[Fri May 29 14:36:18 CEST 2009]

Google Chrome was all the rage a few months ago, but I didn't have the time to give it a try back then. Besides, Google officially released the Windows XP version only, and in my house we only run Linux and MacOS. So, it wasn't until a couple of days ago that I decided to search around and see if there is a beta version for any of those OSes. And, lo and behold, I found the Chromium snapshots, still in alpha. To be sure, there is some functionality still missing from these snapshots. For instance, there is no integration with the Adobe Flash Player, which means that sites like YouTube are pretty much beyond reach. Still, if one could forget about other marketing and business considerations and judge software products solely on their merits, I'd bet that Google Chrome will become a major contender in a new round of the browser wars. The little multithreaded application based on the Webkit framework (like Safari) is specifically geared towards the use of web applications, a field where Google itself excels and has a significant stake, of course. Yes, it lacks many of the extra functionality that other browsers have, but it does the basics very well, it's stable and, above all, it doesn't suck memory like Firefox. I ignore if I'm the only one going through this (I doubt it) but I have to kill the Firefox process at least twice a day lately, especially since I started using web applications quite often. It's become a true pain in the neck that swallows the system resources and slows things down. Here is a short video from the development team of the Chrome browser explaining the philosophy behind it:

Oh, and by the way, here is another video about Android. I cannot wait until cell phones with that operating system are commercialized here in Spain.

{link to this story}

[Fri May 29 14:29:10 CEST 2009]

In my constant search for simple command line applications I recently came across of fbcmd, a little tool that allows you to update your Facebook account with new status messages, links, pictures, notes, etc. I installed it on a system running Ubuntu 8.04 hardy, and it works fine. Highly recommended for all those who love the command line. {link to this story}

[Fri May 15 15:31:04 CEST 2009]

Here is another interesting story published by Wired Science. Researchers at the University of Manchester have managed to replicate life's first spark in a lab:

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

(...)

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients —a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases— ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

(...)

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland's team included a phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth's primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

All this immediately reminded me of something I had read many years ago in Carl Sagan's Cosmos:

In my laboratory at Cornell University we work on, among other things, prebiological organic chemistry, making some notes of the music of life. We mix together and spark the gases of the primitive Earth: hydrogen, water, ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide —all present, incidentally, on the planet Jupiter today and throughout the Cosmos. The sparks correspond to lightning —also present on the ancient Earth and on modern Jupiter. The reaction vessel is initially transparent: the precursos gases are entirely invisible. But after ten minutes of sparking, we see a strange brown pigment slowly streaking the sides of the vessel. The interior gradually becomes opaque, covered with a thick brown tar. If we had used ultraviolet light —simulating the early Sun— the results would have been more or less the same. The tar is an extremely rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the constient parts of proteins and nucleic acids. The stuff of life, it turns out, can be very easily made.

It shouldn't surprise us much that Sagan was an acknowdleged atheist. {link to this story}

[Fri May 15 14:33:36 CEST 2009]

Now, this is some pretty cool stuff. Wired Science tells us about a star cluster simulator for Second Life and OpenSim. As they describe it:

What in 1991 was a novel physics solution now comes packaged in a virtual world for you to intuitively explore. A new simulation in OpenSim, an open-source version of the popular virtual world Second Life, shows how a handful of objects floating in space react to each other's gravity.

In physics, this is known as the N-body problem. It's simple if you have only two objects: they orbit their common center of mass in a circle or an ellipse. But three or more objects send the system into chaos. Physicists and mathematicians banged their head against it for centuries, with a general solution emerging less than 20 years ago.

Here is a cool demo you can watch:

{link to this story}

[Wed May 13 15:39:40 CEST 2009]

I liked reading James Iry's A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages. Some of the entries are quite funny:

1801 - Joseph Marie Jacquard uses punch cards to instruct a loom to weave "hello, world" into a tapestry. Redditers of the time are not impressed due to the lack of tail call recursion, concurrency, or proper capitalization.

1842 - Ada Lovelace writes the first program. She is hampered in her efforts by the minor inconvenience that she doesn't have any actual computers to run her code. Enterprise architects will later relearn her tecniques in order to program in UML.

(...)

1964 - John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz create BASIC, an unstructured programming language for non-computer scientists.

1965 - Kemeny and Kurtz go to 1964.

(...)

1972 - Dennis Ritchie invents a powerful gun that shoots both forward and backward simultaneously. Not satisfied with the number of deaths and permanent maimings from that invention he invents C and Unix.

(...)

1980 - Alan Kay creates Smalltalk and invents the term "object oriented". When asked what objects are made of he replies, "objects." When asked again he says "look, it's all objects all the way down. Until you reach turtles."

(...)

1987 - Larry Wall falls asleep and hits Larry Wall's forehead on the keyboard. Upon waking Larry Wall decides that the string of characters on Larry Wall's monitor isn't random but an example program in a programming language that God wants His prophet, Larry Wall, to design. Perl is born.

(...)

1991 - Dutch programmer Guido van Rossum travels to Argentina for a mysterious operation. He returns with a large cranial scar, invents Python, is declared Dictator for Life by legions of followers, and announces to the world that "There Is Only One Way to Do It." Poland becomes nervous.

1995 - Yukihiro "MadMatz" Matsumoto creates Ruby to avert some vaguely unspecified apocalypse that will leave Australia a desert run by mohawked warriors and Tina Turner. The language is later renamed Ruby on Rails by its real inventor, David Heinmeier Hansson. [The bit about Matsumoto inventing a language called Ruby never happened and better be removed in the next revision of this artcile - DHH].

1995 - Brendan Eich reads up on every mistake ever made in designing a programming language, invents a few more, and creates LiveScript. Later, in an effort to cash in on the popularity of Java the language is renamed JavaScript. Later still in an effort to cash in on the popularity of skin diseases the language is renamed ECMAScript.

1996 - James Gosling invents Java. Java is a relatively verbose, garbage collected, class based, statically typed, single dispatch, object oriented language with single implementation inheritance and multiple interface inheritance. Sun loudly heralds Java's novelty.

And so on. I had fun reading it. {link to this story}

[Wed May 13 14:51:34 CEST 2009]

Now, this is interesting. Information Week publishes a piece signed by Paul McDougall where they explain how Larry Ellison truly cared only about Sun's software unit, although it ended up buying the whole enchilada due to competitive pressure from IBM:

Despite Larry Ellison's claim that Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems will give his company the ability to construct unmatched business systems that are integrated from "applications to disk," Oracle originally sought to acquire only Sun's crown-jewel software assets while leaving its declining hardware unit to the vultures, accoding to a regulatory filing.

Oracle on March 12 "sent a letter to our board proposing the acquisition by Oracle of certain of our software assets, a minority equity investment by Oracle in our common stock, and entering into certain stragegic relationships," Sun said in a filing Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The ultimate outcome of the negotiations different greatly from Oracle's original offer. Oracle on April 19 struck a deal to acquire all of Sun —including its aging line of Solaris-powered Sparc servers—for $7.4 billion, or $9.50 per share.

So why did Oracle agree to a big-bucks deal for a vendor that derives most of its sales from a declining box business? The SEC filing shows that Oracle's hand may have been forced by IBM, which was engaged in its own talks with Sun earlier this year, and by yet another vendor —possibly Hewlett-Packard.

Heh. It was quite obvious, wasn't it? {link to this story}

[Mon May 11 13:17:59 CEST 2009]

A friend just sent me a link to a YouTube video showing a TV news segment from 1981 discussing how early home computer users could read their morning newspapers online and the implications that could have for the near future. Both the technology displayed in the video and the comments about the new media are priceless.

{link to this story}

[Wed May 6 14:07:11 CEST 2009]

Kristin Shoemaker reports of a conversation with Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth where he explains why Ubuntu can't be just Windows. When asked about Wine, Shuttleworth sensibly replies:

[Windows and Linux] both play an important role but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules. It is different to the proprietary software universe. we need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms. If Linux is just another way to run Windows apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that...

It's the old search for the killer app. Either that or, perhaps more likely these days when so many applications are moving to the cloud, a new and innovative way to use the computer in order to access those apps in the cloud. Perhaps the future lies not so much in the apps as in the frameworks and interfaces. The computer is quickly becoming a commodity, after all. Ideas like KDE's social desktop concept are quite original and may help differentiate Linux from competing OSes. Here is a nice presentation demoing the concept:

{link to this story}

[Wed May 6 14:03:08 CEST 2009]

InfoWorld has published a funny story titled True believers: The biggest cults in tech that makes for an interesting read. It covers the usual (and unusual, in the sense of unknown to most non-technies) groups: Apple, Commonodre, IBM mainframes, Lisp, Newton, Palm, Ruby, Ubuntu, etc. {link to this story}

[Wed May 6 11:15:08 CEST 2009]

According to Computer World, Apple is said to make a US $700 million buyout offer on Twitter. What surprises me about the whole thing is that analysts appear to like the idea. The article quotes Dan Olds, an analyst with the Gabriel Consulting Group Inc., as saying that it could make for an interesting combination. If by "interesting" he means out of the ordinary, sure. I just don't see how it makes any business sense at all. That's all. The same applies to the rumors of Microsoft being after the company too. On the other hand, both Google and Facebook buying Twitter makes far more sense to me. In the case of Facebook, the company is already a big player in the social networking market. Google, on the other hand, could integrate Twitter into its nicely put together ad-revenue business model. But Apple? What could the company do with it? {link to this story}