[Mon Nov 20 16:23:37 CET 2006]

Who didn't hear the sarcastic comments about Emacs being far more than a simple IDE, and more like a kitchen sink? Well, now we have the evidence. Pascal Bourguignon has taken the time to run Emacs standing alone on top of the Linux kernel. Not that anybody will find the experiment extremely useful (well, perhaps someone in the large pool of Emacs fanatics out there will) but it's a curiosity nonetheless. Now, how long before someone attempts to do the same with Vim so the good old editor's war can go on? {link to this story}

[Mon Nov 20 15:42:03 CET 2006]

Desktop Linux publishes an interview with Mark Shuttleworth where the Ubuntu founder makes some interesting statements:

— We are creatures of habit —once we get used to a certain thing, it's hard for us to be swayed to something new to replace it, unless the new thing is WAY better. Does Linux have to be WAY better for people to switch?

Yes, it does, but it can be "way better" in any number of senses —including economically, or because of alternative deployment approaches like thin client, or because of killer apps on the desktop. Just being "a polished Windows-like OS" won't cut it.

— Are younger users the right target market for Linux desktop companies —perhaps because they are more open-minded about such things?

That's what's happening in practice, and it's the reason we see Microsoft waging a heavy war in education departments around the world, to try to keep those departments on Windows.

Shuttleworth is convinced that it's just a matter of time, while I'm just not so sure about it. Still, I find his point that simply being a very polished Windows-like OS won't cut it quite true. Yet, one still reads many technical reviews out there where Linux's merits appear to be measured according to how Windows-like it looks. {link to this story}

[Fri Nov 17 09:40:11 CET 2006]

Technical people tend to have a very distorted image of managers. No, not all of them are like the pointy-haired guy portrayed in the Dilbert cartoons. That's an exaggeration meant to make people laugh. There are plenty of decent managers around. People who are not only decent human beings but who also know what they are talking about. Besides, the person who manages software engineers doesn't necessarily have to know how to program in C and Java. Programming requires a set of skills, and managing people requires a completely different set. Still, it would be nice if, when making statements that are technical in nature, managers were a bit more cautious sometimes. For example, The Globe and Mail published today a story about the need for Red Hat to learn to live with "strange bedfellows" that quotes Oracle's Larry Ellison as follows:

"If a customer has a problem with the Linux kernel, if there is a bug, and the Linux vendor fixes the bug, very often it's not fixed in the version of Linux the customer is running, but in a version that's about to come out", Mr. Ellison said. "That really is not acceptable to our large customers".

Well, sure. But then, what OS out there doesn't proceed like Mr. Ellison describes? By definition, as soon as a new patch is applied to a kernel (or any other piece of software, for that matter) it becomes a newer and higher version of said kernel. They may choose not to change the name, at least officially, so customers have the impression that they are still running the same code, but the reality is that they aren't, and a patch that is applied to a source tree to fix a problem always risks introducing new bugs. Besides, one rarely sees that patches address only a single bug. If that were the case, customers would be applying patches almost all the time. In other words, Ellison is talking about marketing here, and not software engineering or kernel development. But then, that doesn't surprise anyone, does it? After all, he is is just trying to sell why Oracle felt the need to part ways with Red Hat. {link to this story}

[Tue Nov 14 17:52:24 CET 2006]

Well, well, well. In spite of the manu times that Scott McNealy and Jonathan Schwartz denied they'd ever do that, pretty everybody knew it would happen sooner or later. Sun has announced that it will release Java under the GPL using a dua-license approach that people should be quite familiar with by now. To be honest, I'm not convinced that releasing Java under this or that particular license is the silver bullet that will come to solve all problems and destroy the competition (namely, .Net), but I suppose it will help one way or another. {link to this story}

[Thu Nov 9 14:18:07 CET 2006]

Lore Sjöber appears to poke fun at those who complain about the Windows Vista EULA (or that's what it sounds like, at least), but as he himself acknowledges there are good reasons to worry about Microsoft's latest license:

For instance, once you agree to the license you are not allowed to publish any benchmark results without Microsoft's permission, and you can't install Vista on a virtual machine unless you shell out for the pricier version.

He may think these are reasons to joke, but I find it quite troublesome that a company can force those things down its customers' throats, especially the clause about not publishing benchmarks without their permission. Guess which benchmarks are the only ones that will ever be approved by Microsoft! This is tantamount to a legalized form of censorship. The Register published a much better piece on this topic a couple of weeks ago. The problems don't extend only to virtualization and benchmarks, but also to things like reinstalling the OS on a newer upgraded system. By the way, there is something here for all those who complain about the complex world of Linux, where there are way too many choices, too many distributions:

So you can't create a virtual image using Home Basic ($199) or Home Premium ($239). However, the EULA does allow you to use Vista Business ($299) or Vista Ultimate ($399). Hmmm... I wonder why? It couldn't possibly be because those editions cost more, could it? Wanna bet? The fact that there aren't any technical restrictions in place to prevent users from loading Home editions into VMWare, only legal and support barriers, sure lends credence to that supposition.

So, yeah, it's easy enough: just take your pick among Home Basic, Home Premium, Vista Business and Vista Ultimate, and pray that you don't make the wrong choice and cannot do what you intended with the OS in the end. Life is good and simple. Yes, sir! {link to this story}