The Omnifarium

Linux Lies

Category: Computing Devices
Fri, 03 Oct 2008, 16:03

In a recent e-mail, an acquaintance wrote to me: "I have heard that Linux is a rip off of UNIX, and the only reason the creators of Linux can't be sued is because they can't be found".

I couldn't believe what I was reading. What nonsense! Are there really people out there who believe crap like that? Let's have a look at those claims.

First, what exactly is Linux? Think of the computer you currently use. For most of you, your computer runs some form of the Windows operating system. An operating system controls all aspects of the basic operation of the machine, providing interfaces between the software you use and the underlying hardware. Linux is an alternative operating system.

But there are fundamental differences between Linux and Windows. The most obvious difference is the price. Think about how much the cost of computers has fallen over the years. The cost reductions are almost entirely due to the cost of the hardware components. But the cost of the Windows operating system has not fallen. As the cost of the hardware decreases, you are spending a larger and larger proportion of the computer price to the manufacturer of Windows.

Why hasn't the cost of the software decreased in proportion to the cost of the hardware? After all, unlike hardware, the manufacturing costs of a piece of software is practically negligible. True copies of software can be easily made by anyone. The reality is that Microsoft has a virtual lock on the operating systems installed on the majority of personal computers sold. That is, they have a monopoly, and can charge what the market will bear.

Now to my point: Linux is available for free. That is, you can download and use a Linux distribution for only the cost of your internet connection, and the cost of a blank CD or DVD.

But that's not all. Linux is one of many free software packages. Typically, a Linux distribution comes with a plethora of useful software. So much so that you can easily run Linux on your desktop computer and do everything you need (and want) to do without paying a dime to a software vendor. Word processors, spread sheets, image manipulation, games, e-mail, web browser, financial - you name it, there's a software package available for free. You can pay if you want to. Sometimes you do want to if you need vendor support. But for most people, free is the right price.

Now on to the ridiculous claims: The first is that Linux is a "rip off of Unix". I could spend a lot or words discussing Unix, but that's not really necessary here. It's sufficient to point out that Linux is completely independent from Unix. Unix was developed in the early 1970's by Bell Labs. Linux development started in 1991 by a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds. Shortly after Torvalds began his pet project, others joined in, including the people responsible for the GNU project. GNU (which stands for "GNU's Not Unix") provides a wide range of software tools that duplicate tools available on Unix, but again, is completely independent of Unix. In other words, Linux looks and works a lot like Unix, but contains no Unix code.

What about the other claims? Can the creators of Linux be sued? Some companies claim that Linux is tainted by stolen code. Such claims are silly for one simple reason: The source code of Linux is publically available, unlike other operating systems like Windows. Furthermore, the entire history of Linux development is public knowledge. If there were a potential claim against Linux, it would be very easy to look at the source code to evaluate the validity of the claim. Those responsible for Linux have publicly stated that if there were any infringement of anyones patent or copyright, they would immediately pull out that code and work on a non-infringing replacement.

Lastly, are those responsible for Linux in hiding, as my acquaintance suggests? Hardly. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, not only is the history of Linux development totally out in the open, so are those responsible. That applies not just to the Linux kernel, but also to the vast majority of open-source and free software. People like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman (GNU), Guido van Rossum (Python), and Larry Wall (Perl) are well known in the open-source community. They have no reason to hide, and anyone can reach them if necessary.

Finally, you have to wonder about the sources of such misinformation about Linux. It should be noted that while Windows software is supported by multi-billion dollar business empires, open-source software doesn't get a lot of publicity. The benefits of open-source software are communicated largely by word of mouth, and not by multi-million dollar ad campaigns. So how do some people, like my acquaintance, hear these lies about Linux? In her case, a good friend of hers recently became a MCSE (that is, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer). I would hate to think that he was the one who lied to her. But clearly, the growing success of Linux is seen as a major threat in the Windows camp.

In conclusion, if you do see questionable claims, remember that everything can be verified with a simple Google search. Research the subject for yourself. Or download a distribution of Linux and give it a try for yourself.

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Computing Devices | permanent link to this entry

They're Off and Running!

Category: Politics
Thu, 25 Sep 2008, 20:18

As most Canadians already know, we're in an election campaign again. I suppose the reason I haven't commented yet is that I'm rather bummed out over the prospect of a Conservative majority. But still, we have to do our best to elect a proper government. Here are some of my own observations so far.

The "Pooping Puffin" ad was altogether too predictable. Stephen Harper came out smelling like roses after condemning the ad. Didn't anyone else find that all too staged? Heck, we all know Harper likes to control his party down to the smallest detail. It wouldn't surprise me if the whole incident was choreographed right from the top!

Elizabeth May is a refreshing face in the Canadian political arena. Shame on Stephen Harper and Jack Layton for initially black-balling her from the leaders debate. The environment must be considered a major issue for Canada. And regardless of who wins in October, controlling the emission of greenhouse gases must be considered a major priority.

Who has the best plan for controlling carbon dioxide emissions? Clearly, Stephen Harper is totally out to lunch on the issue. Beholden to the Alberta petroleum companies, he can't afford to be tough on the biggest source of pollution in the country. Oil produced from the tar sands is not only very expensive, producing that oil is itself a major source of pollution. This country desparately needs to invest in alternative energy sources, and the best way to encourage that is through prudent taxation policies. Dirty sources of energy should be discouraged through higher taxes, and breaks should be given to cleaner sources. This is blatantly obvious. We should do what we can to elect politicians who understand this, and turf out those who are blind to the current environmental realities facing us.

Can we really afford to give Stephen Harper a majority?

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry

Browser Wars

Category: Computing Devices
Mon, 09 Jun 2008, 18:57

The last time I visited my family, I used my sister's computer to check my favorite on-line forums. But first, I installed Firefox. For some reason, my brother-in-law took a fit, and insisted I remove it. That really took me by surprise since Firefox is, of course, the superior browser.

They use Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, and since I'd never seen it before, I thought I'd have a look to see what it was like. Wow! Was I underwhelmed! I looked at it and wondered what the heck they were thinking of when they came up with this new version.

Have a look at the above screen-shot of a MS IE window. The menu bar is in an unexpected place, replaced by a couple of navigation buttons. There's a button labelled "Bookmarks", but using it requires one to be logged into Google. The "Favorites" menu can now be reached by clicking on some other button, but that's not immediately obvious. In the previous version, you could rearrange the buttons to get a more compact appearance, but version 7 limits your personalization choices.

On the other hand, here's what my Firefox window looks like. To maximize the area devoted to the web page, I have the navigation buttons and fields on the same line as the menu items. Perhaps it's mainly a matter of personal taste, but I find this a less cluttered and easier to use arrangement of the important controls.

And now to the main point of today's rant. For a long time, I've always advocated designing web pages using the agreed-upon standards to ensure that the pages can be viewed using any browser, and I still believe in that. However, how much longer do we have to put up with the bugs and non-standard behaviors of Microsoft's browser? Other browsers, like Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Konqueror, can implement the standards properly? Why should web developers have to go through hoops and handstands to support a non-compliant browser?

That said, I've started to implement CSS properties that work best in Firefox and Safari. As a result, pages on my site, www.boldts.net, now look the best rendered by those browsers. Under Konqueror and Opera they look fine, but IE has trouble rendering certain features properly. Do I care? No. There's no reason the average web user can't upgrade to a better browser. The market share of Firefox continues to rise as people make the comparison.

To be fair, Microsoft is working on a new version of their browser, and when released, may well be a more standards-compliant browser. But why wait when proper choices exist today?

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Computing Devices | permanent link to this entry

For Me, It's Back to Work!

Category: Computing Devices
Thu, 05 Jun 2008, 18:43

I haven't been blogging much lately. It's sometimes difficult finding the time to type my thoughts into a coherant form. For the past few weeks that's been especially true, since I started a new job.

When I started my job search back in September, I figured my most marketable skills were in the iSeries area. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of openings for iSeries programmers. I applied for a couple of iSeries positions, but neither of them resulted in so much as the time of day! Many iSeries boosters will argue that their favorite system has a bright future. But based on my own direct experience, I must sincerely disagree.

I did find a job, though. But it has little in common with my previous job. In fact, I had to explain what an iSeries was to my interviewer! My new job is giving me lots of opportunities to learn new things, like Zope, Plone, and OpenBSD, just to name a few.

And unlike my previous job, which required me to commute 50km a day by car, I can now take public transit to work. A generally relaxing trip on a GO train followed by a 20 minute walk gets me to my job in a century-old building in Toronto's Fashion District.

Without a doubt, GO Transit is the best way to get downtown from the suburbs. I pay a little over eight dollars a day to ride the train. If I were still driving to my previous job, I'd probably be paying at least that much for gasoline every day! One big advantage of taking the train is that I can read the newspaper and do the daily Sudoku. You can't do that while driving!

The walk between Union Station and the office is interesting. It's hard to avoid walking past some city landmarks, such as the CN Tower, the Rogers Centre, or the CBC building. It's fun to watch the tourists taking pictures of each other sitting beside the Glenn Gould sculpture!

Sure, there are some disadvantages to a downtown job, such as dealing with hordes of other commuters. Also, the track level at Union Station has to be the most dreary of any major railroad station I've ever seen. I know public money is tight these days, and they're doing what they can to improve service, but couldn't they find some money to at least replace the roof over the tracks at Union Station?

On the whole, though, I think it's going to be interesting working downtown. I'm sure eventually I'll get bored with Toronto's downtown. And maybe it's unreasonable to expect long term employment from any company. But for now, it's a new and fun adventure!

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Computing Devices | permanent link to this entry

Conservatives Playing Games Again

Category: Politics
Wed, 23 Apr 2008, 14:31

During the last federal election campaign, it was reported in the Toronto Star that the Conservative association in my riding, Scarborough-Guildwood, was offering a special offer: Donate $100 to the Conservative candidate, Pauline Browes, and you'd get a $25 gift card in return. Curious, I wrote to Browes and asked if I would get a $100 or a $75 tax receipt. She answered back that I would get a receipt for $75.

Hmmm, this didn't seem like that great a deal. If I donated $100, I'd get back a $25 gift card and a $75 tax receipt. On the other hand, if I donated $75, I'd get a $75 tax receipt, and I'd still have $25 cash in my wallet I could spend anywhere. What was the advantage to the offer? Could it be that, before the story reached the Toronto Star, some trusted Conservative Party supporters were getting $100 receipts?

Even if $75 receipts were always issued to donors, could they have used this scheme to some other advantage? Now then, I'm no accountant or tax lawyer, but perhaps they were reporting a string of $75 donations when in reality they were getting $100 donations? Even if it was entirely on the up and up, something just didn't quite pass the smell test.

We all know that at least a few candidates for political office will do what they can to bend the rules to their advantage. Heck, twenty years ago, a co-worker told me that the main raison d'être for the Libertarian Party was to game the election system for the tax breaks for candidates and party supporters!

And now we learn that Conservative Party is alleged to have played games at the level of the national campaign during the last election. When they reached their national spending limit, they transferred money to participating local candidates who would pay for national party ads. Small fine print at the end of the ads revealed that the ad was paid for by the local candidate.

The Conservative Party, of course, insists that they did nothing wrong. But one Conservative candidate, Garth Turner, is reported to have said that the scheme seemed fishy to him, and so he refused to participate. Indeed, the majority of Conservative candidates did not participate either. Heck, even the party's own election advertisers expressed doubts about the scheme!

If the Conservatives are found guilty of spending a million dollars more than allowed on national advertising, what would it mean? It could be argued that that million dollars meant the difference between winning and losing for the Conservatives, and that the Conservatives effectively "stole" the 2006 election.

During the next election campaign, be sure to ask your Conservative candidate if he or she participated in the "in and out" scheme in the last election.

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry

Earth Hour 2008

Category: Politics
Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 15:05

By all accounts, Earth Hour 2008 was a big success. Toronto met its target for power usage reduction, as did a lot of other cities. Along with the downtown skyscrapers, the CN Tower went dark, even though it already uses highly efficient LED lights for its exterior lighting. And in Ottawa, a number of buildings, including the Peace Tower and Stornaway, took part. But one building in Ottawa was conspicuous by its undimmed lights - 24 Sussex Drive, the home of Canada's prime minister.

Earth Hour was intended to raise awareness for the issue of climate change, which is expected to drastically affect all of us over the coming decades. We need to take action now in order to mitigate and reverse the effects of the greenhouse gases we're spewing into the atmosphere. Politicians of all stripes must show leadership in navigating us through the foreseen troubling times. And so, for the prime minister of our country to ignore Earth Hour in such an obvious and callous manner is unforgivable. The opposition leaders all understand the issues. Why should Steve Harper be the one to bury his head in the sand over the issue?

Omnifariously yours, Hans

path: /Politics | permanent link to this entry