My Favorite Version of Windows Is…

Windows 98!

I recently bought an old PC at a yard sale, an old Gateway 2000 (today just called Gateway) “Family PC” with about 2 GB of hard drive memory, and 64 MB of RAM… and that’s after the original owner gave the computer a memory upgrade.  On the 2 GB harddrive, comes a version of Windows 98 Second Edition, with the professional edition of Office 2000.

It really brings me back to some of my early days with computers, back when I used the Meade Starfinder v1 software, Microsoft Flight Simulator 95 and Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator II.  Windows 98, for me, was like a workhorse.  Sure, by today’s standards, it wasn’t pretty, but back then, no operating system really looked great.  It never gave me any trouble, and it also was quick to respond.  It also never gave me the “Blue Screen of Death.”  In my mind, it was the best system that Microsoft produced.  Sure, XP and Vista are not bad, but Windows 98 was a reliable and quick system that got the job done.  Windows 2000 was hopelessly insecure and hardly an update, Windows XP was insecure and slow, and Vista is a little more secure, an update, but expensive and slow.  Welcome back Windows 98!

Mozilla Prism in Ubuntu!

After seeing a screenshot on the desktop tour in the Ubuntu web site, I noticed something interesting…

A screenshot showed some icons for Google Apps in the Add/Remove application.  I thought to myself, “How can this be?”

After upgrading to Hardy Heron, I wanted to find out, so I headed to the Add/Remove application under “Applications” > “Add/Remove” and searched for “google.”  Several applications came up.  A Gmail checker, some other random applications, and then… Jackpot!

Those who have followed my blog already know my liking of web-based applications.   From just about all the Google services to ThinkFree Office, I have been using many applications.  This has allowed me to test many systems on my laptop, without having to worry about unsaved documents or pictures being lost forever.

What I found, were several applicaitons for Gmail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, and several other services.  They all were said to run on an application called “Prism.”  After doing a little research, I found that Prism is built by Mozilla, and is basically a simpler browser that does not have navigation menus, so that it is better suited for running web applications.  Those applications, such as Gmail, Google Docs, etc., all fall in the web application category.  See the screenshot below for a better picture:

As you can see, Gmail is running not on the desktop, but inside a slimmed-down browser for use with web applications.   To launch Gmail, I simply went to my “Internet” menu under the “Applications” menu, and selected “Google Mail (Gmail).”  What you see in the screenshot above is what happened next.  Note the small icon in the lower-right corner of the brower window.  It includes a small menu to edit the preferences of Prism or to print the current page.

You can also make custom applications with Prism, and then create desktop icons.  For example, I could create a Prism application for WordPress or Blogger.  You can find all of the above applications in the “Add/Remove” application, and once you install any of the Prism applications, the standalone “Prism” application is installed as well, giving you the opportunity to create your own Prism applications.

Hardy Heron is ON!

Previous attempts to install Ubuntu 8.04 failed on my computer.  So, what have I done?

For one, I installed Ubuntu 7.10, the previous version.  Then, without applying any updates, quickly upgraded to Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron.  The entire upgrade took a little over two hours, and I was in my new system:

Oh yeah! (The theme I’m using is the Human-Clearlooks theme… very cool!)

Hardy Upgrade Worked!

I have upgraded my family computer to Ubuntu Hardy Heron, and it worked flawlessly! All I had to do was uninstall the bittorent client, and then switch out the firefox icon in the top bar with the new Firefox 3 icon… and that, was it.

The download took about 4 hrs. yesterday, so the downloads are still a little slow.

Linux vs GNU/Linux: It’s Baaack…

Well, it looks that my original post on the Linux vs GNU/Linux issue has made a ghostly return. This time, it has shown up on Free Software Daily. The description of the article is also a little amusing:

“This guy thinks that the “GNU” part of the term GNU/Linux is derived from the GNU GPL being the license used for the software. Yes he’s confused. I’m posting it here so FSDaily people can go and comment.”

Wow! That’s pretty funny stuff. I’ve got people willing to “correct” me because I am “confused.”

Strangely enough, the article (or link, rather) that is found on FSDaily, does not link directly to my post, but to a comment in my post from a person who goes by the name “Dave.” Dave, you see, fought hard against my position, and posted several times, in both Part I and II. He presented the pro-GNU/Linux side of the debate very well.

I am going to assume that the person on FSDaily who has posted this is either “Dave” himself or someone who really agrees with him. Anyways, from this person’s point of view, I am confused about the fact that the GNU in GNU/Linux is derived from the GNU GPL. See below for an interesting piece from the “Evaluation” page.

According to this page which describes the requirements for GNU Project inclusion:

“A GNU program should use the latest version of the license that the GNU Project recommends–not just any free software license. For most packages, this means using the GNU GPL.”

If you read the page, you will note that there are several different requirements of a GNU application. One, of which, is the use of the GPL. Without the GPL, which license would they use? I can’t think of any… The questionare also states (near bottom of page):

* Licensing:
   This is crucial.  Both the software itself *and all dependencies*
   (third-party libraries, etc.) must be free software in order to be
   included in GNU.  Documentation should be under the GFDL.

This is interesting… So much for being “confused.”

It’s amazing what can happen if one takes a certain view. In my case, I took a position that was not as friendly to the view of the Free Software Foundation. They (the GNU/Linux supporters) couldn’t change my view. So, what’s an activist to do? Why, call the protesters! They need backup!

A bit of a dramatization, but the call for backup is clearly there, just read the description of my post on FSDaily…

What I respect is someone, who, when I give my opinion, and they disagree, replies in either a kind comment, or a respectful post on their own blog. Read this post, for a good example. I even agreed with Michael on many of the points he gives. I still do not call Linux “GNU/Linux,” but he had some very good points, and gave them kindly. What I have seen in the comments are people who are completely unwilling to try and look through the eyes of someone else’s view, and then are willing, and determined, to change my somehow confused thinking. Sure, I could delete the comments, but what good does that do? They couldn’t just disagree and leave. No, they have to change my view, so that I will effectively be “silenced” on the issue, removing any present opposition to the pro-GNU/Linux side of the debate.

Simply amazing, not to mention annoying.

UPDATE: If you are just now reading this, read the first two posts, here for Part I, and here for Part II.

Updated: Ubuntu Mobile Devices on Their Way?

Ars Technia has an article about Nokia working on bringing QT support to their internet tablets, as well as bringing Ubuntu Mobile to some of it’s devices.

Very cool…

Well… Hardy Didn’t Exactly Work

iTWire has an article about how there are quite a few signifigant bugs in the new release of Ubuntu, 8.04. Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have moved so smoothly with my installation either. The problem lies in the fact that I can’t even get the installation CD to run.

I have tried the Ubuntu 8.04 LiveCD, Alternate (text mode) installation CD, and I know the Kubuntu CDs don’t work. That’s three confirmed down that do not work on my laptop. My laptop is about 2 years old now, so it’s not an old laptop, and every Ubuntu release, CD and all, worked up until this point. Now, things just refuse to run. I tried the LiveCD on a family computer, and it worked just fine, so at least I know I burned the CD correctly. I could install Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon and upgrade, and hope things work. If things did not work, do I want to be stuck with a monkey for the next 2 years, until it’s time to replace my laptop? I could, but new features draw me in. I enjoy new features and seeing what they can do.

In my opinion, like the first LTS release, Dapper Drake back in June 2006, it would have been beneficial to hold off the new release for two months to fix bugs. After all, it’s and Long Term Support release, and is supposed to be stable. From what I am finding, things did not move as smoothly as I had thought. I am sure others will have great experiences installing and using Hardy Heron, and I just have a freak problem with my laptop hardware communicating with the software. As of now, I’ll be staying in Mandriva 2008.

Today’s the Big Day!

Ubuntu 8.04 is due to be released today!

It’s not officially out at this time, but it will be soon! Great job and congratulations to the Ubuntu community and Canonical for making this release awesome!

Today is certainly a big day, not only for Ubuntu, but for Linux as well. Ubuntu 8.04 is going to further Linux into the mainstream, and help bring new advancements to the Linux desktop.

UPDATE:  Ubuntu 8.04 is OUT!!!

Linux vs. GNU/Linux: The Aftermath

Today, I wrote a post about why I call Linux “Linux” and not “GNU/Linux.” That post attracted quite a number of views, and a good number of comments as well.

What is amazing about this subject is that so many people can be brought to action over it. From the comments, some agreed with my post, saying that Linux was easier to explain than GNU/Linux, while others disagreed with saying GNU/Linux is called such since Linux is just a kernel, and GNU is the system.

I still stick by my opinion that I will call Linux “Linux.”

I have made this decision since I refer to the entire system as “Linux,” the kernel as the “Linux kernel,” and I do not see a reason large enough to consider calling Linux “GNU/Linux.” What is evident from just the comments is that it is a personal thing.

I call it Linux, and others call it GNU/Linux. Potato, tater. Same thing.

I do not really mind what people call it, because it’s not a big deal. From my point of view, there isn’t a “GNU” system, or at least not the traditional sense by which most people would think. The GNU system, as the FSF calls it, is really no more than applications that have been built free software supporters who used the GPL, and not direct members of the FSF (but is approved by the FSF), and thus is not a system on it’s own, or with the Linux system. The tools have been built for Linux, but that still does not constitute a GNU surname.

What does remain true is that the Free Software Foundation has done much good for software. Software freedom, as I have learned over the past 3 years that I have used Linux, is certainly a good thing. The GNU GPL is one of the best software licenses, in my opinion, and I would use it if I were to write a program. What I do not like, however, is the activist attitude that the Free Software Foundation takes in working against software patents and digital rights management.

Here’s a story to go along with my argument about activism:

The “Bad Vista” campaign (which I thought would be used to promote Linux, or some other system) which I had joined, turned into an activist campaign to bash Vista. What happened on release day? Bad Vista supporters (3 of the supporters, at least) dressed up in hazmat suits, and gave CDs with free software on them to people about to enter the Vista party. They eventually got roped off, just like your average protesters. Those who participated had a good fight on their hands and were, in my opinion, fighting for a good cause. Good intentions aside, I was a little embarrassed. It was a rather unprofessional attempt to change people’s attitudes toward a competing software, and only served to make free software and Linux advocates look like radicals with nothing to do but protest big business. They did try to do something good, yet what they did might have turn off many potential users walking around on the streets.

It’s reasons like the one I gave above as to why I do not call Linux “GNU/Linux.” It’s a personal choice, and if you as a reader want to call it “GNU/Linux,” that’s fine. Some distributions, even Kubuntu, call themselves GNU/Linux, and I will refer to them as such. However, when talking about Ubuntu, or just Linux in general, I will use “Linux.”

A trend that I am noticing is that programmers or long-time (since 90′s or early 2000) hard-core users call Linux “GNU/Linux.” The newer users that are beginning to use Linux call it “Linux.” It’s not wrong, or the new users being uneducated. It’s users taking a simpler view of a once complex system. It’s becoming more attractive to more and more users every day, and as any other product, it becomes ever more simple to use and understand. No longer is it a geek-only system, and when new users refer to Linux, they refer to the full system. The Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate is not going to go away, especially with the new generation of Linux users entering the scene, who are average users, different in thinking from the older, Free Software Foundation driven individuals. This new generation will undoubtedly call Linux, just “Linux,” or maybe even not that much, and just refer to their distribution as the Linux they use, as we are seeing today with Ubuntu.

Update: In case you are itching to go back, click here for Part I.

Update 2: Here is my final review of the topic here.

For Me, It’s Linux, Not GNU/Linux

I do not call Linux “GNU/Linux.” I am not only referring to the kernel, but the entire system, programs and all. Why? Many other people call it “GNU/Linux.” Here’s why I call Linux just Linux.

First, for a little background:

The “GNU/Linux” movement began when the Free Software Foundation (FSF) began calling for Linux distributions to call themselves GNU/Linux, because the applications on top of Linux (just the kernel to the FSF) are mainly based on the GNU license. They just wanted the credit.

Here’s why I call Linux, Linux and not GNU/Linux

1. The FSF is a radical, activist organization. They created one of the best open source licenses, but take a moment to listen to Richard Stallman, the head of the FSF. Once you do, it becomes clear that the organization has radical political and software ambitions. Patents, and Microsoft, are “evil” in their minds, and so are other large companies such as Coca-Cola. I personally do not think Microsoft is “evil” (reflecting the views of many Ubuntu supporters), simply because the most vocal supporters of anti-Linux talk is found in the upper-management of the company.

2. The license should not determine the name of the software. Imagine for a moment, if most Linux applications were released under the MIT license. Would we be calling it MIT/Linux? In my mind, the license does not make the program. Afterall, do you call all the applications “GNU-enternameofapphere?” When referring to Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac OS, you do not call them EULA/Windows, or BSD/MacOS (or whatever license Apple falls under).

3. Credit goes to the actual programmers, not the GNU writers. Sure, the GPL is, in my opinion, the best open source license. When the FSF asks for credit, they themselves did not write the code to the thousands of applications that use the license, but rather, simply the license. Many programmers choose the GPL for the freedom that it provides. Things were (and are) built on Linux, not on GNU, as there is no system called GNU. They did have a kernel going, called Hurd, but it never really went anywhere.

4. It’s too hard to explain GNU/Linux to people, especially to those who are new or unaware of Linux. Even though I typically start by introducing them to Ubuntu, they eventually ask about what Ubuntu is based on. I tell them “Linux.” I can’t imagine explaining to someone what GNU/Linux means on top of Linux. Really, going through Linux is a kernel, GNU is all of the applications, GNU stands for… etc. You can see that it really become to far complex to explain to people the whole GNU/Linux thing. For another look at it, Microsoft does not call Windows Win32/Windows. It’s just too dificult to explain the technicalities of the system if it has a complicated name.

Personally, I do not believe that GNU is Linux, and that’s why I do not call it GNU/Linux. I do think it is the most popular license, but as I wrote above, I don’t think it makes the system. Software freedom is a large part of Linux and the Linux universe, but to make one of the open source licenses the focus of a growing system seems pointless, and to be honest, a little selfish. Some distributions have chosen to use the GNU/Linux sub-name. Several are full GNU application licensed systems, and others want to make a tribute to the FSF. If they decide to do so, then I will call them GNU/Linux. When placing this issue into reality, it really is not a large issue compared to other issues. The GNU/Linux only aids in dividing the community, and adding to the infighting. I believe this simple fact: keep above it the infighting and radicalism, and you will succeed. Just look at Ubuntu!

For the reasons I listed above, I will, as I have in the past, call Ubuntu and other Linux distributions who choose to do so, Linux.

Update: See my follow-up post here.

Update 2:  See my final review of the topic here.