GPLv3 Coverage

July 5, 2007 Leave a comment

For all the coverage the process has gotten to date, the final GPLv3 was released to relatively little fanfare on Friday, June 29th. The reality, as with any legal document, is that it’s going to take a while for company and project lawyers to read through and digest their perceived implications. As anyone who’s worked in a large corporation knows, legal departments take their time on this. That means the reality is that we won’t see adoption by major projects for a little while. That’s not a bad thing, it was to be expected.

One thing that struck me about the GPLv3 process is just how much mainstream press it got. We’re talking about a software license after all. This has to be a first. Also, whether or not you like the end result of the GPLv3 I think you have to give the FSF credit. The GPLv1 was pretty much just Stallman and even the GPLv2 process was fairly closed. The GPLv3 draft process, however, was much more open and it’s clear that feedback was considered very seriously. You can even see demonstrable evidence of RMS making compromises in some places. That’s significant and credit should be given where credit is due.

I’m not a lawyer and haven’t had a change to even read the final GPLv3 from beginning to end, so I’m not going to comment on specifics at this time. I hope to set aside time for that in the near future. In the mean time, here are some of the links I’ll be using to base my research on. Please feel free to add quality links you’ve found in the comments. Thanks.

–jeremy

Filed under FSF, GPL, GPLv3, Open Source

Massachusetts May Adopt OOXML – What Say You?

July 5, 2007 Leave a comment

Andy continues his prodigious coverage of the Massachusetts OOXML/ODF debate. From a recent post:

The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), the state agency that effectively launched the voyage of ODF around the world in August of 2005, has released a new version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model. And this new draft includes Microsoft’s OOXML formats as an acceptable “open format.” The new draft was posted today here, and the very brief comment period will end on July 20. The header to the announcement at the ITD Web site reads as follows:

A review draft of ETRM v. 4.0 is available for review and comment from July 2nd through July 20th, 2007. Comments should be submitted to standards@state.ma.us. This major release of the ETRM updates content published in version 3.6, introduces the new Management Domain, enhances the ETRM’s format for accessibility and usability as well as provides additions and updates to existing language and technical specifications. For a detailed outline of major revisions made in this version please consult the Major Revisions for ETRM v.4.0 document.

The announcement is not a surprise to me, as I’ve been following the progress of the ITD’s internal reviews over the past six months. I’ve not been commenting on this publicly in order to try to give Bethann Pepoli (once again the interim CTO, since the departure of Louis Gutierrez) and her team the space to do their internal evaluations with less pressure than Peter Quinn experienced the first time around. However, and as you can imagine, the ITD has been under as much pressure behind the scenes (and perhaps more) as the legislators of those states that have recently tried, and failed, to pass laws that would mandate open formats in government.

The OOXML-related changes to the text of the ETRM are deceptively insignificant. By my word search, there are only three references: the inclusion of the name of the standard in the introductory summary of changes, a brief description and migration section in the Domain: Information part of the draft (scroll down and look for the “Open Formats” section), and the listing of Ecma among the other standards bodies on a list of “Relevant Standards Organizations.” But the potential impact of these change if retained will be great.

How much pressure has the Massachusetts ITD been under to accept Ecma 376? I’ve been told by those in the know that the contacts reached all the way to Deval Patrick, our new governor. Here, as in the states where legislation was introduced, the point was forcefully and repeatedly made that Microsoft is the kind of company that can provide jobs and other economic support where and as it pleases. And, to be fair, the same points were been made in the past by representatives of IBM and Sun when they have spoke out in favor of ODF.

Now we are looking at a very short comment period, commenced with no advance warning, spanning a holiday, and contained within one of the busiest vacation months of the year (one can’t help wondering why).

That makes the comment period less than 14 business days in a month that, as Andy points out, is one that is very popular for vacationing. Assuming the addition of ECMA 376 moves forward, the question becomes how large of a blow is this to ODF? Opinions on that remain all over the map. Some seem to think it’s a minor setback while others say it could potentially relegate ODF to being a footnote in history. The fact remains that OOXML still only has a single implementation. It’s also unclear if the latest version of Office completely implements the spec or implements items not in the spec. This means that if ODF adoption doesn’t gain any traction, Microsoft will easily be able to move forward with proprietary extensions, let ECMA 376 languish or even drop support in the future altogether. In other words, we’ll be right back where we started. That’s a bad thing. Andy has further coverage on the topic, including reactions from around the industry.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, Open Formats, Open Source, Open Standards

The iPhone, 48 hours later

July 2, 2007 2 Comments

So, I’ve had an iPhone for a bit over 48 hours now. My impression?

First the good:
* The Web experience on this thing is absolutely phenomenal. Despite having a smaller screen, it’s even better than the N800. The zoom functionality and real browser are a breath of fresh air. I really can’t say enough good things about this aspect of the device.
* The built-in apps are all decent. The Contacts apps is especially good for a stock offering.
* The battery life is better than I expected, considering the size of the screen.
* The device just looks really good. Coming from a Treo, the form factor is also very refreshing. For the next week or so, pulling one of these out will draw a small crowd. As always, that will pass.
* Wifi

The bad (and unlike a lot of the glowing reviews I’ve seen, I think there are quite a few of them):
* The activation process is silly. Why would I possibly need iTunes to activate a cell phone. The process (after you get iTunes) is very straight forward, but so simplified that I have no idea what plan I have right now. The Cin AT&T site still gives me an error when trying to log in to my account. As I noted in my previous post, the AT&T part of the experience has been sub-par in general so far.
* While the preloaded apps are all decent, the lack of real third party apps is a real killer. There are rumors this will change in the future, but if it doesn’t I think the success and utility of the iPhone will be extremely limited. One great thing about the Treo was that you could find an app for almost anything. No SSH, for instance, will likely be a deal breaker for me and the iPhone. I only use it occasionally, but when I need it it’s absolutely critical. I will concede that on the Treo some apps do make the thing very unstable. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. I need a time tracker, a nice TODO app and a whole bunch of things Apple may never provide.
* The iPod functionality on the iPhone isn’t exactly like a regular iPod. It may just be a matter of time, but GTKpod doesn’t work with it yet and in general you can’t just drop items into the iPhone like you can with a nano.
* No DUN tethering. The Bluetooth in general is fairly limited. Another place the Treo is far superior.
NOTE: You may see a pattern starting to form here. Many of the problems are the result of the device being an extremely closed platform at this point. How much this will change remains to be seen.
* While I have gotten more used to the keyboard after a bit of use, it’s only a “non-issue” when typing URL’s, search strings and short SMS messages. I can’t see ever being able to do long emails or even take notes at a conference with the proficiency that a real keyboard like a Treo or Blackberry allows.
* They designed this thing so that 99% of all existing headphones won’t fit into the jack because of….????

As you can see, the cons are many. There are also a lot of smaller items that I left off the list as you have to assume that Apple will address them (no MMS, no games, no video, no custom ringtones, etc). The question becomes, will I keep the iPhone or return it in the 14 day window that I have. That I’m not sure of yet. News that the Linux-based Treo has been delayed yet again makes it tempting, but if some of the major concerns I have aren’t addressed soon I may very well ditch it. One nice thing is that the bar has been raised. I expect a number of really interesting devices to hit the market in 6-9 months. Competition is good.

–jeremy

Filed under Apple, Treo

May break down and get an iPhone

June 29, 2007 1 Comment

Against my better judgment and despite knowing better, I think I’m going to head over and see if I can get my hands on an iPhone. Will someone please come out with a decent Linux smartphone? I’d even settle for a Palm Treo that doesn’t have the form factor of a brick :) If I do get a hold of an iPhone, I’ll be sure to twitter the occasion. Seems apropos.

UPDATE: I am now the proud owner of an 8GB iPhone. The first impressions (I’ve not even opened it yet) are not very good. The store was woefully under prepared for one of the most hyped events ever. The provisioning system, OPUS, crashed almost immediately and the credit card system went down as well. My inquiry into a couple “iPhone only” rules were answered with “well, that’s how Apple wanted it”. When I pointed out that I was AT&T’s customer for the service, which is what my questions were about, that didn’t seem to matter. On to activation, I only have one non-Linux system and it is indeed a Mac. I just installed iTunes, only to find out that since I am running 10.3.9 the iPhone functionality doesn’t even work. He’s hoping iTunes runs in CrossOver. It still seems like an odd requirement to me to activate a mobile phone. I’ll post another update when (if?) I’m able to activate this thing.

–jeremy

Filed under Apple

Ubuntu on Two New Inspirons

June 29, 2007 1 Comment

In a move that would seem to back up initial indications that the Ubuntu Dell offerings were selling well, Dell has officially announced that it is adding two additional models to its Linux lineup:

From a Ubuntu perspective, we’re now offering Ubuntu 7.04 to customers in the United States on the Inspiron 1420N notebook and the Inspiron 530N desktop. Both are available for order now at http://www.dell.com/open. Since these are new systems, it usually takes us a bit of time to ramp production. Because of that, we expect to ship these new systems by the middle of next month.

Additionally, Dell has confirmed that it plans to extend the Ubuntu roll-out to countries outside the United States (currently the number one request on IdeaStorm). Dell also indicated that they are considering bringing Linux to their small business customers. Great to see that the Ubuntu offering is being well received. This move could very well be paving the way to both additional large scale OEM Linux plans and someday even a simple “Linux on any model” type roll-out by someone. Kudos Dell.

–jeremy

Filed under Dell, Linux, Open Source, Ubuntu

Red Hat CEO Says He Talked Patents with Microsoft II

June 29, 2007 3 Comments

A quick follow up on this post based on some questions/comments that I got via email. First, no – I absolutely don’t think Red Hat is currently in discussion with Microsoft to sign a Novell-style patent deal. Note the bolding. They may very well be in some kind of discussion, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. If Microsoft privately went to Red Hat with potential patent infringements, even silly unspecified ones, then Red Hat would be obligated to address the issue. That would require discussion. It’s very tough to be the CEO of a public company these days. “No comment” is very often the only answer you can give without the MSM twisting your words in all kinds of directions. Also note that Red Hat may be in talks about specific and valid patents or talks about something completely non-patent related. Who knows – speculation on this is mostly useless. I do remain confident though, that a Novell-esque deal will not come out of this. Don’t forget that RHT is fundamentally an Open Source company. It’s in their DNA and it’s reflected in their employees and culture. Novell had one or two key people leave after they signed the deal. Red Hat would have an exodus. The C-level execs at Red Hat know this. They get Open Source at a very fundamental level themselves, in fact. The following is the last official statement I could find from Red Hat on this topic. In the end, I have no reason to believe that sentiment has changed.

“Red Hat has only recently been able to see some of the terms of the original Microsoft/Novell deal, due to the belated and redacted SEC filings that were made. Based on what we have seen, the deal is not interesting to us. Red Hat continues to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.”

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, MSFT, Novell, Open Source, Red Hat

Red Hat CEO Says He Talked Patents with Microsoft

June 29, 2007 1 Comment

It comes as absolutely no surprise that Microsoft approached Red Hat before any other Linux vendor (including Novell) about the patent agreement. It also comes as no surprise that a discussion took place and that no agreement was reached. Was is a bit of a surprise to me is:

The developer of Linux software, has yet to sign such a deal which could see Novell, its biggest rival, woo customers away from Red Hat and work on product development and sales with the world’s No.1 software maker.

In an interview with Reuters, Szulik declined to say whether his company is now in negotiations with Microsoft over signing such a patent agreement.

“I can’t answer the question,” he said.

When recently asked a similar question, Mark Shuttleworth gave an emphatic No:

For the record, let me state my position, and I think this is also roughly the position of Canonical and the Ubuntu Community Council though I haven’t caucused with the CC on this specifically.

We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.

Allegations of “infringement of unspecified patents” carry no weight whatsoever. We don’t think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together. A promise by Microsoft not to sue for infringement of unspecified patents has no value at all and is not worth paying for. It does not protect users from the real risk of a patent suit from a pure-IP-holder (Microsoft itself is regularly found to violate such patents and regularly settles such suits). People who pay protection money for that promise are likely living in a false sense of security.

Red Hat had also given a more deliberate “No” in the recent past, so the change of attitude to the “no comment” variety is a bit worrying. Here’s hoping that it’s just due to corporate disclosure rules (or something else innocuous) and not an actual change of opinion. Red Hat signing an “infringement of unspecified patents” type deal would be very bad IMHO.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Open Source, Red Hat

Ari Jaaksi on Nokia and Open Source and the N770

June 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Stephe points to a white paper on Ari’s blog that details the early learnings at Nokia around open source and product delivery. This learning predominately focuses on the Nokia N770 and maemo project. The N770 is an “Internet Tablet” and is the predecessor to the N800, which I’m the proud owner of. If you’re unfamiliar with the N800, you can get an LQ branded look here.

The 10 page white paper is full of useful information and insight and is a worthwhile read in its entirety. Here are a few highlights.

On cost savings:

The biggest cost savings came from the utilization of already available components. We utilized several free components and subsystems as such, with no modifications.

We also improved several components to better meet our requirements. Such improvement is cheaper than creating the needed functionality from scratch.

Some 2/3 of the code of the Nokia 770 is licensed under an open source license. These components made it possible for us to build the software cheaper than we could have done using closed and proprietary technologies.

On code quality:
If we compare the code from open source to the code developed by us, our conclusion is that open source is of better quality. We have more bugs and problems in the Nokia developed code. This is only natural because the majority of the Nokia code is build from scratch and is thus very young. Open source code, on the other hand, has mostly been used by others already. They have fixed the most severe errors already before we started to use the code.

On engineering flexibility:
Open source is flexible when we needed to fix a problem or change functionality. We often requested bug fixes or modifications to the commercial closed components on our platform. If the vendors didn’t have the capacity or will to fix the problem on time, we had few options. We could not fix problems ourselves because the companies using closed source didn’t want us to access their source code. With open source components, though, we fixed bugs yourself, hired somebody else to fix them, or worked with the communities for the modifications. We thus had many options available, and in most cases we managed to fix the problems at hand. The free access to the code and to the developers improved the quality of open source originated components within the final product.

On confidentiality and the open source community:
We worked intensively with communities already before we announced the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. Open source approach requires openness and information sharing during development. A high publicity launch, on the other hand, is the way to introduce consumer products to the public and you do not want to reveal the products before the launch date. There is thus a potential conflict between the open source openness and product launch secrecy.

The credentials, work, and history of open source hackers are open for everybody to see. The hackers typically want to work with interesting things also in the future. Therefore, they don’t want to become famous for jeopardizing somebody else’s project and misusing their trust. Thus, openness and open source can actually be much stronger bond than any NDA or monetary sanction one can put on an individual or a company.

Based on our experiences, we can combine open communication and product confidentiality. We had no information leakage prior to the commercial product announcements, although we had had tens of developers working on the software with us. For some of the developers, we had told very detailed information about the forthcoming product. Developing products in open source and yet maintain the confidentiality of the product plans and roadmaps was possible for us.

and a summary:
Our experiences demonstrate that open source technologies and development model suit very well for such devices. We created the product in shorter time and with lesser resources that we have managed to develop other products utilizing proprietary software. In essence, open source offers time and cost savings in a form of readily available components and subsystems, available developers, and effective development model.

It was clear at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit that Linux in the mobile space is going to be huge. Even though Nokia has a serious investment in Symbian, they are exploring what the future holds for mobile Linux. That future looks very bright.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Nokia, Open Source

Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma says iPhone will fail

June 28, 2007 Leave a comment

The iPhone has to be one of the most hyped devices I’ve seen in a long time. Many of the reviews so far seem to indicate that the device actually lives up to the hype, which is no small feat. It’s interesting to see that Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma predicts that the iPhone should fail:

Who or what do you think will disrupt Google (GOOG) or Apple (AAPL)?

It’s hard for me to see what will disrupt Google. I think they’ve got a pretty good run ahead of them. Chapters five and six of The Innovator’s Solution describe how at the beginning phases of the industry, in order to play that game successfully you really need to have a proprietary, optimized, end-to-end architecture to your product.

Apple sure has that.

That’s why they’ve been successful. But just watch the [competitors’] advertisements that you hear for the ability to download music onto your mobile phone. Music on the mobile phone has to be downloaded in an open architecture way from Yahoo! Music or someplace else [other than iTunes]. Which means it’s clunkier, not as good. Mobile phones don’t have as much storage capacity, nor are their interfaces as intuitive [as iPods]. But for some folks, they’re good enough, and the trajectories [of people using their phone as a medium for listening to music] just keep getting better and better.

So music on the mobile phone is going to disrupt the iPod? But Apple’s just about to launch the iPhone.
The iPhone is a sustaining technology relative to Nokia. In other words, Apple is leaping ahead on the sustaining curve [by building a better phone]. But the prediction of the theory would be that Apple won’t succeed with the iPhone. They’ve launched an innovation that the existing players in the industry are heavily motivated to beat: It’s not [truly] disruptive. History speaks pretty loudly on that, that the probability of success is going to be limited.

I’ll be heading over to the Apple store at about 6PM tomorrow to see if I can get my hands on ones of these. If I do, I’ll be sure to post a review here with my thoughts.

–jeremy

Filed under Apple, Google

Top 500 Supercomputer OS Share

June 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Top500 has released its latest Supercomputer list and Linux now represents over 75% of the top 500. That means 389 (or 77.80%) of the fastest (reported) supercomputers in the world run some Linux variant. That’s up from 65.20% in November of 2006. Windows made what I believe is its first appearance on the list, but according to this article that machine has been “rebooted as a Linux cluster”.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →