What ever happened to ‘Linux is all about choice’ “?
As I thought more about it – and read Bruce Peren’s take on all this – my thinking comes down to this:
Also, Perens notes that UnitedLinux will probably go with Postgres for a standard database, instead of the vastly more popular mySQL.
Why? Not really on the databases’ relative merits – it’s because Postgres is fully open; mySQL has some proprietary baggage (the same is true of Gnome vs. KDE – Gnome is fully open).
Again, before people flame, realize that a company deploying UnitedLinux can still standardize on mySQL. They are not “stuck” with Postgres.
Linux is about choice.
UnitedLinux is one of many distro choices.
What’s the problem?
(Full disclosure: On the one Linux box that I have X Windows installed, I run KDE. However, I rarely touch the GUI, so I’m not particularly vested on one GUI vs. another. But my bias is to KDE, and I’m still not at all upset about this development.)
Congrats to all concerned at Groklaw – especially the Webmistress, PJ, on the selection of Groklaw as winning the first annual OSDir.com award for Best News Site.
This is a surprise to no one who has read or contributed to Groklaw; leaves some large shoes to fill for the 2nd annual awards.
Groklaw: The SCO Anti-FUD! Now with whiteners and Awards!
A couple of unrelated thoughts have been rattling around my skull lately.
The first is the issue of competition fostering progress – or, at least, competition being a good thing. This is best summed up, in the tech world, as Microsoft is Evil.
Competition – the thinking goes – forces all players in a particular arena to keep improving (in some manner), and the ultimate outcome of this competition is that the end users benefit, as do the competitors (sometimes, and in different ways).
OK, but think about it. There are (at least) two basic ways a product/service can be considered improved.
Obviously, these can – and often are – combined.
But note how the non-monetary way to progress is – for the most part – directly at odds with standards. While some product improvements may bring it more in line with overall product-type standards (browser that it CSS2 compliant), there is a good chance that this differentiation will, at least temporarily – move the product away from standards.
So this progress is both a good and bad thing.
Good – Forcing a change in a better direction
Bad: – Changing the status quo – which can lead to integration issues, lock-out tussles and so on
A good example of how a proprietary change affected standards is then-Netscape’s unilateral decision to introduce the FONT tag: It was not part of the HTML spec at the time, but it was quickly adopted (mainly because, at the time, there really was only one browser: Netscape Navigator. Mosaic was around, but it was an academic exercise [and the basis of Navigator] ).
While you can argue that the FONT tag was a good move or not (delayed CSS?), it did have the effect of getting other browsers (i.e. IE) to introduce their own tags/proprietary extensions. While, in themselves, this was not necessarily a good thing (ActiveX, BLINK tag), it did allow the browser to grow and showed the masses that this Web thing could be powerful – could move beyond Times text on a gray background with blue and purple links.
So, competition hurt standards, but raised the bar for when the competitors circled back and started to adhere to more refined standards (CSS 1 and 2, for example, or JavaScript).
So competition can hurt standards but promote progress – and (to a degree) offer end users a choice.
Standards, on the other hand, seems to stifle progress.
Perhaps the best example of standards stifling progress is Microsoft Outlook. The bane of most security-conscious folks’ existence, Outlook is still the de facto standard for e-mail. And – leaving the whole security and MS is the devil issues behind – it’s the standard because it does do so much and does it pretty well. It’s a killer app.
So, the OSS community has to come up with a way to match this killer app.
Right now, it’s Ximian’s Evolution e-mail and calendar application – which is, essentially, an Outlook clone.
In other words, it’s not really better (probably better for security; probably worse in terms of functionality); it’s just a different outfit’s product. It’s like comparing two 5-lb bags of sugar. Which to buy? The cheaper one. Sugar is sugar and so on.
So instead of making something different – taking a new approach – Ximian essentially cloned Outlook. While it’s a lot different under the hood, it’s the same to users.
Which is part of the point, but that’s not really progress.
Here, standards hurt progress; here, competition really doesn’t affect progress.
I guess the message that’s been rattling around my skull is that you can’t be too attached to standards or competition or too vociferously against monoliths such as Microsoft. Because there is a flaw to adhering to strictly to a very competitive environment or a very standards-compliant one.
And – at some fundamental level – standards are the antithesis of competition.
Standards are about interaction, integration, getting similar.
Competition is about differentiation, venturing down dissimilar paths.
OK, first of all, I’m not an idiot (or, a complete idiot…depends on your perspective).
I understand the underlying reason behind the lack of IM (instant messaging) – money. Whoever controls the IM tools (server & client) can control what it does. What it does, ultimately, is provide a revenue stream for AOL, MSN, Yahoo! and so on.
OK, I get that.
But I still don’t get why this ubiquitous, Internet-only tool is proprietary.
The Net is all about interoperability (yeah, Longhorn and zillions of other examples nonwithstanding).
I remember the first online providers, such as Prodigy. Prodigy was a tool that works much like today’s IM tools in that it was closed. Sure, it mimicked some Internet functionality, but – in the end – it was a closed loop. Sure, you could e-mail…but only to another Prodigy member. Your friend/mother/spouse on another system – such as CompuServe? Suck it up and get accounts on each, or forget about e-mailing them.
And if you did suck it up and get two accounts, that’s two dial-ins. And so on.
Sheer madness!
Today, such a notion would be laughed out of a business development meeting. You can only e-mail people who are also on Earthlink? Surely you jest, and stop calling me Shirley…
So why do we accept it for IM?
Mainly because we have no choice, and because IM is not (yet) an enterprise-necessary tool like e-mail, so the outcry and potential solutions come from the tattered masses, not from the Suits in the Boardroom.
But at some point, someone is going to say enough is enough – how it will be handled will be the killer app, but the decision will come down is that messaging is a key Internet tool, and how you add on to the protocol is your call, but everyone’s IM should be able to at least “text message” any other. (Yes, all sorts of buddy list questions and so on, but bear with me…).
In other words, someone/some company is going to figure out – or, if a government, say, mandate – how to get all these tools talking to each other, at some base level. Sure, the problems are huge, but – at the simplest level – the issues are not technological issues, they are business issues. Example questions/scenarios:
And so on.
Basically, someone is going to get rich (or, at least moderately famous in some tech circles) figuring out how to leverage the ubuqitious nature of IM.
The same is really true of a lot of tools we use every day.
Doubt it?
OK, let’s take e-mail as an example of something that has had the potential of its ubiquity tapped. I.e. I have e-mails from numerous e-mail servers funneled into one e-mail client, not one for each.
So why do I:
There are more such examples; see if you can find some yourself.
It’s just interesting to me. I wish I had the solutions to these problems; I don’t. But that doesn’t keep me from wondering about them.
OK, it’s about that time of year – the time to make prognostications.
But before I go ahead with that, let’s review what I said last year, and how well I did. Here’ are my last year prognostications and how I think I did with them. I didn’t do badly, and I didn’t miss anything by a mile. Not bad more a casual observer.
My comments are at the end of each entry in italics.
Sun Microsystems: Boy, this is going to be a tough year for Sun. They are the Apple of Unices — make their own boxes, which contain their own chips, which run their own OS… (Yes, Motorola makes the PowerPC for Apple, I know…). While Sun boxes are still the heavy hitters — the best bang out there — they are not the best bang for your buck. IBM, with Linux, is really eroding the “need Sun for heavy lifting” mentality. And Compaq (oops…H/P [Hewlett Packard] ) is desperate for UNIX revenue, as well, and they are doing a Linux play, too. Nowadays MS isn’t even on Sun’s radar screen — Linux is. Sun has to do something, and I think that “something” is Java: This is the year that Sun will figure out (for better or worse) just what to do with Java. Essentially, how to make money off it. Because the server business is looking grim for them.
Score: Mainly wrong – While this was a tough year for Sun – and I believe they were the only major player to lose Unix share – they sure as hell didn’t do squat to really make me (or anyone else) believe they have figured out to do with Java.
Apple: Speaking of Apple, it seems like every year is a good time to trot out the “Apple will finally die this year” type of talk. And every year, this death is greatly exaggerated. I don’t know, I think this will be a relatively uneventful year for Apple (MacExpo opens tomorrow; I could be proved way wrong very quickly). I think they will keep goosing existing products, stabilizing and enhancing them. I don’t see any large inroads being made by the company. While they are capable of making a killer tablet PC, there is no real demand for these products beyond the whiz-bang effect. And the tablets that have thus far come out are more expensive than notebooks; Apple, with it’s tradition of more expensive than PCs for same type of product (ignore the quality factor), would be foolish to follow this lead. But what do I know?
Score: Mainly right – With the exception of the music store, it was a pretty quiet – yet stable – year for Apple. A good year, overall.
Microsoft: It will continue to take flack for continuing security lapses, Passport will somehow develop/display a serious issue that needs attention, it will delay Longhorn and Yukon again (actually, a good thing — release when ready, not to fit a schedule), it will continue to take fire for questionable business practices, it will actually listen to the customer and revamp some of its licensing agreements (actually listening to the bottom line), it will continue to make gobs of money…but at a slightly slackened pace. Also: By year’s end, the .Net Web services architecture will be still pretty much in the prototype stage. No common use (I could be wrong on this one).
Score: Mainly right – I nailed the whole .Net initiative (as late as late November, Microsoft was still struggling to explain just what .Net was. Longhorn was pushed back again – though I don’t know about Yukon. Flack for security and lawsuits have dogged them all year; that won’t change in 2004, either.
Privacy: While a couple of recent court rulings hold some hope for the notion of personal freedom and privacy, as long as John Ashcroft is Attorney General, things will be grim for the freedom types. Why no outcry over this continual trampling of civil rights, from ignoring the Freedom of Information Act when it’s convenient to detaining Americans (“…home of the free….”) without any due process? Two numbers: 9 & 11. Yeah. But he keeps pushing things, and I think there will be a backlash at some point. This year? I don’t think so, and the following year is an election year, so he’ll probably tread more softly then. * sigh *
Score: Mainly right – And I think this prognostication will hold for 2004, too.
Computers: As with the last couple of years, sales will remain soft, and there really won’t be much incentive to get a new computer. Sure, a tad faster, larger hard drive…but minor differences, really. For example, my 1Ghz machine has an 80G drive. Plenty fast enough, and I probably have about 50G free. Would I like a newer, faster computer? Sure! Do I need a newer, faster computer? Hell no. And I think a lot of folks are in this boat. And with the economy in the dumpster, why shell out still substantial bucks (for a decent system) for something that is not a need?
Score: Mainly right – While computer sales are finally up again, there is still not the demand that was seen late 90s. Again, no real NEED for them. When Longhorn hits, this will be a big difference. The heftier hardware will be necessary – but that’s not until 2006 (at least)
Speaking of the economy… How should I know? I had to guess, I would say that it won’t get worse, but if there is an uptick this year, it will be moderate. And that damn specter of war hangs over all like the Sword of Damocles(sp?).
Score: Mainly right – Obviously, the specter of war has yielded to the reality of war – and continued occupation and fatalities. The economy appears to be recovering, but just as I said, very moderate.
Wireless: By this I mean Wi-Fi, not cell phones/blackberries etc. This will be huge this year, and the introduction of the 802.11g standand will effectively end the short appearance of 802.11a (fast, but G is compatible with the slow but omnipresent 802.11b standard; same frequency, 2.4 Ghz). More and more business and — especially — homes will make this an almost de-facto standard for PCs and other such stuff. What of Bluetooth? Damn good question. I still can’t believe it hasn’t make inroads. Hell, I have a spaghetti bowl of wires around my computer table, as I’m sure we all do. Anyway… Wi-Fi will help tremendously with home and business networking, and the 54Mps speed means that even the boxes I have hard wired (both to save buying a Wi-Fi card and because the T-Base100 is faster than 11Mps from 802.11b) might eventually become unteathered. NOTE: Wi-Fi vendors are going to have to do something about security, the WEP is a joke (but better than nothing). This may be an issue in the coming year with wider deployments. Think the government will allow free use of more — better — bandlwidths in the coming year? This is a definite possibility, but may not be addressed (especially if there is more of this stupid war stuff).
Score: Mainly wrong. While wireless is becoming almost transparent, and average users are aware of it and expect it for home networking and so on, this year did NOT have the boom I expected. I think it was because the economy still sucked (generally), and companies and homes did not spend money on new IT stuff. If they got new stuff, it would be/include wireless. But they didn’t, overall.
This year’s prognostications to come…
I’ve updated the site with an experiment: Alternate style sheets – try it out:
Select from the list below to change the look and feel of the site – note that the page does NOT reload. Alternate style sheets and a JS call.
Note: This will set a cookie so you get the same UI next time; I’m storing – on your machine – a cookie with this info. Nothing else stored anywhere or whatever.
Lot’s more to come, but this is an interesting (to me, probably exclusively) evolution of the site.
Let me know what you think (lee AT littleghost.com).
Just as a way of remembering – for me – here is the way to do a nice regex e-mail check in PHP:
// validate name
if (eregi("^([a-zA-Z0-9])+([.a-zA-Z0-9_-])+
@([a-zA-Z0-9_-])+\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4})$",
$email)) {
$message = "valid e-mail";
}
else {
$message = "INVALID e-mail";
}
This is slightly different from the Perl version I’ve posted earlier; mainly, have to drop the backslash before the allowable dot (.) in the e-mail prefix (before the @ sign). And – duh! – it’s written in PHP lingo, not Perl. Concept pretty much exactly the same, however.