Open Source > Linux > LQ
September 14, 2006 Leave a comment
A quick Flash 9 on Linux status check, as my previous posts on the topic drew many requests for continual updates. The Flash 9 plugin is now in good enough shape that they are showing it publicly. No exact ETA yet, but a public beta should be along “real soon now”. The plugin is currently slated for release in early 2007.
–jeremy
Linux, Flash, Flash9, Adobe, Flashforward
September 14, 2006 Leave a comment
Microsoft has recently released, for the third time, a patch for MS06-042. From the article:
According to Microsoft's security bulletin, the IE patch was updated September 12 to fix another remote code execution vulnerability in IE's handling of long URLs from Websites using HTTP 1.1 protocol and compression. That's almost identical to the problem introduced in the original version of the patch, then discovered by security researchers at eEye Digital Security.
This issue underscores the security issues that Microsoft continues to have. You have to continue to wonder if they can possibly live up to the promises they have made for Vista and IE7. While bugs and security issues are to be expected in software as complicated as what we're talking about here, a single issue having to be addressed 3 (and counting) times shows a lack of discipline. I'd guess they have their developers so focused on getting Windows Vista out the door that the MSRC probably isn't getting the resources it needs to do things properly. Judging by the many unreleased vulnerabilities in the queue, including 5 with a Severity of “High”, things don't look like they're going to get any better any time soon.
–jeremy
Microsoft, security, MSRC, Vista, IE7
September 14, 2006 Leave a comment
From a post at consortiuminfo.org:
Microsoft has just posted the text of a new patent “promise not to assert ” at its Website, and pledges that it will honor that promise with respect to 35 listed Web Services standards. The promise is similar in most substantive respects to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema, with two important improvements intended to make it more clearly compatible with open source licensing. Those changes are to clarify that the promise not to assert any relevant patents extends to everyone in the distribution chain of a product, from the original vendor through to the end user, and to clarify that the promise covers a partial as well as a full implementation of a standard.
The “promise not to assert” is basically an irrevocable promise by Microsoft that someone that implements one of the covered standards will not be sued for doing so. It's interesting (and I think encouraging) to see that this promise was updated to specifically include wording intended to make it more clearly compatible with open source. That's something we haven't often seen from Microsoft in the past. It should be noted that the “Microsoft Open Specification Promise” page includes testimonials from both Red Hat and Larry Rosen. I'd say this is another step in the relationship between Open Source and proprietary companies that I've been commenting on with increasing regularity. It's just a toe dip for Microsoft, but I'm sure they see the money that IBM and Oracle are bringing in based on Open Source and Open Standards and they don't want to be without a piece of the pie. Surely they are still figuring out internally how to balance that with the nature of their two cash cows and it will be something to watch as it unfolds moving forward. If this is a topic you are interested in, I'd recommend you read the full consortiuminfo analysis as it's quite in depth.
–jeremy
Microsoft, MSFT, Open Source, Open Standards, Web Services
August 30, 2006 Leave a comment
Here's a decent article regarding common misunderstandings about the GPL. My single bone of contention is #1. The GPL most certainly is viral. Not in the way they indicate in the article, but saying it isn't (when it is by design) in an article meant to dispel misconceptions seems..well, confusing. The article prompted me to re-read the GPL FAQ and I have indeed cleared a couple things up mentally and will admit I was partially prone to one of the misconceptions myself (#8). In the end, I can see why some people choose not to use the GPL. While they claim not to be anti-commercial (you can sell GPL software!), this is not something many software company are going to want to deal with. Of course the loophole to that is to distribute your product with something like trademarked logos, which means it can't be simply redistributed without ripping those out (ala RHEL->CentOS). As I was reading the FAQ and misconceptions, one thing became clear to me – plenty of people, some of them well intentioned and some of them not, are definitely violating the GPL. I wonder what the actual compliance rate is?
–jeremy
GPL, Open Source, FSF, GNU
August 28, 2006 Leave a comment
Just ran across this and it seems like a fantastic commemoration. From the article:
The APC Chris Nicol FOSS Prize recognises initiatives that are making it easy for people to start using free and open source software (FOSS). The prize is awarded to a person or group doing extraordinary work to make FOSS accessible to ordinary computer users.
The APC FOSS Prize has been established to honor Chris Nicol, a long time FOSS advocate and activist who for many years worked with APC.
The fact that “Small-scale activities are encouraged to apply” is great. There are so many deserving projects that I'm sure the soon-to-be-decided jury will have its work cut out for it.
–jeremy
August 28, 2006 Leave a comment
It was just a matter of time before something like this happened. Interestingly, engadget has written An Open Letter to Microsoft – Why you shouldn't kill FairUse4WM, but I wouldn't be surprised if this one gets fixed before the next patch Tuesday hits. For regular readers, you'll know that I am not 100% anti-DRM. But, I am anti-DRM when it's used in ways that work against consumers, which unfortunately these days is most of the time. The greed and hubris of most media companies these days is simply appalling. They'd prefer that you'd have purchased the very same song via LP, then tape, then CD, then PSP and then digitally. The best part is, for the last one..you don't even own it. You're just borrowing it, and in most cases the cost is more than you purchased it for previously. Their costs are shrinking by leaps and bounds, yet they want to pass none of that along. What's worse, if you use an OS such as Linux then you can't even legitimately purchase songs via most services in the first place. It's as if they want to drive people to P2P networks so they have an excuse for failing, and fail they will if they keep up the current trends. They are learning the same lesson that Microsoft is just starting to learn – if you squeeze your customers who are legitimately trying to play by the rules to the point that those customers feel you're being predatory, in the end they will find a way to leave. It may take a long time for a viable alternative to come in the case of monopolies, but it is inevitable. It's not that complicated. Give me a music service that doesn't have absurd TOS and arbitrary limitations and I will happily send you my money. Not only that, I will tell everyone else to do the same. If you can find a way to do DRM in a way that does not limit my legitimate use in any way but prevents mass distribution, I could care less to be honest. I don't want to steal…I just don't want to feel like you're stealing from me.
–jeremy
DRM, FairUse4WM, Microsoft, PlaysForSure, Linux
August 28, 2006 7 Comments
A quick follow up to this post about Flash 9. It looks like things are progressing nicely, which is good as a number of sites that I'd really like to use are now requiring Flash > 8. Whether you like Flash or not, some cool things are happening on the platform. It's encouraging to see the developers testing so many distributions, even if they aren't ready to give an officially supported blessing yet.
–jeremy
Linux, Open Source, Adobe, Flash
August 24, 2006 Leave a comment
After multiple rumors that Oracle would offer Red Hat support, the new rumor seems to be that Oracle will simply acquire Red Hat. While Oracle certainly has the cash to do this, I can't see the logic from either side. The rumor includes numbers as high as $6b and even the low side appears to be about $5b. It would really complicate things on the Oracle side of the house and would likely cause irreparable damage to the “Open Source” image that Red Hat currently has. While you never know, and Oracle has pulled off the acquisitions of multiple OSS companies such as Sleepycat and Innobase, none of them were the size of Red Hat. I think Red Hat has a vision; one that could not be achieved as a vestige of Oracle. Novell on the other hand seems like a more likely acquisition target, if I had to pick one. They are a bit more closed source friendly due to their history and are struggling right now, so they'd be a bargain. Oracle could also assemble their own support team, or scoop up a smaller distro…not for the distro itself but to get a small talented team. In the end, it seems certain that Oracle will eventually do something in the Linux distro space, it's just not clear what. I'm guessing that when it finally does happen, it will begin a new chapter in the way Linux is looked at by a lot of non-OSS people.
–jeremy
Oracle, Red Hat, Linux, Open Source
August 20, 2006 Leave a comment
I have to admit I was a bit surprised after reading this article, which include the following:
Eric Raymond has told the community that painful compromises are needed to the way it deals with closed source platforms and formats to avoid losing ground on desktops and new media players.
Raymond said the community is not moving fast enough to engage with non-technical users whose first-choice platform is either an iPod, MP3 player or Microsoft desktop running Windows Media Player.
Binary drivers are considered an evil for open source because of their proprietary nature, however Raymond called support for them in Linux “a necessary compromise.”
Raymond, a champion of all things open, said it is vital to the future uptake of Linux that the community compromise to win the new generation of non-technical users aged younger than 30. This group is more interested in having Linux “just work” on their iPod or MP3 player and “don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity”
Take a moment to process that. Now, while I completely agree that Linux too often does not engage with non-technical users, that's sort of by design and ingrained into the hierarchy of things. To be fair though, that's changing. Since Linux historically was a “by programmers, for programmers” kind of project, the non-technical users really didn't have a voice. With the entrance of companies like Novell and Linspire, that's no longer really the case. What I disagree with is the assertion that “The end of the 64-bit transition happens at the end of 2008. After that the operating system gets locked in for the next 30 years.” I honestly don't see how a move to 64-bit is going to lock any OS in. There's just no logical progression there. People (especially on the desktop) just aren't clamoring for the 32->64 conversion right now. It makes sense on the server, but the real benefits just aren't applicable to the average desktop PC. What I'd guess we'll see is a slow transition where by people will get 64-bit by default as the upgrade their PC – and they won't even know it happened. Because they won't know it happened, I'd hesitate to call it a “major architectural shift”. At least not when compared to the painful 16->32 change. That's why Linux OEM deals are so important… the average user simply doesn't care about their OS.
This brings us back to a topic I've discussed before. What are we, as a community, willing to give up to get mainstream adoption. I completely agree with ESR that “painful compromises” will be needed to gain more desktop penetration. Probably very painful compromises. I still question if the Linux we'd end up with is a Linux we'd all still be so passionate about. In the past I've indicated that I was unsure. Unfortunately, I'm still not. It's a very precarious thing, and I don't think people appreciate that there's a very real chance that Linux could end up being a victim of its own success in many ways. Luckily our communities are varied and resilient. While we're divided on many topics, in the end I hope we have the fortitude to persevere.
This article brings up a couple other topics that I'd like to break out into other posts (and will soon), including binary driver, Linux with an iPod and working with commercial and proprietary software vendors.
–jeremy
ESR, Linux, Open Source, OSI, FSF
August 18, 2006 Leave a comment
RealNetworks will release open-source software this year that will let Linux computers play Windows Media files. No word on if Real will ever open its own codec unfortunately. This deal is “a result of a licensing deal RealNetworks signed with Microsoft and its settlement of an antitrust suit against the software giant”. It good to see companies actually starting to focus on the codec problems we currently have on desktop Linux, but I'm not sure what this gets us that ffmpeg/libavcodec doesn't already offer. On a related not, Novell is going to ship this in SLED, which is really looking like it may be a popular product at this point.
–jeremy
Real, RealNetworks, Microsoft, wmv, Open Source, Linux
Jeremy's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.