I was recently reading an article that I won’t justify with a link. In this article, the author was putting in a great deal of effort trying to say that all Google has done with Android is copy Apple, and that Apple is actually the true innovator. I’ve read this position time and time again. I’ve even seen it in Apple’s own marketing. I think what makes this so annoying is it’s complete lack of truth. Let’s look over some of Apple’s products, shall we?

Macintosh:

Let’s start with the original Macintosh. What’s innovative about the Macintosh? Well, it’s an all in one personal computer with the first commercial GUI. All in one computers were nothing new when Apple made the first Macintosh. Commodore was making them in the 70s. The GUI? Well, that wasn’t an Apple innovation either. They copied the work from Xerox Parc. So, one of the greatest Apple innovations ever is just a combination of two things that other companies had already done? Yay for Apple. From there on, Apple has done nothing but build on this idea.

iMac:

It almost turns my stomach to even include this category. The iMac is innovative? No, it’s really not. Again, Apple pulled out the all in one computer. The original Macintosh was an all in one computer, why is this innovative? Because it’s blue? Not exactly new. So what the heck is innovative and original about the iMac? Someone please educate me. Please?

iPod:

The iPod is a music player. It’s a glorified Walkman. The only real difference is the fact that it plays digital music instead of from a CD or tape. It wasn’t even the first device to do that. I owned an MP3 player before Apple even hinted at the iPod. All Apple did is take an idea that had already been implemented by someone else, and made their own version of it.

iPhone:

Ah, the illustrious iPhone. True innovation at it’s best? Hardly. The iPhone interface is a blatant ripoff of the interface used by the Palm Pilot. Apple prettied it up a bit, but essentially the iPhone’s interface in 2007 is the same as the Palm Pilot’s interface in 1997.

iPad:

Another one that nauseates me. This one for several reasons. The biggest? It’s just a giant iPhone/iPod. That’s what Apple did. They took the phone interface that they’d already copied from Palm, gave it a bigger screen, and called it something new. On top of that, this is not the first Tablet computer either. They’d been made by other companies for years. So, again, Apple took an idea that someone else had, added another idea that someone else had. That’s it!

Conclusion:

Apple has been hailed as an innovative company for literally decades, while it seems like anybody and everybody that competes with Apple is only stealing their ideas. At least that is what I’ve seen the Apple faithful claim over and over again. They’ve done it with Microsoft. They’ve done it with Linux. They’ve done it with Google. Seriously, the Apple faithful can’t even come up with a new and innovative argument! Apple is not the end all be all innovator. Most of their ideas didn’t even originate at Apple! Please, can we lose this tired old argument?

Of course, you’re more than welcome to correct me. Please. I’d love to hear something new and original.

Today it became known that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has signed a time table to implement Open Source software all over the Russian government. This includes Linux. This begs the question, why aren’t we? There are many inherent advantages offered by Open Source and specifically Linux.

1. Let’s talk about security.  First of all, I’m not even going to address the people that blather on and on about how Windows 7 and IE 8 are really, really secure. When it comes down to national security, everything should be checked. Linux and Open Source software are really the only environment that you can literally check every single line of code in an Operating System. The United States Government can hire their own developers to line by line check each bit of code before it’s even compiled and used to verify that there are no hidden back doors or other security violations. That just isn’t possible with an Operating System that’s not Open Source. That’s not even considering the multitude of viruses and the host of malware applications that threaten Windows and even the Macintosh everyday. Do those threats exist for Linux? No. More than that, the way that Linux handles it’s permissions and security makes it virtually impossible for them to exist at all. The people out there that claim that Linux would be just as vulnerable if only it had the market share to motivate an attack don’t take into consideration some of the very basic things that are present in the Linux Operating System that prevent that from happening.

2. Ease of Use. Linux is often thought to be the hobbyist’s Operating System. Too difficult to use for the lay person. This just flat out isn’t the case. If the United States Government were to implement Linux, most people wouldn’t even need to be retrained to use the new Operating System. Quite literally, the skills that they already have would be more than sufficient to use Linux. LibreOffice (Open Office) is close enough in it’s setup that anybody that’s used Microsoft Office could jump right in. Web browsers that exist for Windows already exist for Linux. Further, any applications that are used on a Linux system that are also Open Source share the security advantages mentioned in section one. Do you honestly think that Microsoft would allow anyone, even the United States Government, to go line by line through Microsoft Office and verify that their code is secure? Even if they did, can you imagine what it would take to get any fixes implemented that would be required to actually make that code secure?

3.  Cost.  OK, let’s imagine a world where Microsoft just gives away Windows and Office and never asks you to pay one thin dime for the privilege of using it. After you’ve all calmed down from your hysterical laughing fit, we’ll assume for the moment that this is actually the case.  Even if Windows and Office were free of charge, Linux would still be cheaper based on it’s higher stability and better security. Of course, we all know that Microsoft is going to take it’s pound of flesh. As each dollar goes from the tax paying American’s pocket into Microsoft’s, it should become more and more obvious that Linux and Open Source is the better answer.

There are a lot of reasons that the United States Government should seriously consider following in Russia’s footsteps and adopt both Linux and other Open Source software as their standard. Cost, ease of use, and plain old national security. These reasons should be enough to tip us in that direction. That really begs the question, why haven’t we already done it? For that question, I don’t have an answer.

After my last post regarding the constant talk about the “death” of Linux, a friend of mine said something to me that I thought was worthy of a follow-up post.

“Linux is almost 20 years old. If it hasn’t even made a dent in the desktop market by now, it’s never going to overtake it.”

While I’ve known my friend for almost fifteen years now, it’s sometimes hard to find things that we actually agree with each other on.

Even though Linux is on the verge of it’s twentieth birthday, there are a lot of exciting things coming our way that could have a huge impact on Linux in the market. The one that I want to talk about right now is “The Cloud”.

There’s been a large number of commercials on TV lately about “The Cloud”, showing off Microsoft’s products and showing you what they can do for you. Microsoft is putting a huge effort into associating “The Cloud” with Internet Explorer and Windows. The reason for this is pretty simple. “The Cloud” is the best opportunity for the computing world to finally escape Microsoft.

More and more applications are moving to the cloud these days, and web based services  are doing everything from helping you type out your documents to playing video games. Few of these cloud based apps rely on Windows. They run the same on Linux as they do on the Mac, as they do on Windows. So, in a world where applications are finally cross platform, why stick with Windows? Any “good” reasons that can be put forth start to be whittled away. Linux is cheaper (a lot), just as easy to use, and more secure. Without the application lockout that Microsoft has enjoyed for the last thirty years, Windows is in real trouble from it’s competition.

Of course, there is always risk. As I said before, Microsoft is putting an enormous amount of effort and money to make the cloud into just another extension of Windows. They want to tie it to Internet Explorer as closely as they can. This is one of the reasons I watch the browser market so closely. The browser is the next platform war to watch. Applications that are moving out into the cloud, or are already in the cloud may be tempted to focus more on Internet Explorer than on Firefox or Chrome. This year did see a steady if small decline in Internet Explorer usage, but it still maintains over fifty percent of the market.

Should Microsoft be successful in it’s efforts the computing market will be stuck under Microsoft’s rule for the foreseeable future, but if it’s not, this could lead to the opportunity Linux needs to make a significant dent in the desktop market. Of course, it’s not hard to guess who I’m rooting for.

It seems that every time I turn around there’s another article out there about how the “dream” of Linux on the Desktop is “dead”. The most recent one I’ve read can be found here. Usually they contain some pretty graphs comparing market share or something similar. This particular one asks a question that I think needs to be addressed.

“Should Linux distributors put more effort into making Linux better for the non-desktop space or continue their seemingly uphill battle in the desktop space?”

There’s something I want to address right up front. The very fact that this question is being asked shows a failure to understand the Linux development environment. First of all, Linux is not like Microsoft or Apple.

By current estimates Microsoft currently employs 89,000 people.  Apple is estimated at 49,400. Both of these are pretty big numbers, but even if every single one of those employees were actively developing code (which it’s more than safe to say they’re not), it wouldn’t compare to Linux.

A recent study claims that Linux kernel development may be slowing down. The reason being is the estimated number of companies that are currently contributing to the Linux kernel has dropped from 245 to 184.

184?!?

You read that right. There are currently 184 known companies contributing to the Linux kernel. Microsoft is one company. Apple is one company. Linux is not.

Should Linux distributors put more effort into making Linux better for the non-desktop space? Yes they should. Should Linux distributors continue their seemingly uphill battle in the desktop space? Yes they should.

While Linux is usually the environment that prides itself on letting you choose, this is one area where there’s no need to do so. They’ve got more than enough resources to do both, and they should.

This Friday, and this Friday ONLY (along with all the other 364 days of the year), you can get the Linux Distro of your choice FREE!!

• UBUNTU
• FEDORA
• CentOS
• openSUSE
• DEBIAN
• MANDRIVA
• LINUX MINT
• GENTOO
• Thousands More!

Beat that Microsoft or Apple.

The comparison between Android and the iOS is an easy one to make. They’re both OSs that exist in the mobile market, and they seem to go head to head. Fans on both sides of the line come up with reasons why their platform is the better one. It’s easy to see where I fall in that conflict, but I’m not going to make a huge list. There will be no “100 Reasons Why” article from me.

Why?

One is all that matters. Apple’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness. Steve Jobs. I won’t argue that the man isn’t inspired, but he’s also overbearing and arrogant. Most importantly though, he’s ambitious.  With the iOS, he’s made a play to control the whole of the Internet. The Internet is available to users of the iOS, but really, where Apple puts it’s focus is on the Apps.

All the applications on the iOS are for is to put up a barrier between the user of the device and the Internet. Instead of providing games and content on the Web, where that content can be accessed for free for the most part, Apple has constructed a walled garden where their users can play. Unfortunately for them, those users can’t go outside those walls.  Apple forbids technologies, such as flash, that might allow the users of the phone to access content that may make the walled garden of apps Apple makes available obsolete.

Why pay Apple for content that’s available for free on the Internet?

The prevailing argument is that Apple creates a feeling, an experience, that just can’t be replicated anywhere else. This argument is total bunk, but it spreads like wild fire. People want to believe that they’re the ones driving the Porsche, while the rest of us must make due with our Ford Escorts. It’s not true, but makes for a fantastic fall back argument.

Steve Jobs puts a lot of effort into continuing this belief that people are buying the Porsche of phones. By doing so, he brings those people into his little walled up world, where he controls what they see, and what they have access to. Users and developers alike must bow before the great white Apple. Content is filtered to Apple’s standards, and by extension, the standards of Steve Jobs. Applications have to pass through Apple before they can be put on the device, and even after they receive the Apple stamp of approval, Apple still takes it’s pound of flesh.

The problem with this approach is that Apple must maintain control over the entire environment for it to work. They control the hardware. They control the software. But Apple is just one company, and they just don’t have the means to control everything all the time. This is why there’s only one iPhone (unless you count the mythical white one) to the hundreds of different Android phones out there.

While I won’t say that this will be the cause of Apple’s downfall, it does place limitations on the platform that Android just doesn’t have. The Woz recently said, “it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy.” This is absolutely true. I don’t think that the Android OS is crappy. In fact, I think it’s better than the iOS is, but it doesn’t need to be. Apple has made it that way. By trying to maintain absolute control over all aspects of the platform, Apple has limited itself and made it easy for Google and the Android platform to walk right past them into the market where they refuse to go. This philosophy has been passed down from on high by the great and powerful Steve.

If Apple licensed their OS out to multiple hardware vendors, it would make it much more difficult for Android. If Apple allowed for third party apps to be installed on their devices without needing the Apple seal of approval, it would make it much more difficult for Android.

Apple isn’t going to do either of those things, because Steve Jobs won’t allow it.

And so, Android will surpass iOS. Google will win the fight. It’s a forgone conclusion, and Google barely had to put any effort into it at all.

Are there dozens of reasons that the Android platform is better than the iOS?

Yes there are, but all that really matters is one.

Recently, the cord on my extremely uncool (but functional) pair of headphone have started to bother me. After a near miss on my usual bus, I found myself wandering the isles of our friendly neighborhood Fry’s Electronics. I found myself a nice set of Bluetooth headphones to go with my phone. They work like a charm.

As I was sitting at my computer the other night, I thought that it would be a good idea to get myself a Bluetooth adapter for my computer so I could use my new wireless headset with some of my games, and of course, Skype. Again, I found myself wandering the isles of Fry’s Electronics, and found a nice, cheap little Belkin adapter that would barely be noticeable attached to my computer.

After my purchase, I realized that I was in a great position to do a little head to head comparison of how Bluetooth would work in Windows vs. Linux. My computer dual boots Vista and Ubuntu 10.04.

I started with Vista.

The process was pretty normal, with one little hiccup that I don’t consider a deal breaker. After opening the case, I was informed that the disk didn’t have a Vista driver, and they pointed me to the website. I click a few links, a 200MB+ download, and the driver is in my possession.  Run the Setup.exe file, and it installs all the software that I’d ever need to use the Bluetooth headset. Sure enough, connects first try. No fuss no muss. Other than the driver glitch, not a bad process.

On to Ubuntu.

I was a little nervous about this as I’d never done this before, and there was no mention of anything about Linux in the little dinky book that came with my little Bluetooth adapter. I figured the process might be similar. Find me a nice little driver out on the website, download, install, done. After firing up Ubuntu, I was in for a pleasant surprise. There was already a Bluetooth icon in my upper panel. The first thought that crossed my mind was “that can’t be it.” I was wrong. That was it. I clicked on it and connected to my headset first try. No installs. No software downloads. No setups. It’s just there.

The funny thing is, people say that Linux is hard.

Microsoft is up to it’s usualy bunk again, claiming that people that use Redhat have, or eventually will have, an obligation to pay Microsoft.  Redhat’s response has, so far, been just to yawn in Microsoft’s face.  Microsoft isn’t the first company to try this with Redhat, but hopefully, it will be the last.  SCO has recently filed for Chapter 11 after years of trying to show that they own one iota of the code present in Linux.  I seriously doubt that Microsoft would go bankrupt over this, due to their amazingly deap pockets, but I also seriously doubt that they can prove to a court of law that anybody not running Windows owes them anything.  As for those who are running Windows, well, they owe Microsoft their immortal soul.  Bummer.

Microsoft has recently stated that Linux violates several of it’s copyrights, and that people using Linux owe Microsoft money for licensing.  Why does this sound so familiar?  The old saying, people who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.  I think it would almost be funny for Microsoft to go to court over this and lose massively.  Just the fact that they’re threatening Linux tells me that Microsoft is very concerned about it.  That’s a good thing for Linux.