sakuramboo.com

There have been two stories recently that really got my nerve on end. Both of them are dealing with Microsoft. The first is that Microsoft has banded together with a giant group of other technology companies to hopes of bringing to the attention to congress of the problems facing the US patent system, in hopes of fixing this. I think this is a very noble and much needed action on the part of the technology industry as a whole. The second story is Microsoft suing Motorola for their use of the Android Operating System in some of their phones, claiming that they have violated nine of their patents. Does anyone else feel that this is counter productive? This brings me to my next blog post, software patents and why their should not be any.

The idea of a patent system can be used as a great tool to help innovation. Allowing someone with an idea to make money off said idea, without having the resources to build said idea, market it, mass produce it and deliver it to the masses. It creates a 15 year monopoly for the creator to make their millions. This has its own flaws and merits, but in general, I do not have a problem with patents, when they deal with products of substance, things that are tangible. But, once we cross over to the world of technology, most specifically, software, we now enter a world where nothing is new anymore. The problem arises when you take something that does not have any substance, does not have any physical form or shape, a concept, a way of doing something, and claiming that you are the creator of said way of doing something.

To give you an example, allow me to describe something…

A method of changing, adjusting, altering, modifying a border or frame that encases or surrounds a body of information, audio or video.

What I just described are window borders and being able to change the thickness of them. Look at the window that this website is in. Do you see how there is a border around the entire page? With a status bar at the bottom, some buttons on top, well, if you wanted to make that border thicker or thinner, you would have to contact the person who owns the patent to that concept and pay them a royalty. If you wanted to add a transparency to the boarder, you would have to contact them. And all of this is assuming that they are willing to do business with you.

This is not creating innovation, in fact, it is hindering it. If you put one million people in a room and ask them to come up with a way of doing something, the huge majority of them will come up with the same exact way. How can a method of doing something be patentable? In short, it shouldn’t be, but with how the US handles patents, it most certainly is.

This is how the system needs to be fixed. First, methods and concepts can NOT be allowed to be patentable. Second, software can NOT be patentable, in fact, if it is not tangible, it can NOT have a patent. Now, there is something that can be done to retain ownership and that rests on the same thing that artists do to retain ownership, copyrights. How can you copyright software? You copyright the source code. But, this also has some problems, such as, using API’s that are owned by another company. Say, for example, you wrote a piece of software for Windows using the WinAPI from within the VC++ development environment. You are writing code that uses functions and routines that were created by Microsoft to achieve what it is your program does. Microsoft, there for, is entitled to royalties for your creation, either in a one time payment for their devkit or on a yearly license deal like they currently offer with their operating systems. But, they already do charge to use their API’s, you might be saying right about now. And you would be correct. But, this prohibits Microsoft from now owning your creating.

To give you another example of what I am talking about…

I decided to write some music. In my song, I have a part that says “Happy birthday to you.” In order for me to use that, I need to contact the owners of the Happy Birthday song, Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill. Since they are dead, I need to contact their next of kin or who ever inherited their copyright. Now, just apply the same logic to the software industry.

I know there are going to be some major problems, such as, how can someone claim ownership of “hello World!”? This is where we would use the same idea from the patent system in that if there is known prior art, the copyright would be null and void. The same is already true with the copyright system to a point. If some try to copyright something that is already copyrighted, then you get rejected. I would extend that to, if there is prior art, it becomes public domain.

Now, I know that the patent system has something known as prior art and also an obviousness clause, where by denying a patent is the item in question has already been created or is so obvious that it can’t be done. But, in there is a problem as well, not with the idea or method, but in who checks the patents. It has gotten to the point now that if you throw enough techologic and terminology in the patent, it will get passed, even though it’s something as obvious as changing the width of the border of a window.

The easiest thing to do is to just get rid of software patents all together and I am all for that. However, that is not going to happen. There needs to be a slow progression. Human do not like drastic change. Therefore, I say take baby steps and change software patents to copyright of source code.

This will also do one other thing, remove patent trolls. Now, this makes it so for you to own a copyright to something, means that you actually have source code to prove that you created something. However, this will also create a problem, what about revisions? Well… no system is perfect.

Recently, there was an article that came out that stated that Linux has a higher ratio of spam computers running Linux than Windows. Even though the ratio is higher, to which the ratio is always supposed to be looked at as appose to the total number, there is a reason for this that many people are not bothering to look at.

If we were to look at the actual number of desktops verse servers, the ratio of Linux based desktops would be close to non-existent like the OSX counter part. Security on the desktop in Windows is a joke. Not that it can’t be done. It very well can be done right and made secure enough to never get any piece of malware ever. But, the problem with this is, almost every Windows user knows close to nothing of computer security. They, for the most part, run as administrator and will run just about any unsigned binary just because they want some free piece of software to copy DVDs or to illegally download games and other pieces of commercial-ware. Malware writers know that and they take advantage of this. Now, can this be done in Linux? Sure. But Linux does not have the market share in the desktop market for them to actually gain anything substantial.

One of the articles I read said that one of the reasons why the ratio is higher is because of the fact that many ISPs run Linux mail servers and that will act like a proxy when sending out spam from someones infected Windows desktop. To a point, this makes a bit of sense when explained, but this is the wrong reason.

The real reason why the Linux ratio is higher is because of the server market. Spammers require two things to be considered successful, high bandwidth and high uptime. That is the definition of a Linux server. This is further multiplied because a lot of Linux administrators think that because they are running Linux that they are secured by default. This is one of the biggest reasons why Linux servers are highly attacked and become infected with spam servers.

The original article posted by MessageLabs also hinted that the reason for the higher Linux ratio is because of the ISP mail redirect. So, let us look at this logically.

1. Windows makes up the largest number of spammers.
2. Linux has a higher ratio as seen in the mail headers by the received field in the mail headers.
3. This means that many of the computers behind the Linux email redirects could, in fact, be Windows based.
4. This means that the Windows ratio is actually much higher and the Linux ratio is much lower.
5. Many of the Linux numbers are actually Linux-based servers and not desktops.
6. Email traffic was analyzed but the original sender was not.
7. They used desktop market share only.
8. Server traffic was included in the article but was not included in the market share.
9. This article is flawed.

So, in a nut shell, MessageLabs are posting articles that are bogus.

Ubuntu is owned by a company and not by the community. This is the statement that a lot of Ubuntu lovers do not seem to understand. The underlined plan of Canonical is to make money, not to make a free operating system. This means that even if there is something that the community as a whole does not like doing, if it means the company will make money, guess what? The community is out of luck and will have to deal with it.

There have been a few changes in Ubuntu that the community seemed to get all up in arms about recently, that to me, makes perfect sense. One of the changes is the placement of the window buttons, moving from the right side to the left side. All that was commented about was that there is a plan for this. Yet, the community seemed to get all bent out of shape about this. Who knows what the ultimate goal of this is? Maybe there is some new button or feature that is to be placed on the upper right corner of the windows. Maybe there is supposed to be a new status button that is supposed to go there. Maybe there is supposed to be a new window tabbing feature that is going there. Maybe that tabbing feature was originally a Gnome extension that defaulted to the right side and to incorporate it, it would be easier to just move the window buttons than to recode the extension. Who knows. How about instead of bitching and complaining, just sit back and see what will happen.

Another problem that people seem to be having is how Ubuntu will support the 7digital to provide an online music store for fast and easy music purchases and downloads. The problem is not with the store, it is with the music only being made available in mp3 format. I’m sorry to burst peoples bubbles here, but Canonical does not really have a say in the matter. If you have a problem with it, take it up with 7digital. But, there was a comment made Canonical will be trying to find a way to offer better quality compression and possibly file formats at a later date.

Personally, I still say, buy the CD and rip it yourself. Odds are, if 7digital were to start offering alternate file formats, they will most likely just convert all their mp3s into ogg or flac and say “Here you go.” Which, for anyone who deals with audio, knows that is not a good way to do it. In fact, converting file formats will degrade the quality of the file over time.

The thing is, Ubuntu back in the day is not the same Ubuntu of today. When Ubuntu first started out, it was looked at as a fully community based distribution. This worked for the longest time. But then, something happened, Canonical realized that if they are dumping all of their money into it, they might as well make some money in return from it. And this means that Ubuntu is now owned by Canonical, as apposed to just financially supporting them. And with ownership means a removal of a community voice.

That is just the way it is.

So, Google wants to release their own distribution of Linux. Google Chrome OS seems to be the new hot topic right now. The thing that I seem to never see, though, is Chrome OS’s affect on Linux in general. A lot of blogs and news sites seem to be comparing Chrome OS and Windows 7 and what this means for Microsoft. I will put this to rest right now. This will only impact Microsoft by about 1-2% market share, end of story. However, this WILL affect Linux in general.

There have been various Linux distributions that have tried to go after Microsoft’s market share. The problem with them all is that they were affectively destroyed because even though they had a very solid operating system, third party companies did not want to deal with them. Canonical started to help out with Ubuntu, working on convincing more companies they should develop drivers for their hardware, supporting ISO standards and other things. They even got some hardware vendors to come out with laptops and netbooks with various Linux distributions. But, within a few months, it got harder and harder to find a netbook with Linux installed. There is a reason for this, Microsoft has put so much effort into making sure that those companies make sure that Linux doesn’t take off. Some of these tactics are things like supplying your local computer stores with ONLY Windows loaded computers, having them to make their website difficult to navigate to their Linux offered computers and the reason why things like this was harmful was because companies like Canonical and Redhat are not going to invest financially into going up against Microsoft.

Now that Google is going to attempt to tackle this, they are going to fail in comparison to Microsoft’s market share. But what WILL happen is, Google will be doing everything they can to make sure that third party hardware companies will offer products that work with Linux. We are going to start to see more wireless devices, more printers, more video cards all being supported natively in Linux now. Google has the financial backing to get more companies invested into Linux. With this, we are going to see the Linux kernel working on more and more platforms and hardware out of the box.

Even though one of the biggest myths right now about Linux is its lack of hardware support, after being debunked numerous times, people still think its true. With Google delivering their own distribution of Linux, we are going to see even less hardware incompatibilities and even more people finally realizing that Linux “just works.”

Not everyone feels the same way about technology that I do. This is no surprise. Most people view technology as a convenience. They see it as a box that can record their TV shows, as a way to keep in touch with their friends and family or as an automatic headlight adjuster when they make a turn in their car. They see it as just something that will aid them in their daily life. To me, I see it as something much more. I see technology as a way to achieve exactly what it is I want to in life.

I am not really talking about my profession, but more of a way of life. When a normal person looks at new technology, they will usually react with “Ohh, that is cool.” or “Wow, that is pretty.” But when I look at technology, I will usually respond to it with “Wow, what ELSE can that do?” Of course, your average geek will respond in the same way, which is nothing really amazing. But, what I have a hard time understanding is just exactly WHY that is. Why aren’t people more passionate about technology? Is it because they fear that which they do not understand? Is it because they fear change? Is it because they just have apathy to new things?

Recently, I helped a friend install Ubuntu Linux on an old laptop of hers. The reason for this was because her laptop was just so beat down with malware that it would take 30 minutes for the laptop to completely power on. It would start Windows, but just sit there. Nothing could be “clicked” because it was just so slow. It got to the point where she really just needed it to work. I got a hold of her laptop and installed Ubuntu Linux for her. Now, she is just ecstatic at how fast her laptop really is. The entire operating system boots in a couple minutes and right away, she can browse the Internet, play a game of gaps or mahjongg or check her email.

Could I have just reinstalled Windows XP for her? Sure. Would it have been just as fast for her? Of course it would be. But now, 5 years down the road, it will still be just as fast for her as the day the gave it back to her. She is not the most technically inclined person, not even really as inclined as a casual user. She really only knew about Firefox and that was about it. And even then, she really only knew enough to get to her email and click on links. But, once I showed her the new interface, the new features and how secure it really is, she just loved it. But, do I expect her to become a kernel hacker? Not at all, I just wanted to give her something so she would not have to worry about her computer getting back to the state that it once was.

That is a really good example at what I mean. I looked at her laptop and thought to myself “What can I do with this that would really help her out?” I weighed all my options and decided that Linux really was the best way to go. But, the point is, I did something with her laptop that the manufacturer would not advise, in fact would be so strong against that her warranty, if she still had one, would have become void. And all for what? To get her laptop working again at peek performance. Does that seem fare to her? Does that seem fare to the other hackers out there that just want to get their computers, cell phones, PDAs to work how they want it to? Why must those wanting to extend the functionality of their hardware be penalized for their desires?

Another example of this is the very well known portable media firmware Rockbox. I own two iPods, a fourth generate grayscale 20 GB and a fourth generation iPod photo 30 GB. Both of which has Rockbox installed. Many people ask me “Why did I put Rockbox on it?” There are a few reason for this.

1) I want my audio player to support audio formats that the original iPod does not.
2) I can’t run iTunes.
3) I want functionality that I could not get from the stock iPod firmware.

The elaborate on these a little more. Mp3 has become the standard when it comes to audio on the computer. This has me scratching my head sometimes because out of all the codecs out there, mp3 is not the best, both in terms of quality and legal issues. A better format is Ogg Vorbis. Ogg has a much better quality sound while maintaining a small file size, so much so that most people wouldn’t even notice. And Ogg Vorbis is also free, as in free beer and free speech. I am not bound by any laws if I wanted to encode audio into ogg format. The same can not really be said about mp3.

I do not have the option to run iTunes. I could use something like GTKPod to create the playlists and to put music on the iPod, but I am still subject to the way Apple decides whats best for me. And let’s be real here, they have no clue what is best for me, they only know what is best for their business.

The iPod Photo was only designed to support color on the display. The photo feature was really just something to add to it to make people go “Ooooh, ahhhhh.” But, with Rockbox, there is added functionality. One of which is that I have the ability to view videos on my iPod. This was something that was introduced many years later on the iPod Video. But, now, with Rockbox, I can do this with an iPod that was never really meant to be able to play video. I can even play the original Doom on my iPod if I wanted to (and I have).

So, the moral of this story is, do you want to be just a consumer or do you want to be a ruler? The choice is yours.