An $800 Apple laptop could really cost Microsoft

The blogospheric din is rising about Apple’s supposed $800 laptop, which if it ever happens (and I have my doubts) will really hit hard on the Windows-based laptop market.

With Linux starting to eat away at the very low end of the laptop market on the ASUS EeePC and other netbooks, Apple dominating on the high-end (where it’s share is considerable), the mushy middle is where most of the action is.

Having an $800 Macintosh laptop hits the bulk of the market and would steer plenty of people away from Windows and toward OS X. And like the iPod and iPhone’s tendency to get their users to think about going all-Apple with an expensive desktop or laptop machine, a relatively inexpensive laptop is a hell of a game-changer.

Should this actually happen, Apple will have what looks like the right product at the right price — and at the exactly right time.

Let’s see: Windows Vista not doing so well, and certainly not driving PC sales. Economy in the tank. The holiday season upon us.

If anything, it’s a good time to buy some Apple stock.

Is the future of open source on the Mac?

Matt Asay thinks (and has thought for some time) that the Macintosh is the best place to do open-source development. And he points out that he’s not alone in this opinion. (And here’s another post along the same lines.)

I happen to have a Mac — a 5-year-old iBook G4 running OS X 10.3.9 that I just recently gutted to replace a dying hard drive — and I’ve been thinking more and more about running Unix apps on it.

I’ve been reading an O’Reilly book on the subject, and here are two places that seem essential for bringing free, open-source apps to the Mac:

• The MacPorts Project
• The Fink Project

If anything, the relative uniformity of hardware in the Macintosh world, and the tight integration between OS X and the machines on which it runs, makes a lot of the Linux/BSD problems we have in terms of hardware compatibility go away.

What I can’t get with, though, is the high cost of Mac hardware and software (and yes, you are paying for both when you buy an Apple machine).

Still, this does bear thinking about. And so I will.

Why this could work for my company: While there are a great many image-editing programs in the free, open-source software world, the work we do here, fortunately or not, depends on features that only Adobe Photoshop offers. Yes, I’ve been learning to use Photoshop because for some of the things I need to do, there’s no alternative.

And then there’s Flash. I don’t like technologies for which the development tools are not free and open. But there’s Adobe again, with Flash development nestled in its Creative Suite.

And then there’s the print publishing system that our company only supports on Windows.

And I still want to run the free, open-source applications I’ve grown to depend on, including OpenOffice (which is coming to Mac natively in version 3 anyway), the lightweight image editors that I still can use (MtPaint!!) for some tasks, excellent text editors (Geany, the HTML-focused Bluefish) and even full desktop environments like GNOME and KDE.

If costs be damned, the Mac with Adobe CS, Windows and X11 with all the Unix apps I want just might be the ideal platform.

But I’m not throwing Linux over the side of the boat just yet. There’s the part about Apple’s hardware and software being closely guarded and … closed source. Then there’s the cost. More to start with, and more continually for operating-system upgrades and proprietary software upgrades as well.

In the corporate world, where money is supposed to flow like so much water, this Mac solution very well could work.

But in the real world, who can afford it?

For many, the solution remains free, open-source operating systems with greater stability, longer support, better hardware detection and configuration, full power management and better applications that can do all the things we need to get done.

And as Linux in general, and distributions like Ubuntu in specific, gain(s) traction, hardware makers just might start paying attention to drivers that make their equipment work seamlessly with Linux without making the user dive head-first into geekery. That would level the playing field considerably, but the issue of mixing proprietary software with FOSS still looms over the discussion. (And yes, I’m not mentioning WINE on purpose, though maybe I should.)

While Microsoft chases Yahoo, here’s how Apple can win

Google didn’t get where it is today by charging end users for software and charging them again and again for endless upgrades.

Back in the early Macintosh days (i.e. the mid- to late ’80s), Apple used the OS to sell hardware. Upgrades were free.

Today, Apple sells music at 99 cents a track, but what they’re really selling is iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and any other damn thing they can slap an “i” in front of. And while the music is available in 99-cent increments, the iTunes software — which runs in Windows and OS X — has always been free. iPods would’ve never gotten to be such a huge business in any other way.

It’s no different for the OS.

With that in mind, Apple wins on the desktop — and crushes Microsoft — in one way:

Make OS X free — or very cheap. And make it run on Windows-compatible PCs.

Everybody wants that new MacBook Air. They’ll still want it, even if they can also run OS X on a crappy PC. While not getting $129 for each OS X upgrade, Apple would get market share, still move a whole lot of hardaware. And they would gain that all-important “mindshare.”

Most people have heard of Linux, but few have seen it on the desktop, even though they “use” it every day when they browse the Web. Most have seen OS X, a significant portion have used it a bit, and a few are rabid fans.

And while I’d like to see OS X go free and open-source, I won’t hold my breath on that one. As I said above, I’d prefer — at a minimum — that Apple port OS X to Windows PCs, i.e. make a native version that installs from CD and runs on non-Apple hardware.

But even making new versions of OS X free for Apple hardware would prompt more users to upgrade the software. When running the latest and greatest gets slow, they’d be more inclined to buy new hardware, most likely from Apple.

Right now I’m still running my 2003-era iBook on OS X 10.3. I saved $129 twice by not upgrading to 10.4 and 10.5. I can’t even use Apple’s newest Safari browser because it doesn’t run on 10.3. Firefox does, so that’s what I use. As a result, Apple misses out on any browser-generated ad revenue. Would 10.5 run well on my laptop? Who knows? I sure don’t want to spend $129 to find out.

By flooding the market with a free or very cheap OS X, Apple could blunt the effects of Microsoft Windows, which customers pay for but don’t really feel they’re paying for because the cost is bundled into just about every PC sold.

Even if a free OS wouldn’t fly at Apple HQ, if the company still ported OS X to Windows-compatible PCs, they could — and should — compete with Microsoft when it comes to pre-installed operating systems on non-Apple hardware.

Imagine if you could order a PC from Dell with Windows, Linux or OS X … there would be real competition for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere from the home to the enterprise.

And since Apple’s hardware is so ultra-cool (and ultra-pricey), they’d probably sell even more of it if OS X had a much larger of the overall worldwide OS pie.

OpenBSD on the desktop: Why?

Why a desktop installation of OpenBSD?

It’s a legitimate question. According to Distrowatch, among the three main BSD projects (they don’t like to be called “distros”), FreeBSD is way out in front — and is the base for PC-BSD and DesktopBSD — followed by OpenBSD and NetBSD.

And even though there are two desktop-focused versions of FreeBSD, and it’s possible to turn all three of the major BSD projects into a desktop-worthy system, the question remains: Why not just stick with Linux, with its usually superior hardware detection, vastly larger community of users (who in theory and often in practice can provide all the help you need to get a system up and running) and much larger choice of distributions?

For one thing, Linux isn’t alone on the desktop, nor should it be. Apple has a hugely popular desktop operating system based in part on code from BSD. And another operating system derived from Unix — OpenSolaris — is also inching onto the desktop with its Indiana project.

I think the competition is enormously healthy for free, open-source software, and I support that competition and choice wholeheartedly.

And using OpenBSD to build up a desktop system is just plain fun. It’s more of a challenge, and all the configuration that I’ve done and am doing just teaches me more about what makes operating systems tick, even in my technologically feeble state.

I’m no coder. I’ve never programmed anything. I just mess around with hardware and software and then write about it.

I’m pretty much compelled to do all the things I’ve done over the past year and a half. It hasn’t gotten boring.

And while I’m not going to move away from Linux, if the hardware and software cooperate — as they have on this test machine — I see no reason not to spend some considerable time running OpenBSD and seeing what I can do with it.

Again, my thanks go to all the people behind OpenBSD as well as the bloggers whose experience has paved the way for me to consider running the operating system and then to install and begin configuring it.

Going forward, I hope all of the major BSD projects — FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD — will continue to grow, keeping their documentation of the same ultra-high quality and enabling users to get more and more hardware working to the point where both server and desktop users have a greater number of choices than ever with which to get things done.

Linus says OS X Leopard is ‘utter crap’

Linus Torvalds, father of the open-source Linux operating system, says that in some ways Apple’s OS X is “actually worse than Windows. He saved the phrase “utter crap” for OS X’s filesystem. He says:

“An operating system should be completely invisible,” he said. “To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment … to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware.”

I’m no Linus, but that seems a bit harsh. Even so, there’s a new OS X filesystem on the horizon, I’ve heard.

Back in the Linux realm, Torvalds says he admires the One Laptop Per Child initiative as well as the low-cost -power and -size ASUS eee-PC laptop.

Why I barely use Internet Explorer 7, even though I was a big fan of IE6

Let’s get to it: I have one Web site that I work on infrequently that requires Internet Explorer, but since I barely have to do anything on it, I am free to use IE, or not.

And I waited at least a year to “upgrade” my IE6 to IE7 on the XP box at work. Yeah, it’s an upgrade because now IE has tabbed browsing — a feature Firefox has had for years, and which IE probably would’ve never added had FF not had it first.

I like IE6 because it was a fast program — it opened fast and did the rest of its thing fast. And I could use it as an FTP client.

Now that I have IE7, sure there is tabbed browsing, and it looks a little better, but it’s way slower than Firefox, and I pretty much only fire up IE for ONE Web site because it’s at the top of my IE favorites and the bottom of my FF favorites.

IE loads more slowly, the favorites come up slower — basically it gets beat by FF in performance by every measure. (I’m running a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with 512 MB of RAM.)

And I can run Firefox in Windows, Linux, BSD and Mac OS X … and I do (though I’m partial to the Mozilla-derived Epiphany in the GNOME desktop, as well as the Seamonkey browser/e-mail client/HTML editor suite — also based on Mozilla).

Truth be told, if it really bothered me, I’d try to roll the box back to IE6, if that indeed can be done. Since IE7 installs over your IE6, I think it might be a problem to “go back.”

Note: While I can’t get the same FTP functionality out of IE7, I have a Windows workaround: Open up My Computer from the Start menu, and type your FTP address in the search bar. The window functions pretty much like IE6 — it’s the same “Explorer”-like interface Windows uses to let you examine your own files, and it does FTP just like IE6. Thanks, Microsoft!

I used to think IE was the best browser for OS X, too — that final version of IE5 for the Mac was a masterful, innovative application, and I’m sorry Microsoft abandoned it. Safari doesn’t have enough critical mass to cut it — many Web sites don’t look so hot in it — so Firefox is pretty much the browser of record for the Mac, too.

And Mozilla is making hand-over-fist money by getting a cut of the Google searches made through the browser. All it means is more money that Microsoft isn’t making.

Hope you’re happy, Microsoft!

Geany in Windows

After yesterday’s post on sharware vs. freeware vs. free, open-source software, I decided to install Geany on my Windows box. I’ve always liked Geany in Puppy Linux, and when I learned from the Geany Web site that the full-featured text editor was available for Windows, I had to try it.

To run in Windows, Geany needs the GTK 2 runtime libraries. Since I already have the GIMP image editor installed on this XP box, I already had GTK 2, so I was able to choose a version that didn’t include the libraries.

I just started using Geany in Windows. I opened all the files I was working on last night in EditPad Lite, and now I’m not violating the EditPad license by using the program for “commercial” purposes.

So not only do I feel wrong about using pirated copies of commercial software, I’m not even comfortable running shareware or restricted freeware without paying. And with great FOSS alternatives like Geany, I don’t have to.

As I say above, I first used Geany in Puppy Linux, where it is the default GUI text editor. And besides the Windows version, Geany is offered in source code as well as in packages for Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, Slackware, Mandriva, ArchLinux, AltLinux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Solaris.

And it looks like Geany can run in OS X (if you have the GTK libraries, I presume).

I have plenty of text editors on my Linux boxes, but I just can’t work with Microsoft’s Notepad. I’m no fan of Apple’s text editor in OS X, either — I’d rather open a shell and use Nano (or is it Pico that’s included … I can’t remember).

I’ve barely begun to scratch the surface when it comes to text editors. There are dozens out there, and Wikipedia does a fairly good job of attempting to categorize and compare them.

Ubuntu 6.06.2 LTS — a better way to install the most stable Ubuntu

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS — the distribution’s first “long term support” release — now has a new installer that incorporates some 600 bug and security fixes and makes installation easier, especially on servers.

It’s no secret that Canonical, the company that runs Ubuntu, is making a big play both for the desktop and more-lucrative server markets, and a big part of that play is the LTS release. And even though the next Ubuntu release — 8.04 (due 4/08 … also known as April 2008) — is going to be a Long Term Support release, with fixes, patches and the like for three years on the desktop, five years on the server, there’s still quite a bit of time left for the current Ubuntu LTS, which will be supported until June 2009 on the desktop and June 2011 on the server.

The new installer — you don’t really need it if you can successfully use the old installer, already have a 6.06 LTS install (like I do) and have done all the updates — underscores Canonical’s commitment to the LTS concept. While the twice-yearly releases of Ubuntu get most of the light and heat in the uber-geek community, there are many who depend on the relative stability of the LTS release to keep their hardware running. That’s especially true on servers, where major upgrades every six months are impractical at best and detrimential at worst — nobody wants to break a system that’s been running well.

And the LTS is vital as a counterweight to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop, both of which are supported for years on end.

I’d like to say that Debian Stable (currently Etch) and Old Stable (Sarge) are equivalents, but since you can’t pin down a date certain for length of their support, there is a bit of an unknown factor there, although once the Stable release goes to Old Stable, you pretty much know that the new Stable release won’t give you too many problems.

Sure, many desktop users generally want something more cutting-edge, mainly something like the regular Ubuntu releases, but there are many people — and many situations — that warrant hanging on to a Linux installation as long as possible. Over the time I’ve used Ubuntu and Xubuntu (from 6.06 LTS through 6.10, 7.04 and 7.10), I’ve seen some parts of the installation improve dramatically, I’ve seen hardware work better, then worse, and occasionally not at all.

And we all know an individual or organization that hates doing major upgrades, ever. Those coming from a Windows or Macintosh background aren’t all used to major OS upgrades. In the case of Windows AND Mac’s OS X, major upgrades almost always cost money. $129 for an OS X upgrade might not sound like much, but paying that much every couple of years when your computer runs just fine the way it is? No thanks. That’s why I’m still running OS X 10.3 on my Mac. And Windows? I have a disc for Windows 2000, and I’m not about to pay ANYTHING for the privilege of upgrading my sole Windows box (which I boot maybe twice a year) to XP.

And in Linux, just because we can change out distros 10 times a day if we wish, it doesn’t mean that we have to — or should. For people who crave the stability of long-term releases, one thing generally drives upgrade: newer software they need to get their work done, and new hardware that needs new software to run properly.

I did this most recent Ubuntu 6.06 LTS installation for testing purposes, but I’ve stuck with it because it just works. On this test box, it’s flawless. On my Gateway Solo 1450 laptop, it manages the fan as well as 7.10 (i.e. not at all without a cron job; but well with said cron job), but less well than 7.04 (which has the ACPI working with no coding needed). (Note: I’m not currently running Ubuntu at all on the Gateway laptop, which is currently dual-booting the Slackware 11-based Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0 and Debian Lenny, which I upgraded from the stable Etch.)

Using Ubuntu 6.06 LTS on this test box, sure I’m stuck with Firefox 1.5, OpenOffice 2.0, GMOME 2.14.3 and Evolution 2.6.1, but everything works. And there’s nothing I do that I can’t do with applications of this “vintage.” If I this machine had wireless and it didn’t work with 6.06, I might feel differently about LTS, but with the hardware I have now, LTS is a good fit.

So if you’re looking for stable, supported releases, especially ones that won’t cost you anything, it’s nice to have Ubuntu LTS as a choice along with CentOS and Scientific Linux (both free versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), SUSE, Debian and Slackware.

As far as stable, long-term releases go, I have run CentOS (3.9. 4.2 and 5), Debian (Etch and Lenny) and Slackware (12), as well as Ubuntu LTS, and Ubuntu holds up very well on the desktop in this crowd. It’s more flexible, as far as adding software, than CentOS and Slackware — it doesn’t have as many packages as Debian, but it does have plenty — and the desktop and menus are a bit more tame than Debian’s, with a better out-of-the-box experience, especially for inexperienced users.

And the support available from other Ubuntu users is a major component of the distro’s success. All the advice may not be of the best quality, but there’s just so much of it that you’re bound to find the right answer to whatever it is you’re asking. Not that the Debian community isn’t helpful (I love DebianHELP and the Debian User Forums, but they just don’t have the sheer volume of the Ubuntu Forums. Like I said, there’s a lot more noise among the Ubuntu people … but that’s the price you pay, I guess.

And since Ubuntu is based on Debian, what you learn in one community is more often than not directly applicable in the other.

Another thing I discovered today: I enjoy reading the Planet Debian blog posts from Debian developers, and I had no idea that there’s a Planet Ubuntu as well. Both are more than worth adding to your favorites and checking on from time to time.

Over the past year, I’ve used both Debian and Ubuntu extensively, and I always say that Debian isn’t as “hard” to use as some would make it appear. Nor is Ubuntu a relative cakewalk. Both require, at times, a bit of wading into the muck to make things work. As far as installation goes, Debian’s installer — upon which Ubuntu’s “alternate” installer is very closely based, is quite good, and has succeeded for me many more times than Ubuntu’s live CD and alternate-CD discs, but Ubuntu works often enough.

What Ubuntu has that Debian lacks is a marketing plan. For some — especially the average Linux user (read: geek) — having no marketing plan is, in and of itself, a marketing plan of sorts. Nobody’s trying to make Debian “cool,” or giving you reasons why you should or shouldn’t run it. And while there are a few Debian evangelists out there, and a few for Slackware as well, there’s nothing approaching the fervor over Ubuntu.

That might be good, or bad, depending on how you look at it.

A lot of people are running Debian and Slackware — they’re just quieter about it, I guess.

Anyhow, this post has gone on for far too long. All I want to say is that I’m in favor of long-term, “stable” releases with defined periods of support and a smooth upgrade path, and I’m glad that Ubuntu has pretty big foot in this very door.

And I like the fact that 6.06 LTS will be supported for over a year after the next LTS — 8.04 — is released a few months from now.

Macs about to be all they can be

In reaction to recent security breaches, the U.S. Army is adding OS X servers to its data arsenal.

The Army isn’t exactly saying that Macs and their OS are superior from a security standpoint to competing systems, but I do find the explanation interesting:

The Army isn’t using any particular software package or OS X technology to improve security, though. Instead, it’s hoping that having a more diverse mix of systems will make its networks harder to infiltrate. The security of the UNIX core of OS X, combined with the fact that less hackers are interested in Macs, were also given as reasons for introducing more Apple hardware.

…

Outside security vendors have leveled a number of criticisms against the Army for its Apple program, and have pointed out that Apple issues significantly more patches than Microsoft. The Army responded by saying that a large number of patches shows a greater commitment to security by Apple. Ultimately, the Army seems to be banking on paying off the extra cost of Macs by making its networks at least a bit less vulnerable to Windows security exploits.

I find Apple’s recent efforts in the server space to be an interesting development. The more competition in the server area, the better. I think there’s a definite space for Apple in betwen the high end of Solaris and traditional Unix, the Windows Server offerings and the vast Linux server market. If I knew more, I’d say more, but I don’t, so I won’t.

Commercial software and its free, open-source equivalents

Go here for a great list of traditional (read: expensive) commercial software and the free, open-source programs you can use instead. The Webi page includes links to the home pages of all the FOSS (free, open-source software) programs it cites.

Two I plan to try are Cinepaint and Paint.NET, both image editors.

Many of my favorite apps are missing — but the fact that there are enough FOSS apps that you can miss a bunch and still have a credible list is a very good thing.

Still, what’s nice about this list is that it includes apps for Mac, Windows and Linux. I’ve always said that the best way to experience open-source is to do it on the OS you already know. Then the transition to a free, open-source OS like Linux will not be so daunting.

Free, open-source software is important for many reasons, but one of the biggest for me is that it enables me to compute with a clear conscience. Let’s be real, most of us are using PCs with pirated software. Even if Microsoft Office, Photoshop and what have you are made by big corporations who charge many hundreds of dollars for their products, that’s still no justification for stealing them. I feel a lot better using software that’s meant to be free — and freely modified, as are all FOSS programs.

And remember, you can’t have freedom without “free” in the first place.