When the Messenger Wants to Be More Important Than the Message

There is a tremendous amount of support for the GPL throughout the open source community, myself included. The way in which the GPL is evangelized and often advocated, however, can be quite irritating. At least I'm looking for objective commentary and dialog on the GPL, based on the facts. Mention of 2 or 3 software packages moving to GPL 3 isn't a rousing statement of approval from the development community. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Aside from Samba, a lot of folks have never heard of or used the packages which have received press on their move to GPL 3. When Gnome or KDE, or OpenOffice take up the GPL 3, I'll be impressed. GPL 3 moved in a direction a lot of folks wished it hadn't.

I certainly much prefer the legal and moral position of GPL 2. GPL 3 moved from something I believed was in everyone's best interest (GPL 2) to something that was (IMO) created in the Free Software Foundation's best interests. But for some reason, a number of folks aren't willing to allow for the option of supporting the GPL (in some version), and not supporting Richard Stallman's (and by connection, the FSF) agenda. They insist that anyone who speaks out against the quasi-religious approach of the FSF doesn't support the ideals of open source software. They ridicule any statement that doesn't support that agenda, and pretend they hold the moral and intellectual high ground. That is a twisted sort of propaganda, and I stand against it.

New to Linux? My Recommendations...

First, Linux will do about everything, if one doesn't need specific applications, like the latest version of Photoshop. For the basics, it's perfectly capable of holding it's own with any OS.

Second, when someone begins using Linux, I recommend a few things:

[1] Dual boot. Keep the old stuff about while you learn Linux. Never run the system as root. Get used to Linux slowly, on your own time, and don't try to impress your friends...you will break things, and be embarrassed and frustrated.

[2] Just use what comes with. Install the security patches the OS offers in the auto update application. Don't start upgrading, tweaking, and installing stuff right away. Don't even attempt to compile software from source. You'll probably get yourself into trouble. Don't try to impress your friends; you'll get frustrated.

[3] Don't try to get 3D acceleration and fancy desktop transition effects working. They don't make Linux one bit more productive, and they will get a noob into trouble a fair amount of the time. Don't try to impress your friends.

[4] Read, read, read. Browse Linux forums, wikis, books, help files, man pages, etc. and read all you can. *nix systems are significantly different from Windows. Leave your Windows expectations for when you're running Windows.

[5] Learn about the *nix file system and security. Knowing where things go, what resides where, and what root/normal users can do is a huge step towards mastering Linux.

[6] Ask questions after you've researched and done some work on your own. First, you'll likely get more and better answers when people see you're willing to put in the time necessary to learn. Second, you'll have a much higher probability of understanding their answers and being able to use them.

[7] Always back up your data/configuration before you try anything new. If you've done (5) you'll know what to back up.

[8] Learn how to use a shell and console-based configuration utilities, including changing config files with a text editor. If you know how to use console-based utilities when things go wrong, you'll very often be able to fix whatever broke.

[9] Understand you'll never know everything, but you will get to where you know enough, if you persist. Enjoy the freedom and flexibility of Linux. Recognize that it moves very fast, often too fast for stability, and often holding back will help keep your system running. Don't get religious about any OS, it will just get in your way.

[10] Tweak, break, and learn more. The last step. Do all the stuff I cautioned you not to do above, except running the system as root, if you want. You'll get to where you've got the right mix of tools and experience, and you'll be able to fix what you break. This is the good part. :)

The Ideology of Computing

It's not hard to find an opinion these days about the zen of open source. The Free Software Foundation (FSF), led by Richard Stallman, pretty much has the stance that if it isn't released with one of their licenses, it's evil. Other entities, mostly companies like Microsoft, feel like they have the right to create, market, sell, and protect software as intellectual property. IMO, both perspectives have merit, if you strip away the self-serving interest of both camps, and look at things solely from the computer user's perspective.

Computing isn't a religion, a movement, or a cult of personality, like Richard Stallman would have it. He's lost perspective, and it's hard to separate the merit of his message from his overwhelming ego, but let's give it a go.

Software should be free, open, and accessible to all. Anyone should be able to take software source code, modify it, enhance it, and return the benefits to its community of users.

That's the meat and potatoes of the FSF message, stripped of the ego-baggage and legalese. It is, frankly, a beautiful concept, or ideology. The problem is, it's not particularly practical as the only license model for software. Why? Because not everyone wants to use free software. Free doesn't cost anything, so no one is responsible for making sure it works for you. That's a risky proposition for a business. Sure there are companies like Red Hat and Novell, who would love to sell you Linux with support, but there's a mix of software out there in the real world, and no business is an island. Microsoft Office is the de-facto standard office suite. There are hundreds of thousands of man hours invested in training and use of Office. What platform runs Office best? It's not Linux, whether one likes it or not.

In the end, ideology doesn't mean much if it gets in the way of using your computer. I say find the software that does what you need it to do, and use it. Buy it if you have to, use free if you can, but just do what works best.

Novell & Microsoft

Microsoft's traditional "embrace and absorb" strategy was always coming to Linux. It was just a matter of time. They wait until a competitive product/company achieves a certain viability (not sure what they use to determine that, but it doesn't really matter), and then they embrace it in terms of compatibility, followed by acquisitions and Microsoft products that leverage that compatibility in their favor. People like to hate Microsoft for a million reasons, some factually sound, and some completely bullshit, but Microsoft's strategy for dealing with competition has always been the same, and it works exceptionally well for them. They didn't achieve "monopoly" status by sucking at the game.

Novell has joined the dance. They think they can beat Redmond at their own game. I'm gonna see if they can. History says they have a tough task, as MS is really good at this. But if we always made our future decisions based on the past, nothing would ever change. I applaud Novell for stepping up. Almost everyone else has had their head in the sand, pretending there were only two choices, closed source or open source. The real world was always going to insist they coexist, on the same OS, network, or environment. Open Source only is a great ideology, but it won't fly. Closed Source only is commercially attractive to businesses, but it won't fly either...Linux has changed that forever. Reality forces upon us the only choice that does fly...coexistence. This is the real test of Open Source; not could it stand independent and aloof and succeed in the way it wanted to?...it never could. But can it coexist ideologically and legally with Closed Source?

The way the test is evolving came as a complete surprise to most of us, me included. But that the true test of Open Source is upon us...didn't surprise me one bit.

Why do I use a Mac?

This showed up in my RSS reader this morning via Digg:
Why are Macs Becoming More Popular?

It got me to thinking...why do I use a Mac?

Well, for starters, I don't use only Macs, and I'm not hung up on the "open source" religion. I use what I like, and if it's Open Source, that's good, but not essential. The operating systems I use are Linux (Gentoo, SUSE 10.1, SLED), Windows XP SP-2, and OS X 10.4.8. There was a time those items would fall neatly into hardware categories: OS X on a Macintosh computer, the rest on a PC. These days, with virtualization, it's not so clear.

I used VMware Workstation in Linux to create and run a virtual machine for Windows XP for my basic "work" environment for the last couple of years. Today I use Parallels for the same thing. Not much difference...the host OS for my work environment isn't Windows. Windows is Windows...VMware was running on a PC/Linux machine, and Parallels runs on a Macintosh/OS X machine. The Windows software I use is the same, Microsoft Office (Access & Excel mostly), OneNote, Notetab Pro, gVim, SnagIt, TimeSlice, and Microsoft SQL Server. There's some difference there, but not what it used to be...Intel and Intel, UNIX and Linux.

The biggest difference is outside the VM of course. In Linux, I use Microsoft Office (CrossOver Office) or OpenOffice, Evolution, Gaim, X-Chat (or IRSSI), Firefox, Skype, VLC, Amarok (or Audacious), Liferea, gVim (or VIM in a console). On OS X, I use Microsoft Office or Open Office, Apple Mail, Address Book, iCal, Adium (based on the Gaim engine), Snak, Safari (and Camino...like a tweaked Mac-centric Firefox), Skype, VLC, iTunes, NetNewsWire, BBEdit (or VIM in a Terminal).

But why do I use a Mac? I think the real answer is two fold:

1) Macs now use Intel CPUs (I can run Windows...natively or virtualized, faster than I can on my Intel hardware since the Mac is faster than my old PCs)
2) OS X (UNIX with the slickest GUI ever, access to X11, and via Fink, damn near anything else that will run on UNIX...and hardware that just works, with a minimum of fuss)

So having Macintosh hardware is almost like having one's cake and eating it too... ;) And who's gonna have Macintosh hardware and not run OS X too? Not me.

Does that mean I don't use/love Linux anymore? Of course not...I spend time on my Linux machines every day. I love to tinker, and Linux lets/makes me do that...OS X doesn't let me play like Linux does. Like everyone else, I boot to Windows to play most games. Does that make me OS agnostic? Perhaps...it feels like having three girlfriends sometimes...each wants/needs my attention/time, and I want to spend time with each, but end the end, one is gonna be "my everyday, where my email lives" environment. Today it's OS X...tomorrow...who knows?